Jump to content

Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Guards in Westminster Hall?

What is the name of the guards around the coffin?

Day time as in [this picture]. Are they Royal Company of Archers?
Night time as in [this picture]. Are they Household Cavalry?

Uwappa (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The guards with the feathered helmets are Gentlemen at Arms. Thriley (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The Queue

Should we have an article on The Queue? Bondegezou (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

As an article of its own? No, there's no need to split every little thing into a new article. As a section in this article? I don't think so either. Unless something specific to the queue happens that generates considerable media interest (and so Reliable Sources), there's not enough weight to it. I think something will probably get added to timeline once that specific part of the State Funeral is over, saying something along the lines of "over x days so-and-so many people queued to see the Queen lying in state". But obviously we don't know that information yet. H. Carver (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The media interest in The Queue is huge! See:
I know a media phenomenon when I see it! Bondegezou (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
As we are right in the middle of an event that is happening, there are WP:RECENTISM issues here. Also WP:BALANCING, as the queue is a minor aspect of the state funeral. I will note also that the death of the Queen's father also saw massive queues (some restored film was shared on Twitter today), but the Death and state funeral of George VI article only mentions the queue in two sentences.
As you've now made the edits, we will see where WP:EDITCON ends up. I will note that arguably most of the article at current is affected by WP:RECENTISM and is likely to change greatly over the next few months as we get further from immediate events, so please don't feel I'm specifically targeting you and your edits. I appreciate you starting a discussion here, and look forward to seeing views from other editors. H. Carver (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
That’s fine, sure. Wikipedia always has this tension where it can be good at covering current events, but can lose perspective when doing so. Certainly, much of this article feels like inappropriate detail (e.g. “Scottish singer Karen Matheson sang Psalm 118 in Gaelic, while the first Lesson was taken from Ecclesiastes 3.”). Of the many things covered in this article, I think The Queue is receiving more media attention and public discussion than which Psalm was sung! Meanwhile, I see someone else has started a The Queue article, and that it’s gone to AfD, so we’ll see what happens there. Bondegezou (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I’ve started a section. We could move down some of the material in the timeline. (We should move away from a timeline format as per the Manual of Style.) Bondegezou (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Protest section

Are we saying that William doesn't become Prince of Wales until his investiture? Need some clarification on this. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't be, because it isn't true. The King created William Prince of Wales last week. The potholed link to the investiture is misleading and should be removed. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I've re-worded it, so that it clarifies that William is already Prince of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Outdated ref

There are 8 (I believe) citations to ref name="BBC-Day-by-Day" that use a file archived on 10 September and written in the future tense as references for what are now past events. They need to be updated or, where redundant, removed. Rutsq (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Kremlin spokesperson Marija Sacharowa: boohoo that no representatives of Russia ..

have been invited to the funeral (https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/queen-elizabeth-ii-russland-aergerlich-ueber-auschluss-der-trauerfeier-a-3ae3192e-cb3a-4617-9ba5-c0f370a1a310 )

Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar did not get an invitation.

Isn't that worth to mention in the chronology ? (imho: yes) Präziser (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrew protest

Moved from User talk:DeFacto

Hello. Hope you are well. I wanted to ask you about this edit, which you made earlier today removing the part that addresses a man's arrest for heckling Andrew. You said it was covered below but I was not able to properly locate it. Thus, instead of simply reverting your edit I decided to ask for some clarification first, because I might have missed it unintentionally. I'll be looking forward to your response. Cheers. Keivan.fTalk 16:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Keivan.f. Yes, there is a section at Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II#Protests which contains details about the protests and arrests. We don't usually repeat the same stuff in different sections. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@DeFacto. Good. I just wasn't sure if it contained the information regarding that specific incident. Otherwise, I totally agree, we should not leave duplicates around. Keivan.fTalk 17:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Lady Louise Windsor

There seems to be no reason to keep adding 'Mountbatten-' before Windsor.

  1. The references supporting the addition to the article refer to her as 'Lady Louise Windsor' or 'Lady Louise'.
  2. The article for Lady Louise Windsor is as at that name; adding Mountbatten- is a redirect.
  3. MOS:ROYAL is unhelpful, but it points to:
    1. WP:NCROY, which says "If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it. [...] This is in line with WP:COMMONNAME."
    2. And WP:COMMONNAME does exactly what it says on the tin; that the common name should be used.
  4. MOS:SURNAME says "Any subject whose surname has changed should be referred to by their most commonly used name."

None of these guidelines suggest that the 'correct' surname should be used at any point. (And saying that there's a 'correct' name to use may be against WP:NPOV, as Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the world rather than apply their own bias.)

I note also that a Google search for "Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor" returns About 25,400 results while a search for "Lady Louise Windsor" returns About 1,450,000 results.

It's clear to me that "Lady Louise Windsor" is the name that should be used in the article, per references and WP:COMMONNAME. But I hesitate to correct the article again myself due to the risk of running into a WP:3RR situation. I'd also like to hear what other editors think about this particular case. H. Carver (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"thanksgiving service"

Hi there, this text in the infobox is problematic as it may be confused with the American Thanksgiving, which is not celebrated in the United Kingdom.

12 September 2022
(date of thanksgiving service)

A diehard editor (talk | edits) 23:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanksgiving service is the common term used to denote a type of church service that exists throughout most Christian denominations (not to mention that nearly all the sources in this article discussing the service describe it as such). I'm open to providing context for the term for clarity sake, but I would be opposed to changing how its worded simply because it shares the same nomenclature as a holiday celebrated in select parts of the world. The service fits the standard definition of a thanksgiving service, and is described as such by most of the sources used in this article Leventio (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I've never seen the word "thanksgiving" used in that context, thanks for enlightening me. However, Elizabeth II dying is something that a lot of people care about, worldwide, even including Americans, who would associate that word with the November feast. Or perhaps Americans can tell the difference, I don't know. For now. I'm going to leave the infobox text as is.
Anyone else here - feel free to discuss this wording as needed. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 00:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Leventio. It's a common term. It is apparent from context that it is not a reference to the American festival. Bondegezou (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Or the Canadian. 69.171.101.60 (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
See National service of thanksgiving. I have now wikilinked, both in the infobox and in the main text. Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Earl of Wessex Statement

Likely need to find a source for his statement and put it with the other Royal Family statements (The King's, Prince Harry's, so on) TheCorriynial (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Has since been added. TheCorriynial (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Intro

I've restored the lead. It would appear to me, seeing that she died in the UK (had resided in the UK) & her state funeral will be in the UK, we should have in the intro, "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". @Mitsuyashi:, I recommend you get consensus for the changes you want to make, before implementing them. GoodDay (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

British airways

Apparently British airways will be cancelling over a hundred flights for the funeral. Here is a link. You can add it.

https://gulfnews.com/business/aviation/british-airways-halts-100-flights-to-reduce-noise-at-royal-funeral-1.1663262101638

103.246.39.91 (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

New York Times

I found a New York Times source about King Charles III. Some information there may be able to show some information on what he plans in the future. Some of the useful stuff include some of his opinions on politics, his relationships with society, and some background information about his prospects leading to his becoming king.

Might sound dumb mentioning this source, since it is obviously from the United States, but I tried to help Wikipedia by providing a variety of sources. I also may have noted WP:RSPSS that some circumstances must be checked for New York Times articles, and upon reading I couldn't find anything that makes that specific article as above an opinion piece, but possibly a news blog. It does showcase some current event information, however, so I am also kind of unsure whether the content there would be considered interpolating depth as what I see as what may possibly be a primary source, per WP:NEWSBLOG. But what I do know is that stuff that is definitely explicitly written of the facts of him do exist on that article, like the ones that state his unpopularity of votes about being a not-so favorable member of the royal family with "just 11 percent of those surveyed, according to Ipsos MORI" and also maybe his philanthropy stuff. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That would appear relevant to the article on King Charles III, but not here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Time of death

By 16:30, the Queen had died.

Very odd wording. They must have known the actual time, as she was under close supervision. Valetude (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
They do, but we don’t. Bondegezou (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Bus gate

Please add to the article, that king Charles III arrived on a car, not on a bus on the funeral, what they required from other politicians. How on Earth would they use a bus, when he nor his family is using it on the funeral. It is just called double standard. Period. 213.197.74.93 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Flagicons

I wasn't that thrilled to see the flagicons added to this article, which I think looks less good with them. Is this in line with policy? I know there are procedures on this but cannot remember what they are and to which articles they apply! Best to all DBaK (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG would favour removing them all. Bondegezou (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
So would I! Thank you. But I don't want to come over as a grumpy old moo on this Strange And Mournful Day™ so I might just wait and see how it develops. Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
MOS:FLAG does not prescribe removing flag icons here. Flag icons would be inappropriate for someone like an author, whose national origin is of no importance, but we're talking about heads of state and representatives of nation-states. Flag icons do belong on this article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The flag icons being used in the article are not being used for heads of state and representatives of nation-states, so I don't see the relevance of that comment. MOS:FLAG is clear that flag icons are never required. Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I would be in support of having the flagicons because it makes it easier to find the countries in what would otherwise be a splurge of text. Mitsuyashi (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
In the two sections where I've removed flagicons, the countries are listed alphabetically. I don't know about you, but if I want to find "Slovenia", I know where S is in the alphabet better than I know what the Slovenian flag looks like. Alphabetic lists work fine in most places. Bondegezou (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @Bondegezou, most people will know the initial letter of the name of almost every country, but very few people are likely to know the flags of every country. I support that removal of flags from the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. I think it looks much, much better without them and that they added literally nothing worthwhile to the article ... rather that they detracted from it by making it look fussy and unprofessional, to me at least, though of course I understand and respect the fact that we don't all see it the same way. DBaK (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

London Airport?

Here is reported the departure airport (Edinburgh), but not the Londoner one. Was it Heathrow? I suppose it would be better to add this information too, thanks. 79.12.159.216 (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It was RAF Northolt (a military airfield rather than a commercial airport), as stated in the article. --RFBailey (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Twitter

On more than one occasion, this article has been phrased in such a way that suggests that Twitter was the primary method for announcing the Queen's death, and mentions of the notice being attached to the Buckingham Palace gates have been reverted, even when this is mentioned in sources: the BBC article [1] has a photograph of the notice being posted, with the text of the notice in the caption, and neither the BBC nor the Town & Country article [2] make any mention of Twitter at all; The Guardian doesn't mention Twitter either [3]. While it is certainly notable (and a sign of the times) that there was an announcement on Twitter, presumably prompting the Bloomberg article [4], to suggest that this was all that was done (and to ignore other methods) is at best wildly inaccurate, and at worst giving undue weight to the Bloomberg article. --RFBailey (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The initial public announcement was through the notice affixed to the front gates of Buckingham Palace, followed immediately with a notice posted to the front page of the palace website (which is what was originally written by me). The BBC announced the death one minute later at 18:31, by which time the flag had already been lowered to half-mast, and hence it was not the BBC who made the first announcement to the public per se. Mitsuyashi (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
A note firstly: 'primary' can have two meanings; it can mean 'first', or also 'main' or 'most significant'. It is not my intention to suggest the latter meaning at all. However, as long as the article is written in a Timeline format, then the Twitter post is the verifiable first announcement and should be listed as so.
The article as it currently stands is wrong, as it puts the ceremonial posting of the announcement ahead of Twitter. While the BBC article mentions the official notice being posted, it does not say or even suggest when in timeline that it happened. The fact that a photo (and video - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-62843657 ) of the posting happening makes it clear that the death has already been announced. There would not have been cameras present at precisely the right place otherwise (the video demonstrates this better than the photo).
I don't see the lack of BBC or Guardian sourcing as a problem. Firstly, because as news sources, the BBC and the Guardian are making announcements themselves in their initial report. Secondly, because they are news sources in the UK, they are 'too close' to the matter to immediately start reporting on the details that might seem inconsequential (or even disrespectful) to people in the UK. Bloomsberg, as a news organisation outside of the UK, has the required distance that they are able to report this fact.
There are other sources as well as the Bloomsberg one. This, for example, is the one I was originally going to use until I found the Bloombsurg one and judged it better - https://www.gq.com/story/queen-death-journalists-chaos . This source is also in the first page of a quick Google search today - https://www.insider.com/history-royal-family-twitter-queen-announcing-death-2022-9
I appreciate there is a desire to mention the ceremonial and subsequent announcements, and that Twitter seems like a weird and new modern interloper into the chain of events. However, it feels to me like there is a desire by some to unduly take away from the weight given to the Twitter announcement because it doesn't fit in to how an ancient institution is expected to work. At the end of the day, we have sources to say that the announcement was first made on Twitter, and the sources that mention the ceremonial posting of the announcement do not say when it was posted in terms of fitting into the timeline. Any claims that this was the 'initial public announcement' are therefore unsupported OR.
Regarding the lead, the guidelines are this should reflect what is in the body, which is why when I saw it had been edited yesterday to include information that was only in the lead, I edited it to reflect the body. And as above, as long as the body is written as a timeline, that's what the lead can reflect.
I have no objection to the lead being written differently as long as it doesn't make any factually incorrect statements about the timeline, and I think that as long as the article is presented in a timeline format, it should be changed back to how it was previously to accurately reflect the chronology of events, which at the moment it does not. H. Carver (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
By 'primary', in this instance I did mean 'most significant'. But saying in the lead paragraph that "her death was publicly announced at 18:30 on Twitter" as opposed to "her death was publicly announced at 18:30" does suggest (implicitly) that Twitter is somehow more significant than other means. Likewise, mentioning Twitter and nothing else in the timeline is not an accurate reflection of how the various announcements were made.
Putting a precise minute-by-minute timeline together is challenging (and probably unncessary to that level of detail). There was clearly a flurry of activity around 6:30pm and we will probably never be able tell (without some kind of forensic analysis) the exact sequence of events, second-by-second, around that time, and I doubt anyone would care if we did. I don't think the Bloomberg story actually can be used to support a claim that the announcement went out on Twitter before anything else: all it says is that the Royal Family tweeted it before the BBC or the Press Association did. We don't have a timestamp on the video of the statement being attached to the palace railings (although with all the rushing around described in the GQ article, it seems pretty likely that a BBC camera crew and PA photographer would have been dispatched there several hours earlier in anticipation, given that posting such a notice was always part of the plan). A story from PR Week [5] describes the physical posting and the tweet as happening "simultaneously". This story also contains a link to a tweet showing ITV's live helicopter footage of the posting [6], but there is no timestamp on the footage. It's not exactly clear when the statement was posted on the Royal Family website, but it was probably at more-or-less the same time. However, the Radio Today story [7] (also in the references) states that "Confirmation of her death came via Twitter and the news wires at exactly 6.30pm", which suggests that Twitter was not the 'primary' method in either meaning. Similarly, the GQ story says that "It was through another tweet from Buckingham Palace, and a special broadcast that blocked out many BBC TV channels, that most people learned of the Queen’s death at 6.30pm" suggests that these happened contemporaneously (even if it took until 6:31 for Huw Edwards to read out the message).
Finally, removing all mentions of posting the announcement on the gates/railings, when there are multiple sources (written, photo, video) that this happened, is not helpful, if it's harder to narrow down the exact timeframe. This is something that received significant media coverage (even if some of that coverage is of the wrong place -- that's clearly not Buckingham Palace in the background, despite the headline) and should be mentioned in the article somewhere, even if this means moving it to a more appropriate place, rather than removed entirely. --RFBailey (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
As noted above, the lead was changed to reflect the article as it was written at that time, and remove the in having a lead that framed something in a way not reflected by the article. At the time the intention was not to give undue prominence to Twitter, and the lead as it is now, which simply says the death was announced at 6.30pm without saying where any announcement made is absolutely fine with me. There's no inaccuracy there, so no reason to change it.
I think you are misreading the Bloomsberg story. The first line of the story is "Queen’s Elizabeth II’s death after 70 years on the throne was announced first on Twitter — from the Royal Family’s own account" and that's pretty clear to me as meaning 'the first place it was [publicly] announced', not 'tweeted by the Royal Family before the BBC or the PA. We do have a timestamp on the tweet.
The PR Week story, I think, has one of two explanations: (1) it uses the word 'simultaneously' in a PR way rather than a literal way; (2) they have copied the information out of the plan for Operation London Bridge or had a prepared story ready (so they've made an assumption rather than reported fact). The ITV live helicopter footage linked to is even better than the BBC footage I found above, because it clearly demonstrates the behaviour of the crowd, and they appear to me to be reacting in a way that indicates they have already heard the news and know exactly what is happening because of that. Though the footage isn't timestamped, the tweet is, and I'd be shocked if it took ITV 26 minutes to post the footage (which is the timing it would have to be if the notice were posted at 6.30pm 'simultaneously' with the tweet. I also note that the footage has a 'Live' symbol in the bottom-left, indicating that it was recorded and broadcast live. Which again indicates it can't have happened at 6.30, as this would have been immediately before Mary Nightingale reported the announcement.
The Radio Today link is a good one, confirming that the tweet was sent at the same time the message was sent through the news wires. This ties in well with the GQ story which says "Like all of us, Buckingham Palace’s tweet is how many journalists found out about the epoch-changing news. The commercial radio producer saw the Palace’s tweet and shared it with around half a dozen colleagues sitting in the studio, who had been broadcasting conjecture about the news for nearly six hours by then." That paragraph is a good demonstration of how journalists saw the tweet before they saw the news wires. And certainly for the public, Twitter would've been the first place, as the news wires are only available to the news organisations (who would then make the report). It's unfortunate for the GQ story that the part you quote, they have made an error in conflating the tweet and the special BBC broadcast - there are many other sources which make it clear that the broadcast was at 6.31pm, not 6.30pm.
Finally, I don't believe the 'Finally,' part of your argument is fair, as it implies I have been deliberately removing all mention of the posting of the announcement on the gates/railing because I have a bias against it. That's not the case. When the article was originally changed to say this happened first, it was unsourced, so I went looking for a reference to add. I couldn't find any references to support it, and the ones I did find were the ones that mentioned Twitter, so I made the change on that basis. As noted, given the article was in a timeline format, I continued looking to try and find references to when the posting was made so I could put it in the right place in the article. It was only when I couldn't find any evidence that I removed the mention, figuring that as more news came out we'd get a better idea of where it fit into the timeline (rather than still make an unsupported error of fact while trying to correct the fact). To my recollection, I have only removed the mention twice myself - the first time when I made the original correction to the timeline, and the second time when the information was added to the lead and only the lead.
As I said above, I have no objection to the information about the physical notices posted being in the article - so long as the addition of such information is not misleading. I stand by my above statement that the article should be changed back to the chronology as it was previously, as the posting of the notices is given undue prominence when we have references that support the information being published on Twitter and the website at 6.30pm, before the TV news at 6.31pm, and no references supporting the physical notices being posted prior to that. This view is based not on giving more or less weight to any source, but to simply following the evidence. It doesn't have to be the same wording, if there is still concern about giving undue weight to Twitter, but at the very least Twitter and the website should be mentioned before the physical notices being posted, not after.
The tl;dr, is that we do have sources that say definitively that the news was first announced via tweet/that journalists first found out from Twitter, and not for sources about the posting(s) of the notice. H. Carver (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I have rewritten the relevant section to try to reflect the timeline more accurately. From what I can tell from the sources, the tweet went out at 18:30 but this was at the same time as it went out on news wires (corroborated by the TV announcement happening at 18:31), and the posting on the gates happened at some unspecified time afterwards (but at the latest 18:56). Hopefully this new version is acceptable.
I appreciate the desire to maintain accuracy, and acknowledge that some previous edits I made may not have been 100% accurate. But these were good-faith edits based on sources I trusted, in particular the BBC article [8] which states that "The union flag on top of the palace was lowered to half-mast at 18:30 BST and an official notice announcing the death was posted outside." To my mind, this suggests that the two things most likely happened at the same time. Looking at this in more depth, I now see that this was not the case.
However, I still think that expunging any mention of the gate posting, and mentioning Twitter in the lead as if it were the sole place an announcement was made, was giving undue prominence to Twitter (even if this was not the intention, it was the impression it created). I've re-read the Bloomberg story and don't think it gives the full picture -- it almost paints a narrative that the Royal Family had given up on conventional media and resorted to Twitter only. The Radio Today story is clear that this isn't true. (The GQ story was fascinating but I'm not sure how to make use of it; the PR News story isn't great and is too vague to be used as a source -- the best thing about it was that it directed me to the ITV video.) Going forward, my suspicion is that the image of the gates/railings is what will endure, rather than the tweet. --RFBailey (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I think you did an excellent rewrite of the section. It presents the reported events fairly, and you've managed to do what I couldn't by pinpointing an appropriate place to include the information about the gate posting. I think even if I tried, I wouldn't be able to find anything that I'd want to change from your edit/wording.
I do understand your previous edits were made in good faith and our differences were all down to reading and interpretation of sources, and I'm glad we were able to have a constructive talk page discussion that has led to an overall improvement in the article.
I think it will be interesting to see how the news looks at things going forward (and this may be over a period of many years). I think with more time and distance, we may see more UK news sources explore the role of Twitter in the announcement; but also acknowledge that you may well be right instead, and the formal postings will endure instead. We shall see! :) Best regards, H. Carver (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II was the monarch of several realms equally

The opening description should use something akin to "Queen Elizabeth II was declared dead..." rather than listing the realms she was queen of, since anyone who would want to know about her realms can find out on her Wikipedia page. If the king of Norway lived in the UK does that make him more the King of Britain than the King of Norway? Mitsuyashi (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed split

Oppose Unlike Diana, there was nothing controversial or tragic about the death of the Queen at the age of 96. A spin-off is unnecessary. It would create an artificial divide in the coverage. The death and funeral are best presented in one cohesive article. Thriley (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a controversy. Her cause of death was not released. There are various articles about this. (What is really on people's mind is whether the Queen was allowed to die instead of going to the hospital for a CT scan so that the doctors would know what is the problem). CandyStalnak (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTSCANDAL must be cited in the strongest possible terms at this point. This is not a line of conversation that should happen anywhere on Wikipedia. H. Carver (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I strongly agree with @H. Carver here. This is not the place for these theories. Best to all DBaK (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per Bondegezou – to avoid a (probably) ungainly and awkward split in a topic which currently holds these two strongly related areas together rather well. I agree that it is a bit big at the moment but I also agree that that is a reason to edit, not fork it. Editing to a leaner version would undoubtedly improve the article more than chopping it up would. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    Giving the funeral its own page would allow for a fuller description on that page and a shorter summary on this page, however. A.D.Hope (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Do we need a fuller description? Much of this article already reads like a court circular, with day-by-day details of where royals are and precisely where they talked to a crowd of well-wishers. If we sensibly trim the article back as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDATABASE, the article will be a more sensible size. Bondegezou (talk) 08:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
My feeling is that the funeral is a significant event in itself and could benefit from the space an article provides to go into details. The subsections relating to it here can then be much shorter than they currently are. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Scott Bryan as a source

Seen a bit of conflict recently between myself and a few people over the use of journalist Scott Bryan and whether he constitutes as a non-primary & verifiable source. WP:SPS states that...

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

SB has had his work featured in multiple reliable, independent publications including The New York Times, The Guardian and The Evening Standard so is classed as a verifiable source. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't particularly object to using SB as a source, although I do wonder if we could just use the Radio Times or similar as a singular source for TV schedules rather than relying on six tweets by him. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I support the use of Scott Bryan as a source, especially where no better source exists. He is a journalist who works specifically in the field of television news and criticism, so meets the 'subject-matter expert' exception as stated above. Ironically, given that last week one of the Scott Bryan references was tagged as 'primary source', the reason he makes a better reference for some of these things than the Radio Times is that simply using a schedule as a reference is a primary source. H. Carver (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Primary sources are fine in this context, so far as I know. From WP:Primary:
'A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.'
Citing a television guide to show what was on television fits that guidance, I'd say. I've no particular objection to using SB, however. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Given a choice between a TV schedule listing and a tweet, I'd go with a TV listing. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
A TV listing is fine if the intent is to factually show what was on. However, if the intention is to support a statement like "BBC One began a return to normal programming", a TV listing is not enough. This is because now an interpretation is being applied to the listing, which needs greater support. I haven't checked through the entire article, but there's at least one mention - that I copied the quote from - that was previously supported by a Bryan reference that has been removed, and as a result the supplied TV guide reference no longer supports the statement made. H. Carver (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Surely we can find a better citation in that instance than a tweet. Bondegezou (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
A better citation wouldn't be a problem. It's only instances where the citation is not better that I aim my words above at. If the removal or replacement of a reference results in the appearance of OR or a failed reference that would see the statement removed from the article, I think we should leave the tweet reference(s) in place. H. Carver (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Surely to provide verifiability and due weight to any mention of what was on TV, we need to supply reliable secondary sources stating what had been on (in the past tense) to support these additions. Are self-published Tweets considered reliable per WP:SPS? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
As mentioned in the OP, self-published tweets are likely to be reliable "when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". SB meets this criteria as stated above. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Television figures

For the television ratings of the funeral, are we going to be using average figures or peak figures? Ideally we need to stick with one. Average would be better in my eyes but I'm happy to take a vote on it if needed. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

The first paragraph strikes me as being more complex than it needs to be. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section recommends keeping the first sentence succinct and spreading other information through the lead, and that the first sentence should include who, when, and where. The current lead para is:

On 8 September 2022, Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, and the oldest living and longest-reigning British monarch, died at the age of 96 at Balmoral Castle in Scotland. She had died by 16:30 BST, and her death was publicly announced at 18:30. She was succeeded by her eldest son, who became Charles III.

I would like to replace it with something closer to the MOS guidelines. I provide the following as an example, with removed information incorporated later in the lead, but suggestions or alternatives are welcome:

The death of Elizabeth II occured on 8 September 2022 at Balmoral Castle, Scotland, and was publicly announced at 18:30 BST. The Queen was immediately succeeded by her eldest son, who became Charles III. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. We have to clarify that she was the "Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms". GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the short question, but why? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Agree with A.D.Hope. I think it's a secondary issue that simply doesn't belong in the opening sentence. Valetude (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Piggy-backing on to this discussion to say that I have tweaked the lead to remove some detail I didn't think was necessary. I don't think any of my changes have lost anything as the extra details are still in the appropriate places in the body, and the lead has been made a little shorter and a lot clearer as a result.
There was one part I couldn't figure out how to tackle, though. There's a mention of the UK Bank Holiday, followed by quite a long list of Commonwealth holidays, both on the day of the funeral and otherwise. I think that this is too much detail for the lead. But I couldn't work out how to fairly cut out some or all of the Commonwealth bank holidays while leaving the UK one. Does anyone have any thoughts on how - or even if - this should be improved? H. Carver (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
As I see it your options are:
  • Remove the sentence entirely; public holidays aren't necessarily important enough to be in the lead.
  • Change the sentence to something like 'The occasion of her state funeral was a holiday in the UK and several Commonwealth states', with a note containing the exact states.
  • Change the sentence to 'The occasion of her state funeral was a holiday in the UK and several Commonwealth states' with no note, as the full information can be found later in the article.
My preference would be complete removal, but that's just me. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Viewing figures are incorrect

The peak television audience for the funeral was 37.5 million, with a 32.5 million peak across BBC coverage. Please change the description to reflect the same.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/queen-elizabeth-ii-funeral-watched-163326094.html

https://popculture.com/celebrity/news/queen-elizabeths-funeral-watched-by-record-audience/ 49.36.185.175 (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I won't be changing the description on the basis of those links, and I'm not sure anyone else will either. The Yahoo linked is actually a copy or repost of a Deadline story, and the Pop Culture link also cites Deadline as its source, so you actually only have one link citing this figure. Having read the Deadline story and hovered over all the links I can find, there's no indication to me where they got the numbers from.
Further research suggests that the 32.5 million figure may have come from the BBC - but they appear to have walked back that claim, as a search returns an Independent article that has the 32.5 number in the results preview, but when you click through to the article it has the lower 28 million number instead.
There seems to be some suggestion that the 32.5 million number is inaccurately presented - this tweet from the Media Editor at the Guardian, for example https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1572280606515691520
For the time being, it seems best to stick with the current sourcing and number in the article. H. Carver (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The BBC have not walked back on the claim. They have made it clear that the peak viewership solely across their coverage remained 32.5 Million. What you are citing are numbers for the procession and not the funeral.
Here is a statement from the BBC:
https://twitter.com/bbcpress/status/1572276246670901252?s=20&t=hnU4uKsqmL4KrbjjezBIKg 49.36.185.175 (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The tweet you have linked to is curiously worded. It would appear that this is NOT a viewership claim and that the BBC are also counting people who have listened on radio and accessed the BBC online in that number. I may have erred in saying the BBC walked it back, but while they may not have deleted that tweet, they're not exactly shouting it from the rooftop; and it remains the case that the Independent walked back their story from 32.5 to 28. As a result, the overall assessment still stands. H. Carver (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2022

Under 'Service and Processions,' under 'State funeral,' the second paragraph reads "Before the beginning of the service, the Tenor Bell rang 96 times each minute." This is incorrect. Rather, it should read, "Before the beginning of the service, the Tenor Bell rang once each minute for 96 minutes total, a minute for each year of the Queen's life." Sajiwannaicker (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2022

Change 142 to 138 (98 in front pulling, 40 behind braking) for number of Naval Ratings moving gun carriage from Westminster Hall to Westminster Abbey. 142 was an incorrect number quoted in The Times and elsewhere. There were a few officers, more than four, escorting the 138 Naval Ratings.

Change 98 to 137 (97+40; one fell ill) for number of Naval Ratings moving gun carriage after service. Four rows from the back of the pullers, there were seven, not eight, Naval Ratings. Cf https://twitter.com/Echochrislloyd/status/1571829222741577729?t=gvAanEI23Xs4at7WVlf_nA&s=19 81.148.217.202 (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand half-mast

In New Zealand, half-masting is done recently to commemorate the Queen. There should be sufficient sources that may cover that part. I might need some more researching myself to check the details on this half-masting stuff, but for now I have mentioned it in the edit summary. Not sure if it would be worth on Wikipedia though, which is why I am discussing here. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 10:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Qwertyxp2000, now added. Alansplodge (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I actually do have some concerns with that last addition/section its in. I don't have an issue with adding half-mast notices in itself, although I do think that topic should be addressed in a similar manner to the way we addressed it in Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Commonwealth... in that we had a singular summative paragraph that went over all the flag notices briefly (as opposed to adding each flag notice individually in the national subsections).
Also, on a related note, what exactly is the scope of the #Commemoration outside the United Kingdom section? I was under the impression its scope was limited to the commorative services, but it appears some subsections (NZ, Sri Lanka, US) have expanded that scope to include general commemorative responses from the government. I don't really have an issue with expanding the scope of this section, but its expansion needs to be better defined... or I would think there would be some redundant overlap with the #Reactions section (which also has entries about half-masting). Leventio (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I do have an issue with expanding this, or any, section. The article is already quite unwieldy and could do with a trim of its content, not more being added. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I mean I don't have an opinion either way (natural growth of sections will just result in their spin off).
In saying that, the edit that was requested was already made and added in the section prior to my comment. The intent of the second part of my last post was to highlight the fact that, that last edit request and prior edits in the Sri Lankan and US subsections have for all intents and purposes, already expanded the scope of that section beyond being about the commemorative service (and as a result it is now overlapping partly with the Other Responses section with regards to half-masting).
Flag masting details are already in the article, and would need to be removed if others feel it should be. Saying that, if others feel it is needed, my point was we should create a short summative of all the flag notices as was the case in Prince Phillip's death article (because if we do allow it, there will inevitably a flurry of more flag notice additions as was the case with Prince Phillip's article). And on that note the second point I had about expansive scopes was that we need to delineate the difference between the commemoration/response sections, as the way those sections are now, there's an arguable overlap in coverage between the two sections with regards to half-mastings. Leventio (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

As some of you will have noticed I've gone through the 'Timeline' section over the past day or so and tried to slim it down a bit. Nevertheless, it still reads like a list of royal engagements.

While the activities of the royal family did play a large part in events leading up to the funeral, I do wonder if the section focusses on them excessively and at the expense of other activities and preparations. One solution could be to simply retitle the section 'Timeline of Royal Activities' or similar (i.e. more concise), but a better solution might be to restructure the timeline entirely to also include non-royal events. Thoughts? A.D.Hope (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

What non-royal events do you have in mind though? Not much happened during that time period except the coffin being moved around up and down the country. Not to mention that the events that happened usually happen when a monarch dies, including the proclamation of accession, travelling within the four nations of the UK, etc. So it makes sense to cover them. I noticed that you had simplified the sections by removing some excessive details. I only restored a few sentences within each those sections that could be helpful for understanding the details, because some sentences sounded a little bit vague to me. Keivan.fTalk 20:39, 22 September 2022

(UTC)

A.D.Hope With regards to the events of September 14, I removed specific details about the flowers, but left a brief mention as to where the flowers came from. Because the crown was not the only thing on the coffin at the time. Keivan.fTalk 20:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, I do appreciate you looking over my edits. I'm not here to start an argument there! I'm sure I've inadvertently removed some important things here and there.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure we need to mention every time the royals went and looked at a floral tribute or book of condolence. Focussing on what was happening to the Queen and Charles would help minimise excessive detail about the royals. With other events, surely things were being planned in the lead-up to the funeral? Incorporating them into the timeline would be useful and could break-up the royal activities.
Alternatively, we could abandon the strict day-by-day narrative and have subsections about the Queen, Charles, funeral preparations, etc., with each section being a self-contained timeline. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Not at all. I really appreciate your edits. As I was adding all the information throughout the past ten days, I really didn't have enough time to check everything and every detail to see if it will be relevant in the long run. I think you made a good point there. I would be in favor of abandoning the timeline and formatting the article a bit differently. A section could be dedicated to Elizabeth and what happened with the coffin. Another section could deal with Charles's activities and another section could cover his relatives (because to be honest Charles wasn't the only person involved in this). Let's see what other users think. Keivan.fTalk 20:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
You've done a very good job of gathering information, you should certainly be proud of that. Even as we edit the article your efforts will form the basis of that work, so thank you!
I'm glad we seem to be on the same wavelength about restructuring the timeline. I'm happy to wait and see what thoughts other people have, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to second A.D.Hope's comment here and say that @Keivan.f, you've done a great job of drawing a vast amount of information together and ensuring there's plenty to enable the creation of an excellent article. I know we've had our differences over some parts that of the article we've quibbled over while you've been adding this data, but to me that's a minor issue and takes nothing away from my appreciation of the work you've done. Best regards, H. Carver (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
A.D.Hope, H. Carver, Thank you so much for your kind comments. Yes, I did my best to include as much information as possible, but then again, I don't own the page and I do know that articles are created based on collaborations between different individuals. Since two days ago, the page has been trimmed down by removing some excessive details, and I also made some adjustments yesterday to make sure that it reads like an article and not a list. But then again, there's always room for improvement. Have a great weekend. Cheers! Keivan.fTalk 19:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Undo on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME was hasty

Moved from User talk:DeFacto

You [DeFacto] appear to have missed the fact that I cited other reasons for making the change. Even if you don't think WP:COMMONNAME applies, there's still the argument that names given in the article should not differ greatly from the names given in the reference. H. Carver (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@H. Carver, you cited COMMONNAME, which is what I was reacting to. Wiki does not necessarily stick to nicknames used in the press either, so that wasn't a good reason for you to truncate the name either. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I will note that from my point of view, I didn't truncate the name. I was Reverting a previous Bold edit that had extended what was previously a stable and shorter wording of the title. I could, then, turn the argument around and say that no good reason has been offered for extending the name.
There is no policy document for how names should be written in articles. My view is that it can then be helpful to look at the next best thing and see if applying the same makes sense, which I understand is a view held by others on Wikipedia too. However, I respect the fact that not everyone thinks the same, which is why I apply other reasoning too. I try to cover all the bases to avoid the risk of reverts on the basis of "X doesn't apply".
I'm not sure how to respond to "nicknames used in the press", because it's not a nickname, it's a title. It's not hugely uncommon for a commonly-used title to be shorter than a full and formal title. For example, the Queen's full title would be "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". We manage to commonly truncate this without issue :)
In short, my view is that the royal titles should be in the form that they are commonly understood by the (British; where RoW conflicts exist, that might be more fodder for the talk page) public to aid understanding. Most, if not all, these titles will be linked, so those interested can find out the fuller titles from the linked pages.
(I'll close by noting there is a similar topic earlier up the talk page regarding Lady Louise Windsor, where I lay out a number of reasons for that being the correct form. I note that the article as it stands now has truncated the name even further than the one I argued for.) H. Carver (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Does this have to do with the Welsh Parliament? GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It was to do with "Countess of Wessex" vs "Countess of Wessex and Forfar". I haven't stated a view on the Welsh Parliament to this point. I don't have a strong view, and I haven't fully looked at the discussion over it, but my gut feeling is that as Wikipedia is a worldwide site, we can just call it Senedd and let the linked page explain it for those who don't immediately understand it. I think to do otherwise would be driting away from having a NPOV, as the POV would be assuming that readers won't be able to understand Senedd. A compromise might be to refer to the "Welsh parliament, the Senedd" in the first instance and then just "Senedd" in all subsequent instances. But as I say, I don't have a strong view and this may well be my only comment on it. H. Carver (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Service and Processions

This section is far too detailed and needs editing down, like so. Thoughts? A.D.Hope (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope: Thanks for bringing it up. I actually broke it into three sections, because there were two processions and the military service happened in between. With regards to the details, I have pretty much looked at the articles on the funeral services of George VI, Philip, Diana, and the Queen Mother to see to what extent details need to be added. I'm in favor of simplifying sentences and removing some minor details to make the reading better, but I'm against deleting the information as that goes against the precedent. Specifically, the information about who walked behind the coffin has to be included, as it was for her father. Keivan.fTalk 20:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't have an objection to including who walked behind the coffin if that's the consensus. The section does currently read like a step-by-step account of the service, however, when it can just be a summary. The order of service is cited for people who want to read about every detail, after all. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I suggest moving some of the extra details to footnotes, because even though the order of service is cited, some hymns and pieces have Wikipedia articles that could be interesting to some. Keivan.fTalk 21:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely, that seems like a sensible workaround. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Camilla

Honestly, is it really that terrible to show Camilla as "Queen Camilla" or "Queen consort". Do we have to push "Queen Consort" to the max? GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

My reading of WP:JOBTITLE is "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name" then it should be capped. On that basis, "Queen Consort" is how it should be capped and "Queen consort" would be incorrect.
As all reports and sources are referring to Camilla as "Queen Consort" rather than "Queen Camilla", that would be why the former is currently used. I think it's something that may just have to be put up with for the time being, and later down the line (post coronation of Charles if not slightly earlier?) it will be possible to go back and 'fix' the mentions to "Queen Camilla" when she is more generally known or referred to as such.
(I did experiment with replacing all instances of 'Queen Consort' with 'Queen', but that introduced far too much ambiguity and didn't work at all.) H. Carver (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Typo

Death & National Mourning section

Paragraph 3

Line 3

  • received*

TY 172.243.151.79 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Should the notice be quoted in-line, or as a footnote?

There appears to be a little bit of back-and-forth over whether to quote the announcement in the article or not, so I thought I'd bring it to the talk page for discussion.

My view is that it should in included in-line, as it is one of the central moments - if not the central moment - of the article. As such, putting it out of clear view is unnecessarily obfuscating the events.

In addition to which, when the statement is footnoted, the fact that the paragraph continues as "A notice with the same statement..." reads oddly, as it is not clear what the statement is unless the footnote has been noticed.

While I'm all for condensing the article where appropriate, this is one instance where I think it's better to not try and condense the information given. What does everyone else think?

I quote the two alternatives below:

In-line:

"Liz Truss was informed that the Queen had died at 16:30, and the royal family announced her death two hours later via newswires and a post on Twitter. It read:

The Queen died peacefully at Balmoral this afternoon. The King and The Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening and will return to London tomorrow.

A notice with the same statement was affixed to the railings outside Buckingham Palace and posted on the royal family website."

Footnoted:

"Liz Truss was informed that the Queen had died at 16:30, and the royal family announced her death two hours later via newswires and a post on Twitter. A notice with the same statement was affixed to the railings outside Buckingham Palace and posted on the royal family website." H. Carver (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2022

Change 142 to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHT (98 in front pulling, 40 behind braking) for number of Naval Ratings moving gun carriage from Westminster Hall to Westminster Abbey. 142 was an INCORRECT number quoted in The Times and elsewhere, and supported by an idiotic, inaccurate diagram fabricated by an idiot at the Times to justify an inaccurate figure.

Here is a picture of the State Funeral of Winston Churchill (the picture, below, of QEII's State Funeral shows the same configuration but more clearly)

https://ibb.co/6wPr2PY

138 is the correct number of Naval Ratings used to transport the gun carriage at State Funerals since 1901. There are 98 Naval Ratings in front of the gun carriage, pulling (ten rows of eight, and three rows of six). Naval Ratings are distinguishable by the blue squares on the shoulders of their uniforms.

There are two non Naval Rating Naval officers on either side of the 98 Naval Ratings. They are not wearing Naval Rating uniforms and they are, visibly, not pulling but simply walking alongside. In addition, there are two non Naval Rating Naval officers walking ahead of the 98.

Behind the gun carriage are a further forty Naval Ratings, acting as brakes (in five rows of eight). As with the 98, there are two non Naval Rating Naval officers walking either side of them, neither in Naval Rating uniform, nor holding ropes.

In summary, 98, with 6 non participating non Naval Ratings walking alongside, plus 40, with 4 non participating non Naval Ratings walking alongside.

Here is that clearer illustration of the configuration, from the funeral on 19 September 2022:

https://ibb.co/y4BvwTJ

The proof, the source, is using your eyes, and spending a handful of seconds to observe and count. 138 is the correct number, and 142 was the result of a careless idiot adding four of the ten non-participating non Naval Ratings to the correct number, which the sheeple across the internet then replicated.

Change 98 to 137 (97+40; one fell ill) for the correct number of Naval Ratings moving the gun carriage after the service. Four rows from the back of the pullers, there were seven, not eight, Naval Ratings. Cf https://twitter.com/Echochrislloyd/status/1571829222741577729

And cf this photo:

https://ibb.co/jhn7zYT

In the row immediately ahead of the three rows of six pulling the gun carriage, you can see a gap and count only seven Naval Ratings where there should have been eight.

Your reliable source, your proof, is plain sight.

"Many thanks." 81.148.217.202 (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is one of those awkward situations where, although I don't doubt the accuarcy of what you're saying, I don't think the edits you suggest can be made because there are no WP:RS (or where there are, they give the 'wrong' information) and we can't update articles based on WP:OR. In an ideal world, we will get some RS sooner or later than we can cite for this information. If we don't, the best we could do would be to cut out the wrong information - but as long as RS continue to report it, it could well be edited back in. H. Carver (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Further to my earlier reply, I have taken a closer look at the 142 number in the article and been able to adjust it now to 138, as this is supported by at least one reference.
Regarding the subsequent number of 137 due to one falling ill during the day, I haven't been able to yet find a source to support that to the required standard. I hope you find this partial update an improvement, at least. H. Carver (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Republicanism

The sub-subsection Republicanism should be disconnected from the #Reactions section and moved to the end of the article as a single section titled #Aftermath. Oroborvs (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I have twice in the last few days requested two edits, to 1. change the number 142 to 138 for the number of naval ratings taking the coffin from Westminster Hall to Westminster Abbey, and then to 2. change 142 to 137 (one fell ill) for the number of naval ratings taking the coffin from Westminster Abbey. See the 24 Sep and 22 Sep requests above. The 24 Sep request contained detailed info and pictures clearly showing the correctness of 138 and 137 and the error of 142.

In response to the request for a reliable source, I am now attaching a link to the famous Guardian article from 2017 which was viewed many millions of times on the day the Queen died:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge

The article states:

"When the coffin emerges again, the pallbearers will place it on the green gun carriage that was used for the Queen’s father, and his father and his father’s father, and 138 junior sailors will drop their heads to their chests and pull."

The two changes need to be made.

There were 138 naval ratings deployed at every state funeral in the last hundred and more years, with an attendant ten naval officers walking alongside, who played no role in pulling the carriage, and who are, visibly, not naval ratings. Somewhere along the line someone mistakenly counted four of them as naval ratings, and Wikipedia is currently discrediting itself alongside the rest of the internet in repeating the mistake.

142 needs to be changed to 138, from Westminister Hall to Westminster Abbey, before the funeral service,

and 142 needs to be changed to 137 (see the linked photo evidence and linked primary source tweet from the earlier 24 Sep request), from Westminster Abbey after the service,

if Wikipedia purports to be a worthwhile source, rather than no better than a sloppy hack -show. 2A00:23C5:3600:1201:57F9:F229:54DA:131A (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a timely discussion, I was just about to raise the point myself.
Who is right? I haven't a clue. Much as I would love to simply count the figures in the footage, as you did earlier, we simply can't use that as a source.
(Pinging @H. Carver as they've made some relevant edits and participated in the previous discussions, so may be interested). A.D.Hope (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping; there's another section above (possibly from the same user as it's also an IP edit, albeit a different IP) where I have taken a first look and then a second pass, and the second pass had the Independent article as a reference so I amended the article on that basis. Assuming the BBC had made an error, ideally their corrections and clarifications process should be followed (the IP editor should contact them regarding correcting the article, that is) and all being well, the article will be corrected and future sourcing problems will be fixed. It may well be more and better sources are also currently out there, but I haven't yet found them myself. H. Carver (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Just for confirmation, the Royal Navy says; "98 sailors will haul the two-and-a-half-ton ceremonial carriage, with a further 40 sailors marching behind the vehicle acting as brakes". Alansplodge (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2022 (2)

under section: death and announcment Liz Truss was informed that the Queen was gravely ill that morning by the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, and received an update at 12:00. i would suggest this be changed to the prime minister was informed that the Queen was gravely ill. not Liz Truss BoznaEdits (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Truss is the the PM. I've added "Prime Minister Liz Truss was informed..." instead, however I'm not sure if this is unnecessary since Truss becoming PM (and thus is the PM) was mentioned in the section above, but perhaps just for clarity's sake for people who skipped the background? 💜  melecie  talk - 03:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Observations and holidays

Change the tense of the Australia holiday of mourning to past tense as it has now happened. Jack M E 01 (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

And change "affect" to "effect" in the business sentence please. (the one about the Australian Medical Association).

Big change in meaning - we do understand the businesspeoples' and medicos' feelings (affect); what we want to know was the *effect* on business (positive; neutral; negative) --49.190.204.249 (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC).

 Done.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 22:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Scope of commemoration and reaction section and redundancies

I've attempted to narrow the scope in the Commemoration section to solely be on the commemorative services (which was how the section seemed to have been originally designed). But over the past two days, we've seen the holiday section reconsolidate itself within the Commemorative section. While the flag-masting redundancy issues have (largely) been resolved and is now in the reaction section, the addition of the holiday content in the Commemorative section has now resulted in a section that has expanded its scope.

I've asked this before but recieved no real reply to it, but what is the scope of the Other commemoration section, and what delineates it from the Reactions section above? Is the commemoration section limited to official government responses (as it seems now in its current state)... if so, the scope of content that would be discussed in the Other Commemoration and Response sections seem to have quite a bit of overlapping with each other (as half-masting, illumination programs can also be considered forms of commemoration from the govt...) Leventio (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

As I understand it, the 'Commemoration' section covers more official, formal, planned responses to the Queen's death — memorial services and the like — while the 'Reactions' section is aimed more at spontaneous reactions such as flowers being left at the palaces.
There is a fair bit of overlap, however, so the two sections could be merged. Most of 'Reactions' could be removed in any case, as the main article can cover the bulk of them. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Origin of Naval Ratings error

I have traced the error in the number of naval ratings.

It seems first to have appeared in a 2015 Christian Science Monitor article about Winston Churchill's state funeral, describing 98 and 44.

This error has been compounded in the idiotic recent diagrams published on the BBC and Times websites, which show 102 and 40.

Any close scrutiny of the photographs of recent state funerals, including those of Churchill, Mountbatten, and Elizabeth, show 98 and 40, with two non-participating naval officers walking on the left side of the 40, two on the right, two on the left of the 98, two on the right, and two in front.

98 and 40 and a non-participating ten. It's not rocket science.

Is the Royal Navy website a sufficiently authoritative source for Wikipedia?

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2022/september/15/20220915-royal-navy-ready-for-key-role-at-queens-funeral

"Some 98 sailors will haul the two-and-a-half-ton ceremonial carriage, with a further 40 sailors marching behind the vehicle acting as brakes."

As for the 137, what more does Wikipedia require as a reliable source than the primary report of the chief feature writer of a respected newspaper https://twitter.com/Echochrislloyd/status/1571829222741577729 as well as direct visual evidence that there are only seven sailors, rather than eight, four rows in front of the gun carriage?? https://ibb.co/jhn7zYT

An affidavit jointly signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Jimmy Wales? 2A00:23C5:3600:1201:2293:291A:C190:82D3 (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The royal navy source helps build the argument for there being 138 sailors in total, thank you. I suspect we will reinstate 138 soon, as it becomes increasingly likely that the BBC is simply wrong. I personally couldn't accept a tweet and a picture as evidence for the number dropping to 137 due to illness, but other editors may feel differently. --A.D.Hope (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The Royal Navy website story should be fine as an appropriate source, as it's being used for a statement of fact (as per WP:PRIMARY). (That said, another RN news story say that there were "142 sailors responsible for pulling the gun carriage" [9]....maybe the officers in charge are "responsible" somehow?) As for 138 versus 137, as long as the text is phrased suitably (saying that the plan was for 138) I don't think we need to get into that level of detail. However, we should also be precise: of the 138, only 98 were actually meant to be "pulling" it. --RFBailey (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The Royal Navy is an appropriate source, the issue is that it's contradicted by other appropriate sources such as the BBC and isn't consistent itself, as you point out.
As it stands I don't think the current sources for 137 are robust enough to include anything about that number in the article, even in a way which hedges our bets. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The number 142 as indefensible

The correct terminology for the 138 Naval Ratings should be "transporting" or "operating", "moving" or "in control of", with the elaboration, 98 pulling and 40 braking in parentheses.

It is quite clear from the BBC diagram that they are counting the two walking on the left side of the 98 and the two walking on the right side of the 98, in reaching their nonsensical 142. It is nonsensical because they didn't count the two in the exact same position on the left side of the 40 and on the right side of the 40. If there were any coherent notion that visibly non Naval Rating individuals who are visibly not in contact with any ropes ought to be counted in the ranks of Naval Ratings transporting the carriage, then the appropriate number would be 146, not 142, or 148 if you also count the two others walking ahead of the 98.

No, it is 100% clear that the Christian Science Monitor article described 98 and 44 because some dope decided randomly to include the flankers to the brakers, only.

And it is 100% clear that the BBC diagram which shows 102 and 40 was drawn up by another dope, who presumably saw the number 142 and tried to reconstruct it, or who simply made a similar random nonsensical assessment to the Christian Science Monitor dope, except in this case randomly co-opting the four puller flankers rather than the four braker flankers.

What IS clear, to anyone with eyes, is that there are only, and exactly, 138 people wearing Naval Rating uniforms among those 148. And what is also clear is those 138 wearing those uniforms are the only ones holding ropes, and none of the other 10 are.

The perniciousness of errors acquiring a momentum of their own, on the internet, and being repeated without diligent attention, is illustrated by the fact that the Royal Navy website, after having been precise and accurate by stating 138, later succumbs to the BBC website's poor to non-existent standards.

If there was an argument that non participating non rope holding non Naval Ratings should somehow be rolled into the count of Naval Ratings carrying the carriage, then that argument could only support 146 or 148. It cannot support 142. Because 142 relies on counting only the brakers' flankers or only the pullers' flankers - a Total Nonsense.

Let Wikipedia take the lead here, and shine an example, and stand up for intelligence and accuracy where none other appears able to uphold. 81.148.217.202 (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you mind me asking if you're aware that you can reply to existing talk page discussions rather than beginning a new topic each time you wish to make a point? Ths is the third new topic you've opened about naval ratings, that's all. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
(reply to OP) Yes, we know, we've all seen the multiple discussions about that on this page. As A.D.Hope has pointed out, you don't need to start a new discussion section each time. We are all capable of looking at pictures and counting. We all know that 98+40=138 and not 142. And we all know that stories in the media are not 100% correct all of the time, and that errors can be perpetuated. The point is we are bound by Wikipedia policy on reliable sources and not including original research. When reliable sources contradict each other, we have to be careful. But performing our own analysis of photographs is definitely against multiple Wikipedia policies.
If you believe there is an error on the BBC News website, then this link may be of use if you want them to fix it.
In any case, presumably because of the discrepancy, the article does not include any specific number of people pulling/responsible for pulling the gun carriage. That seems the most sensible course of action to me for now. --RFBailey (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Nieu

Change the tense from future to past. 78.86.165.127 (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. --RFBailey (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
No need to link Nieu twice. Thanks. 86.175.165.203 (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Also done. There was no need for the duplicate reference either. This appears to be the result of additional content being added from the Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II article. --RFBailey (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

In the text "Prince William, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, and Sophie, Countess of Wessex...", the Princes Andrew and Edward should be linked. 86.175.165.203 (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Normally, only the first instance of something should be linked, as per the Manual of Style; what seems to have happened here is that when the text was edited down to its current version, those earlier mentions must have gone away. There may well be other instances of this having happened! --RFBailey (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

'Reactions' section: condensing to summary

My recent edit to the 'reactions' section, which removed most of the content in favour of a summary and link to the main article, was drastic. I believe it was necessary, however, to avoid making this article over-long. The main article is a better place for the information.

I thought it right, however, to create a topic so that anyone who wants to discuss this edit can do so. Also, I must admit that I haven't yet cross-checked our 'reactions' section with the main article, so a few pieces of information present in our article but not the latter might have gone missing. I'd appreciate any help in checking that. Thank you A.D.Hope (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like a pretty good job to me (although I haven't cross-checked it either). There may be a few notable things that we want to add back, e.g. a bit more on the protests, the floral tributes, the fact that the Dáil had a minute's silence, or the long queues in Hong Kong, but there was definitely way too much detail in the previous version.
Can we also do something about the "Other commemorations" section? It now has 25 subsections, including way too much ephemeral detail that appears to have been added from the "Reactions" article in this edit. Perhaps an older version such as this one would be a better starting point. The large-scale events in other Commonwealth realms (e.g. the national commemorative services in Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.) are clearly more significant that illuminating Derbyshire County Hall, for example. --RFBailey (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, we can always add a smattering of detail back in. My only concern is that there's a lot of things which could justifiably be mentioned, so it might be best to keep our summary very broad so as not to have to make those sorts of inclusion decisions.
As for 'Other commemorations', I don't see how it's different to 'Reactions' so I'd get rid of it entirely. That's possibly not the most popular move, but as the main article covers commemorations so I don't really see why we need that section. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This was the entire point I was trying to raise earlier. There was no delineation between those two sections, and the scope of those sections spiralled beyond their original intent as people continued to add content into it. Even with the reaction section's reduced state now, we still have overlap, as the commemoration section has seemingly expanded from just official responses, to all public response (illumination of landmarks is now covered in both sections, again reflecting my earlier concerns of redundancy).
I'm okay with merging the two sections and consolidating content from there, but if we choose to keep both sections, it is very clear that we need have a discussion on the exact scope of both sections (and what it isn't), or this situation of overlapping scope will keep persisting. Leventio (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
A possible distinction between "Reactions" and "Commemorations" would be something like this: illuminating a building, putting out a message of condolence or having people leave floral tributes would be a "reaction", whereas having an actual commemorative service (such as those in Ottawa or Wellington), or something like the parade in Antigua, would count as "commemoration". That was (more or less) how the article was previously structured, e.g. here, before the more recent adding of all the extraneous stuff. --RFBailey (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Time of death in lead?

I've just removed the 'time of death' from the lead, and noticed afterwards that it has already been in and out earlier today, so thought it would be useful to discuss on the talk page - if nothing else to try and break the cycle and move on to the D of WP:BRD rather than flipping from B to R and back again.

The reason I removed it from the lead is the same reason I've used inverted commas above - it's because it's not actually the Queen's time of death. We don't know what the time of death is, as this information has not been made public. Therefore, it does not seem helpful at all to include this (non?) fact in the lead. If we stick to the known and important things, that's the announcement - this is a clear event that we have a known time for.

If and when there's such a time in the future when the information is released to the public, then we can edit the lead to include it as a clear and known fact. But in the meantime, I don't think that 'we don't really know precisely' constructions are useful. H. Carver (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the time that it was announced to the public is the most critical piece of information for the opening paragraph. The details of who found out when are given further down the page. If the actual time is ever made public, then we can add it then. --RFBailey (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Of course it's important to include this in the lead - it's absurd not to. If someone comes to this article looking to find out about her death, it would be very strange not to include when it happened in the lead. The time of death is one of the most important pieces of information.
Without knowing an accurate time, we should include the best info we currently have. We know she died in the afternoon some time, so we should include that. I'm open to wording it in different ways. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Death certificate (albeit that's WP:PRIMARY: https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//images/entry-in-the-register-of-deaths-hm-the-queen.jpg Bondegezou (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Didn't take long for it to be picked up by non-primary sources, e.g. BBC, Guardian, CNN, Reuters, etc. etc.
The time has now been added to the opening sentence in an accurate and unobtrusive way, so hopefully we can put an end to this now! --RFBailey (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Makes a change to be able to resolve a discussion so quickly :) I don't think there's much more that can be said now, and would have no objection to this discussion being archived now. H. Carver (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Side question, I wonder if the death certificate image is OGL compatible? I have a feeling that if it is OGL compatible, it could be a significant image for Commons, but at the same time, the other side of me expresses concern due to identity fraud being a serious issue today. --Minoa (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Cause of death

I note the Scottish Births, Deaths & Marriages Registry have now released to the public the time and cause of death for the Queen, along with the Death Certificate Extract for Her Majesty. To my disappointment, I found that they have recorded the "cause of death" to be "old age". It doesn't even sound remotely like medical jargon. It sounds too much like layman's terms, everyday speech, not officialese. It just doesn't sound right. Was it really Myocardial infarction (medical jargon for heart failure)? Canberra User (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The information we have directly available from sources states the cause of death was Old Age. Unless a new and even more reliable source is found to prove otherwise, that gets placed in the article. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 00:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for the revert, PerryPerry. It's a shame we're not allowed to call Dubious on this "official" cause of death as cited in the Official source. Canberra User (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
She was 96. What exactly is "dubious" about an elderly person dying of old age? I know that in many jurisdictions, the cause of death is meant to be more specific, but in Scotland it is allowed in certain circumstances [10]. (This was explained in an earlier version of the article, but was removed as "excess details" [11]). Also, an infarction is a heart attack, not heart failure. --RFBailey (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
"old age" is not a medical condition. It is an excuse to explain away someone's death simply because their age is beyond some arbitrary number (see the Wikipedia article on "old age" itself) and therefore you just have to die to satisfy some "life cycle" as the article refers to. I'm not sure what the medical terminology for heart failure is, so I stand corrected there. Her heart must have stopped, but it is sad that Scotland's BD&M Registry allows for such vagueness. Canberra User (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles present the known facts in a neutral point-of-view. This is not the place to discuss the perceived accuracy of something that has been sourced from reputable sources, and nor is it the place to get into the rights and wrongs of something that is explicitly allowed by law. Article talk pages are for discussing edits to the article, not for rumour and WP:OR, so this discussion should not continue further. H. Carver (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II/Archive_2&oldid=1113630375"