Talk:Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II

good job everyone!

i'm surprised at how quickly this has been set up - Great job all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel P Botes (talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

shouldn't we do the flags like for the article Reactions to the death of Bhumibol Adulyadej for easier navigation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennypc (talk • contribs) 18:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

RIP Queen Elizabeth, thou shalt be sorely missed Daniel P Botes (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

RIP. I do think this should be given it’s one section within the death article. Less clutter. Devdevo1919 (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge. -PCS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:452E:6300:5D0B:70EC:9A35:A440 (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I wonder whether this page should be closed now, given that the event has happened, it has served its purpose - or perhaps noted on the Death of Queen Elizabeth II that there was an outpouring of condolences. Keeping this page indefinitely would not be encyclopaedic. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thats not how wikipedia works, we keep all notable topics indefinitely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

when this topic's notability expire? because it will eventually. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thats not how wp:notability works, once you're over the line you're over the line forever more or less. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Revert to previous style

I strongly support reverting back to list/flag style (unless there are Wikipedia guidelines against) since it's reasonable to expect international reactions to Queen Elizabeth II's passing to top a hundred or more, and it'll become unreadable. Flags, like in Reactions_to_the_death_of_Bhumibol_Adulyadej or this previous revision, would make the article far more reasonable.

I also like having different sections for continents; also makes it more readable. DFlhb (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I concur having the flags makes it more legible and easier to differentiate from one group to the next.Leaky.Solar (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Paris Eiffel Tower lighting turned off in honour of Queen Elizabeth

Just going to leave the link here for editors to use: link Not much time to edit myself right now. cart-Talk 21:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we create a new chapter with examples from all over the world Hanse04 (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin Response

Vladimir Putin has issued a letter to King Charles, a full transcript of which is available online, will this be added to the response section? 86.191.224.34 (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@86.191.224.34 I see this has already been added, please ignore this suggestion. 86.191.224.34 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Statement from Swedish King Carl XVI Gustav

An official statement has been released by The King of Sweden regarding the death of Queen Elizabeth II. However, I am uncertain how I should formulate this statement to the main article. Could I get some assistance on this? Thank you in advance. 31.44.228.51 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Wait, wait, let me guess ... He's ... He's deeply saddened and expresses his condolences? EEng 00:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  I hit the nail on the head! I'm a mind-reader! EEng 00:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have issues expressing myself in text. Since I was struggling how to reformulate his statement to the article, I was asking for help adding it to the article. Fortunately somebody else else helped me by directly quoting the statement in the main article. Please be a bit more considerate in the future since your joke came of as rather snide. 31.44.228.51 (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Northern Ireland political reaction

As the reaction of the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales are featured in the UK Political section, should the Northern Ireland entry not be in-step with this trend and therefore detail the reaction from designate First Minister Michelle O'Neill from Sinn Fein, rather than merely the leader of the second biggest party in the DUP? 2A02:8084:C84:3F80:8056:11E4:B31E:8D27 (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Done Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Commonwealth

For this section, does this refer to the commonwealth realms or the commonwealth of nations? KRtau16 (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Appears to refer to the Commonwealth of Nations—note reactions from Pakistan etc. are mentioned under 'Commonwealth', as Pakistan is a part of the Commonwealth of Nations, but does not have the British monarch as their head of state. Compusolus (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Xin Jinping’s reaction to the death of the queen.

He could say that he was shocked to hear about the queens death. 42.112.159.138 (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Status of states

Do we really need to divide into UN member states and non-member states?

It seems totally unnecessary on an article unrelated to the UN. Particularly as outside these headings there is no reference about the statehood or recognition of Taiwan or Kosovo in the article at all. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree, the UN status is irrelevant. Just list them under their respective continents/regions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Issue with Template: Flagicon regarding the flag of the Commonwealth of Nations

The flag icon template is showing blank, though when one hovers over it, it correctly shows the flag of the Commonwealth of Nations. Thoughts as to a fix? Compusolus (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Compusolus: My understanding is that it's because there is no free-use image so it's blank in the template Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Commemoration around the globe

Commemoration on Buildings

Minute of silence

Gan Salute

Flags on half mast

Gallery Hanse04 (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

we can create a new chapter with examples from all over the world Hanse04 (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Split to Commonwealth and Non-Commonwealth articles?

The article will be quite long. Should we split it such that there would be one article for the reactions from Commonwealth countries, and one for non-Commonwealth & other reactions? 747pilot (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Fine for now, I think—not yet so long that it has trouble loading etc., and not as long as some other articles. Compusolus (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Landmarks

Should we remove the landmarks section and just put them into their respective countries section? Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

That was how it was originally done. I think it is better to have them separately (landmarks/monuments separate from countries)—clearly distinguishes the tributes and commemorations etc. Compusolus (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Not going to argue it if there consensus Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I do not mind. Either way suits me. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

'The King'

Should it be 'The King' or "King Charles' as section heading?

Alternatively - 'Royal Family' so we can bring other British royal reactions in?

Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Do British royal family HoHo3143 (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

TommyInnit

Should we add tommyinnit’s response to the public figures part AndrewGarfieldIsTheBestSpiderMan (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Nvm AndrewGarfieldIsTheBestSpiderMan (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Condolences

Should we really include every statement available here that many ultimately equates to "condolences"? Don't have to repeat sentiment that world leaders expressed deep sadness and regret. Should at least trim some of these quotes and include only specific tidbits of their country/territory's relation with the Queen if they elaborate (eg. "the Queen was instrumental that Treaty X was signed") and move the full quotes to Wikiquotes? Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

From world leaders, yes I believe we should include it. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Does not really answer the question. Perhaps I did not make it clear. Other more "generic" statements (for the lack of better word) could be just compressed as "Prime Minister Smith of X, President Dela Cruz of Y, and Leader Mohammed of Z, also expressed condolence to the queen and British people". Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. No I do not believe we should replace 'generic' statements, quotes are fine (unless they are huge paragraphs in which case they should be trimmed). Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Public figures International section

Why has this been reverted to only apply to British figures ? I added a very nicely worded condolence by A-HA from their official website, but it seems to have been removed. A-ha did the James Bond title song for the 1987 movie The Living daylgihts and also met Queen Elizabeth II. It is now removed without any warning or explenation.

Mortyman (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about the Public figure International section, that must have disappeared before my edit but I subsequently moved public figures from the United Kingdom into its own section under 'Public figures'. I'd suggest adding it again underneath this section under a new subheader for the relevant country JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Should we include this passage about 'Black Twitter'

The following passage that currently exists on the article as of this comment, was first edited by @User:76.166.183.180 here:

Additionally, it has been noted that some parts of Black Twitter also celebrated the death due to the Atlantic Slave Trade, which was at its peak during the early British Empire, as well as the British involvement in the Scramble for Africa. Although these events took place long before Elizabeth II took the throne, some social media comments described her as a symbol as well as a beneficiary of these actions.

They then later added that reference after the passage was removed for not providing a source. Since then it was removed here by @User:Jaguar with the edit summary simply "inappropiate". I manually reverted this saying "it is not inappropiate to document reactions". Hours later @User:Jaguar content removed this same passage again once more this time with the one word edit summary that simply stated "retarded". I have manually reverted since.

Thus there is a content dispute that needs resolving. I am actually indifferent to the passage and have no argument for its inclusion but I do take issue with content removal for no given reason. I want to ask @User:Jaguar for their reasons as to why it should not be included as well as third opinions on whether it is warranted to be in the article or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesLewisBedford01 (talk • contribs)

I think it should be reinserted. Reeks of POV editing to me Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jaguar has removed this again here and it remains absent. This time with the edit summary "removing paragraph deriving from factoid source, which a troll keeps re-adding".

I don't wish to reinstate it as per WP:EDITWAR, but I do want to see if I can build a consensus for it.JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I support inclusion as I believe this article has an overwhelmingly vast majority in what essentially is just repeated "condolences" from all the same type of people (i.e. leading politicians are probably 80% of sources) whilst different reactions like this one are very bare in the article but do offer an insight into one type of reaction from the general public (that isn't said on their behalf by politicians). I think it warrants inclusion based on a source ("Newsweek") which is also used in a passage which labelled similar reactions to the one @Jaguar removed (only two paragraphs further up) as "distasteful" but which @Jaguar didn't take issue with. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

support inclusion it's relevant and reliably sourced Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll re-include this section for now as it has been 5 days since it was last included and I haven't heard any reasons to remove it. It will still require tweaks and if anyone does have any comments about its exclusion we can revert later. I'll add an editor notice prompting people to this section. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The social media backlash should be included (with special attention to WP:POV to make sure it is neither overstated nor understated), but using Newsweek as a source is just not appropriate. Whether the backlash should be described as coming from "Black Twitter", or "Left-wing parts of Twitter", or just mention "Twitter" in general must come down to a clearly reliable source, which Newsweek definitely is not. I'm sure reliable sources have covered this; if not, then I wouldn't consider it notable for inclusion, and would support removal. DFlhb (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

In this Forbes article [1] which also used for other content under the social media section, Black Twitter is mentioned in the passage "Terms like “Black Twitter” and “Irish Twitter” also trended throughout the day Thursday as groups historically oppressed by the British Empire and colonialism took a pugnacious approach to her passing". I'd support it being rewritten around that instead. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, good find. DFlhb (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Public Figures

We need to establish guidelines for which public figures are included. Not every notable person's reaction is notable. I don't think we need things "YouTubers Jake Paul and MrBeast amongst others gave their condolences online".

I propose we limit it to people who are a) significant British/commonwealth public figures or b) notable people with a connection (or who at least met) the Queen. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Funeral Day

@Encyloedit and Therealscorp1an: We should get consensus before anyone adds it back in Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose section - I don't think it's really a reaction, it's better suited to the funeral article Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose section per reasons given above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose section This article is about reactions to the death of Elizabeth II, including tributes, monuments illuminated in her honour, etc. Anything to do with the funeral should be in the death and funeral article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compusolus (talk • contribs) 23:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Hi, the reason I added the section here was because I thought most of the section was still reactions e.g. suspensions of Royal Mail services, closure of Harrods which were stated to be a sign of respect for the queen. These were not things ordered to happen and so I thought they were reactions to the queens death in so much as e.g Kew Gardens closing on Friday but just on a different day. I’m happy to write stuff on the other page instead but again these seemed to me to be reactions.If consensus is that this is not reactions then I am more than happy to edit on there instead.Encyloedit (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Encyloedit: All good. Thanks for the reply and explanation! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment There are some articles already pointing to concerns about the cost of the state funeral and the extra bank holiday, towards the British economy. Would I currently be correct in presuming that they would also go in the article for the funeral? Leaky.Solar (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Leaky.Solar, That is my understanding, and I think reflects consensus here. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral. Can I get a link to the edit revision with the content in dispute? My initial thought is that an announcement to the date of a funeral is in line with "reactions to the death of Elizabeth II" in the same way cancelled events are mentioned. Of course the specfic content and what section it is in matters though so I want to reserve judgement.JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Revision as of 23:26, 10 September 2022 @JamesLewisBedford01: sorry I don’t know how to link so this is the closest I was able to do. Few things to note as apparently the Royal Mail as I stated above may actually have been a reaction to the day being a bank holiday so I’m not sure if that would be a reaction. And 2 I intend to add many more reactions to the funeral day section such as intended closure of natural history museum science museum etc.Encyloedit (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

References

US Governors

Should we list the reactions of US Governors? ​

Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

No - the only other subnational reactions included are from Commonwealth nations. No doubt many subnational leaders have or are going to express condolences, but unless they were commonwealth it isn't really notable. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

No – We are already drowning in reactions from politicians and if anything there is probably a case of removing/reorganising some of the passages that already exist. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Do not give a country or a group of countries (like Commonwealth realms) their own Level 2 section header

Multiple sections in the article already have them as subsections. It is better to section the article by Political/Royalty/Landmarks/Organisations/Public Figures/Social Media reactions and then subsection each of them by groups of countries if required. It will become confusing if we have for example: Within in the United Kingdom section, but then have the United Kingdom as also a subsection in Landmarks, Organisations, and Public figures as we did in this edit. I changed this structure by relegating the headers "Within United Kingdom", "Members of the Commonwealth", and "Other Countries" to a subsection under the header "Political" which all the content already was except a few universities underneath Canada that I subsequently moved to organisations in a later edit. I believe this is a much more coherent structure. We could organise the sections by country if we wanted to but that would require moving all the content in later sections if we wanted to avoid the confusion that I mentioned. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Reactions within sport events vs organisations that cancelled events

This is basically what is already the case at present but for future edits we should use the sports section to document reactions such as minute silences and national anthems that occurred at events and then I think it is a more accurate and better categorisation to separate sports events that were cancelled under Organisations:cancelled events. For example, "The US Open held a moment of silence during the first women's semi final match" (a reaction that happened within an event) vs "the Premier League, English Football League, NIFL Premiership and Scottish Professional Football..." (the organisations) "...postponed matches scheduled for 9 September". I added an editor notice under sport "<--use this section only for events that went ahead, for those that were cancelled see the section on organisations:cancelled events-->" but please do not refrain from changing this or commenting your thoughts. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Should we include this response? Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support - still a reaction (and still a political one), the entity's status as a disputed state is not simply relevant to this article evidenced by the section not saying "countries" or "states" anywhere, it merely says "international" (which Cyprus undoubtedly is to the UK)Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Countries not currently listed

In case anyone wants to keep a lookout for additional reactions to add to the article, by my count, these are the only sovereign states that don't have an entry on the list as of this moment:

• Afghanistan
• Burkina Faso
• Kiribati (the only Commonwealth country with no known statement)
• Mali
• Marshall Islands
• North Korea
• São Tomé and Príncipe
• Syria

Of course, due to political instability and other concerns some of these countries might have no interest in making an acknowledgement. (Although Kim Jong-un did congratulate the Queen on her Platinum Jubilee, so who knows?) Reschultzed|||Talk|||Contributions 14:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You can add Mali to the list of sovereign states with no entry yet too. I and many others have been working tirelessly to add as many countries as possible to the list. (Sometimes logged in to my account, or logged out with an IP address.) I'm proud of the work we have accomplished so far. Good job, everyone!!! Wikiman86 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Burkina Faso added. With some of the remaining countries, we may have to do a lot of digging, as some of the countries have official languages other than English as well. --Wikiman86 (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Mali added. Wikiman86 (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

São Tomé and Príncipe also added. The "Casa De São Tomé e Príncipe No Reino Unido" in London offered condolences. The Casa De São Tomé e Príncipe No Reino Unido functions much like a de facto embassy for the country, which doesn't have an official embassy in the United Kingdom. Wikiman86 (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Politic / royalty

I would like to suggest moving the reaction by Sultans from Malaysia from politic to royalty sections as they are not actually political figures. Lulusword (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

They may be royalty, but Malaysia is a Commonwealth country, which explains why they are included in that section. Wikiman86 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd support this move. There is already the statements from the Prime Minister of Malaysia JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I still think it should be moved to the royalty sections or maybe the Royalty section can be renamed as Other royalties for accuracy purpose, as there are also several other monarchs in the political sections. Can someone also please add this statement from the Sultan of Selangor in the article. Lulusword (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

United States Landmark - Willis Tower

Willis Tower in Chicago lit up purple & white on September 8th and 9th for the Queen as well. ChiTownZ17 (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Partially recognised states

Can't believe we're here again. Should we remove the 'Partially recognised states' section and just put them in their continents? Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support proposal - Similar to consensus at Talk:Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II #Status of states, their recognition is simply not relevant to this article. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced reactions

@WikiEditor73, I see you added some unsourced reactions back in after I removed them. Just wanted to make sure you intend to add citations for them?

As per WP:Burden all quotations must have inline citations from "reliable, published sources". Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, I have since added a reference from Metro dated 8 September 2022 to support the quotation? Just let me know if this is okay and allowed to remain in the article!

Thank you. 2A00:23C5:E006:FC01:71EA:AB7F:BA3E:6FAA (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your contributions. That reference is fine, thanks for adding that. However the quotations for Pele, Reggie Jackson and others still don't have citations. Are you planning to add these references, or otherwise we should remove them? Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth the Great

... is now a DAB, rather curiously not pointing to any of the actual people allegedly describable by the term (most plausibly, Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II, and Elizabeth of Russia), but on grounds of WP:DABMENTION, they point elsewhere, to secondary articles. In the second case, this one -- which now doesn't mention the term now either! Does anyone have thoughts on what article should mention the terms, and which (if any) the dab (or redirect?) should point to? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I can only speak on this article but if people haven't sought it notable enough to include reactions calling Elizabeth "the Great" I don't really know why it has been linked to the DAB. Seems like a case of presuming links before adding the content. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably.  Maybe in a spirit of recentism mixed with boosterism, given on the the main promulgator of this application. Any thoughts on what should be done with the above page? Turn it back into a redirect to Liz I? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It should definitely be mentioned in this article where she has been referred to as that. I know for a fact that The West Australian did a 32 page commemorative piece on her, where they titled her as "the Great". We just need to find a source for it. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a piece in that paper titled "Remembering the Queen: Was she truly Elizabeth the Great?" Though that does call to mind Betteridge's law of headlines. And the article already includes a certain UK disgraced ex-PM insistently using the term... I can certainly see there's a case for it being at least a temporary benefit as a navigation aid, even if the title 'reverts' to the first of her name in due historical course. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

National mourning around the world

See list of national mourning in wiki, More than 20 states have announced a mourning period. Hanse04 (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I see this has been added by @User:Encyloedit under political responses. I think this is good work that adds more than what is too high a percentage of just leading politicians giving condolences. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Section on television

I've been working for the past few days on a section on the impact of the death on UK television here, as at the time there wasn't one in the article. I've just seen there is, and I'm wondering to what extent it would be appropriate to insert much of what I've already written into the section. I understand that what I've written may possibly breach WP:RECENCY, so that's why I'm asking here.--Phinbart (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Wow, this is amazing work! I'd support this inclusion. Even in the future, the majority of content in this article will remain within the scope of a few days and week; I can only really see the odd foundation/landmark or any realm that decides to become a republic in Charles' reign being the notable differences in the future, so I don't think recency is too much an issue. All I would say is I would insert this around what is already there to keep with the structure. This might mean rewriting some of what is already there to avoid any redundancy. I'd also now separate the UK-related stuff into its own subsection in each of Television and Radio (if you plan on adding that content too). Nevertheless, a great job overall. I can see some people being critical of its length but I personally think it has value in making this article as comprehensive in documenting the "reactions to the death of Elizabeth II". Furthermore, far too much weight is being given to the same old "condolences" statements by government politicians. In comparison, we need to add more content to other forms of "reaction" like you are doing here within media. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'll probably cut it down a bit anyway, maybe lose the specifics of how some soap episodes were rescheduled and maybe just do a bit of an overarching statement to describe the extent to which they were moved around, for instance; I'll probably wait and see if I get any other responses before going ahead. I did notice that the section on the page seemed to lack referencing, so at least I'll bring some of that to it, as I've been quite diligent in recording evidence of the changes as best I can. --Phinbart (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Jeff Bezos reaction

Add Hanse04 (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Alba Party

I don't understand why the Alba Party are present under First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. Alba are not present in government and feature under the devolved government section.

Alex Salmond, I can understand as he is a member of the Privy Council but having Chris McEleny too when he isn't even an elected politician I think shouldn't be added.

Should we include other political parties in Scotland while we're at it? KeyKing666 (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Potentially, but as it stands it needs work. Two sources are given: an Alba Party press release, and an article in The Herald. First of these is of no use whatsoever in establishing notability. The second does speak to some degree of notability. But it's wrongly placed, certainly: Alba aren't a "wing" of the SNP. As to other parties, potentially, but they may just be ad-idem-ing their national-UK counterparts, and doing nothing to represent any wider range of view, which should also be a factor. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Within the realms, reactions to the death has seen discourse about the future of the monarchy and a Republic . Should we include a mention to this in the lead?

In the content, under political, there is as followed

• 1) Ardern being asked about the future of the monarchy:

When asked if the death would rise to a debate on Republicanism, Ardern replied that it was not "...on the agenda anytime soon" but believed it to be "where New Zealand would head in time".

• 2) A former deputy PM of New Zealand on the republican movement:

** Former deputy Prime Minister Don McKinnon told Radio New Zealand there was a possibility that a republican movement could “build up quite a head of steam now".

• 3) As other politicians revived the republican debate within hours of her death, Australian PM Albanese's response:

As the long-running rupublican debate was revived by some politicians within hours of the death bein announced, Albanese told Radio National "today's not the day for politics".

• 4) NZ Greens statement:

** Co-leader Marama Davidson Green Party released a statement on behalf of the Green Party sending "condolances to the Royal Family". She said that "there is no doubt Queen Elizabeth II cared deeply about Aotearoa New Zealand. Her support during history-making events such as the Christchurch earthquakes would have been of great comfort to many". She added that although the Queen "herself said it was up to the people of the Commonwealth to define the relationship between the British monarchy...That is a question for another day".

• 5) Scottish Alba General Sec

Scottish Alba Party General Secretary Chris McEleny said there was "no place" for King Charles in an independent Scotland after the end of the Queen's reign.

• 6) Aussie Greens

** Australian Greens leader and federal MP Adam Bandt, along with Australian Senator Mehreen Faruqi, called for Australia to become a republic following the Queen's death.

• 7) Jamaica

Jamaican MP Mikael Phillips stated his desire that the end of the Queen's reign would hasten Jamaica's transition to a republic.

• 8) Antigua and Barbuda

* Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda Gaston Browne offered his condolences, saying "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has had an impactful reign, during which her relations with my State and its people have remained mutually respectful and unchanging." Shortly after confirming Charles's status as King of the country on 10 September, Browne, a supporter of republicanism, stated that he planned to hold a referendum on converting the country into a republic.

I think there is enough content to definitely deserve a mention in the lead at least as "some". When we think of political responses to the death of Queen Elizabeth there is 1) Condolences and 2) debates around the future of the monarchy. I believe it would be a fair reflection to note in the lead that after the death these things were discussed. I in particular would like to note the last passage of content that I mentioned; Here we have 1 of the 15 Prime Ministers across the Commonwealth Realms openly talking about plans to hold a referendum on replacing the monarchy barely days after the death has happened. That is surely more than enough notability.

It had previously existed in the lead as "while some questioned the future of the monarchy." I tweaked this further to "and some answered on the future of the monarchy." citing in the edit summary that "while" infers it was either/or but politicians often did both and "answered" also better encapsulates the content better as a lot of it is leaders saying "now is not the time" etc. not outright calling for it. @Hippo43 manually reverted "answered" back to "questioned" citing in the edit summary that "answered on makes no sense". Noting that it lacked clarity I therefore tweaked it to a better revision of "and some responded to questions on republicanism". @Hippo43 has since reverted this twice and instead of going back to the old "questioned" revision has all together just removed any mention in lead of reactions to the death being about the future of the monarchy. I have mentioned all the above content previously on the talk page of @Hippo43 in an effort to seek a resolve but they have not engaged with me whatsoever except in an edit war.

References

JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

A small minority of politixal reactions have mentioned the future of the monarchy. It doesn't merit being in the lead, IMO. In addition, the wording used has not made sense. // Hippo43 (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe it to be a small minority of political reactions when there are only three reactions to the death. 1) you offer your condolences 2) you pay tribute to her work 3) you talk about what it means to the future of the monarchy. If you read the political section all the responses are either of these three things, repeated. One of the 15 leaders of Commonwealth realms has immediately announced his intention to hold a referendum on its future. Surely this is enough notability to merit it being in the lead? JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, the issue isn't about wording. The revision can and has changed over gradual editing to provide better clarity as I tried to do in this edit when I citied that "while" infers it was either/or but politicians often did both, and a second time when you issued concern to "answered on". Wording can always be resolved. The issue is whether we include in the lead a mention to the future of the monarchy in the first place. You yourself had accepted mention of this when you revised the lead three days ago. You have only began to remove mention of this altogether since I have tried to tweak it in the aforementioned way. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, as above. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Third opinion

We're discussing a difference of just 127 characters in the lead. The lengthier version provides context to the reactions already described in the lead without violating our undue-weight guidelines. I am in favor of the longer version. My only objections concern spelling and grammar. "Speach"? And there doesn't need to be a comma after Charles' name. I also don't see the nead to replace "commonwealth" with "realms" either; that just sounds pretentious to me. I propose a somewhat shorter variation: "In his first speech as King, Charles III thanked his "darling Mama" for her love and devotion to the nations she served. Politicians throughout the Commonwealth expressed gratitude for her long public service and some reflected on the future of the monarchy." ~Anachronist (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions! I hope to contribute on 3Os and wider dispute resolutions once I become a more experienced editor.

To reiterate, our disagreement here is no longer about wording. The lead has had many revisions and is the product of many contributions. @Hippo43 may have raised concerns about wording but it is not something I disagree with. I had written multiple different versions myself and encouraged it to be tweaked to see if a compromise could be made but obviously the issue was more than that (i.e. since @Hippo43 disagrees with the subject being mentioned altogether). I would be more than happy to see this version you are suggesting be transferred to the article. Likewise, any further tweaks by @Hippo43 or anyone else. It is just my opinion that the lead refers to content about politicians reflecting on the future of the monarchy. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hippo43 responsed to the Third Opinon on his talk page. Disagreement remained and 3O did not resolve it. Therefore, I'll move dispute along to more formal process. Thanks again your contribution, @Anachronist. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Is there enough content within the article about republican/abolition discourse for it to have some sort of summary in the opening lead paragraph?

Seeking resolve to a dispute on whether the opening lead paragraph should have any sort of reference to republican/abolition discourse/reactions based on the weight of content (reactions to the death) in the article. This RfC is primarily about whether there should be any mention of it in the first place or none at all by determing the weight of the article's content. Though specific wording might be suggested in proposed revisions as a by–product of the discussion process, this RfC is not primarily about selecting a revision on its specific wording but about if the wider discourse that it relates to the paragraph should be mentioned in any type of wording at all. As a starting point, if you wish to see an example revision of an opening lead paragraph with some sort of mention to these concepts, see this old edit. If you wish to see an example revision of an opening lead with no mention at all to these concepts, see the article's current revision. In summary, yes or no – no maintains the current paragraph as it exist now, yes means there is a change to include some sort of summary mentioning this discourse/reactions in the opening lead paragraph (how and what comes afterwards if we cross that bridge). 17:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC) --JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• No The WP:LEAD should "summarize the most important points" of the article. Currently, there is nothing in the article about discourse concerning the future of the monarchy. The word future occurs three times in the article but they aren't about the future of the monarchy (Gov. of Gibraltar: "hope for the future", a legislature member in Indonesia: she is "an inspiration for future leaders", president of Turkmenistan: her leagacy will remain in the memory of "future generations"). The term monarchy occurs 15 times, but none are about the future of the monarchy; about half of them are in the references section, and only one mention in the article is remotely about "discourse about the future of the monarchy" (by the NZ Green party co-chair) but only in the sense that she refused to discuss it ("that is a question for another day"). Given the total lack of discussion of the future of the monarchy in the body of the article, it would be a violation of WP:LEAD to mention it anywhere in the lead of the article, much less in the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH. Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment—we shouldn't focus too much on wording but what it is referring to and 1st) establish if that deserves to be mentioned and then 2nd) try to find the best revision that encapsulates all the different forms of wording for the same thing throughout the body. For example, if you searched "future" as you suggested you would miss out probably the most notable inclusion on this subject about how a response by 1 of the 15 Prime Ministers in the Commonwealth realms announced his attention to hold a referendum on becoming a republic. However, conversely if you searched "republic" you might get this example but you would miss New Zealand's Prime Minister responding to a question (that is implied is the future of the monarchy) by saying it "is not on the agenda" but that she sees it happening at some point. If you search by these single words it would be a violation of WP:LEAD but if you think primarily on the content that is being referred to, less so. The future of the monarchy implies republicanism, abolition, and etc. We have to use a signifier. In the second paragraph "Commemmoration" is only used once more other than the lead but it doesn't mean that what it is referring to (i.e. public displays of tributes to Elizabeth at many global landmarks) violates any undue-weight guidelines. I would also disagree that there is "a total lack of discussion" on further inspection. Under political responses in the 15 Commonwealth realms (which is the greatest possible scope of this subject in hand), there are 9 mentions about the monarchy and 3 of them are Prime Ministers (and 1 of them went as far to announce his intention to hold a referendum on it). Its reflect even better in real weight by virtue of there are only really 3 if not 2 types of political responses to the death 1) condolences 2) tributes and 3) talk about what it means for the system as a whole. IMO, there is more weight attributed to this than we have given many other things in the lead (one example being reactions within sport in the last sentence of the last paragraph). JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

That is putting the cart before the horse. I'm not convinced that the article should cover comments about the future of the monarchy, but let's say consensus turns out to be against me on that, and it should be covered. In that case, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY the article should be changed to add more information about reaction concerning the future of the monarchy. Only after that should this Rfc even be considered, and at that point the question for the lead would be: "Is coverage in the body of the article concerning the future of the monarchy one of the most important points about the article, and if so, should it be mentioned in the lead?" The whole question is highly premature at this point. Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree here. To clarify, I think the question is about "should the lead mention x content" based on the weight of content that already exists in the article. My point was that you are narrowing down what content was being summarised by the lead focusing more on the specific wording it is referring to (future of the monarchy) rather than the wider concept it is referring too. As is—perhaps not clearly—mentioned in the RfC summary, the most recent suggestions (of which there was multiple) both for and against are only included as examples to have something to go off, and you don't have to accept either one of them. This RfC could in the process establish a specific revision/wording but primarily it is about should there be any about the concept mentioned. You can swap and read the RfC header as "should it mention calls made towards republicanism" or whatever. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps it could've been worded differently. Since there are no other responses (yet), you could alter the wording if you wished to, without adversely affecting the !voting, and you wouldn't have to use the underscore/strikeout feature of WP:REDACT as I am aware, and could change or add to my response accordingly. Not requesting such a change, but it's an option open to you, if you want it. Mathglot (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes — I may rephrase it slightly now you mention the idea. I'll have a think. Thanks. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I may tweak the RfC summary but I don't think we need to alter your response tbh. These comments suffice. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You of course can obviously tweak your own response if you want to however. I have now modified the RfC. I don't want it to make your response look unfairly out of context as though you were barely paying attention when it is actually because you were responding to a different version altogether. Thanks again for giving me suggestions. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

That is, I don't think we disagree in terms of what we think the question we are analysing is*. Obviously, we do disagree about our answer (there is weight to justify inclusion vs there isn't weight it should not be mentioned). Just to be extra clear and pedantic. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, the lead does not summarize the important parts of the article without it. The impact on the legacy of the monarchy and commonwealth actually seems to get more coverage in top tier WP:RS than any other part of it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Comment—just letting you know that unfortunately, I was in the middle of modifying the RfC summary in order to achieve better clarity. This was in response to suggestions raised in the first response above. I am really sorry for causing you to spend more time on the same response but may I please ask that you re-read the RfC to ensure that you are happy with your current response and tweak as you need to any context has changed. Thanks, and my apologies! JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is just silly, we literally don't have the option of not covering it here... We can't come to a local consenus that overrides WP:NNPOV. We can discuss how much to over it, but "don't cover it" isn't a possible policy/guideline based option. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry—me not you—but can you just clarify for me what you are referring to when you say "we don't have the option of not covering it here"? JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  The discussions about the legacy and future of the monarchy across the commonwealth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, so I re-clarified the RfC to better explain what the actual dispute was in the first place. Not much has changed here just to make sure that people know it is not any specific wording/revision we are debating but whether there should be any type of wording/revision in the opening lead paragraph summarising how some reactions to death were about the concepts relating to republicanism/abolition. This includes anything similar so it still involves "the legacy and future of the monarchy across the commonwealth. The point is that these are all related and we are discussing its validity to appear in the lead, not a certain specific revision (although these will still be raised and discussed no doubt in addition). To reiterate, the choice is still yes or no. Yes it deserves some sort of mention (and if so we go from there once we have crossed that bridge) or No, their is no mention and the current status quo of the present article remains. Your answer still stands and still makes sense. For what it is worth I am also for Yes. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  I see what has happened here. You are referring to the last paragraph that has only recently had similar sentiment removed here. This RfC dispute is long before that about the opening paragraph. The content removal in the last paragraph was previously established. I was not aware this had happened and am surprised to see it removed. Separate to this, I would recommend reinserting it back and add a editor notice that if anyone wants to change it they should first wait until this (different but similar) discussion is closed and then take it from there. It would also be a good compromising placeholder to both camps in the meantime. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'll tag @Mathglot in this too as he is also involved. How about we do the above? Revert the last paragraph and withhold changing it whilst this RfC is answered on the opening paragraph. A good compromising placeholder for both camps in the meantime and we may end up killing two birds with one stone in the discussion that follows anyway. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, I tried to undo it, but the page is moving too fast and it "could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits"; someone will have to undo it by hand. Mathglot (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  There is no question whatever of "com[ing] to a local consensus that overrides WP:NNPOV". This RFC is about the lead, and the article lead is supposed to summarize and reflect what the body currently says. If the body of the article does not cover some relevant important point, perhaps that is simply because this is a volunteer project and no one has gotten around to it yet, and then the lead may not cover it. There's no deadline, and perhaps additional NPOV content will be added to the body. That's why you have to add the relevant information to the body first, and then summarize it in the lead. Guidelines such as WP:LEAD are not "silly", they are what we should be trying to follow. Nobody is saying its NPOV to add it to the article; it's a matter of sequence: detail in the body first, then summary in the lead. Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  It was well covered before, it is even better covered now. I think you're dealing with dated information, even when you did your original revert it was covered in detail in the "social media" section. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes–Under political figures in the 15 Commonwealth realms (which is the greatest possible scope of this subject in hand), there are 9 mentions of the monarchy and 3 of them are Prime Ministers (and 1 of them went as far to announce his intention to hold a referendum on it). It reflects even better in real weight by virtue of there are only really being 3 if not 2 types of political responses to the death 1) condolences 2) tributes and 3) talk about what it means for the system as a whole. In order to write a good opening lead paragraph that provides an overview of all the most notable reactions, there must be mention of number 3, which there isn't with the current status quo. It remains in complete without it. I propose that the opening paragraph reads "Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, died on 8 September 2022, at the age of 96, leading to reactions from around the world. In his first speech as King, Charles III thanked his "darling Mama" for her love and devotion to the family of nations she served. Politicians throughout the realms expressed their gratitude for her long public service and some reflected on the future of the monarchy now that she was gone. Political figures in the rest of the world also offered their condolences and tributes, as did members of royal families, religious leaders and other public figures. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment I have no opinion on whether this should be included but I have to say if this is included I strongly disagree with User:Anachronist's view that we should not distinguish between the commonwealth realms and the wider commonwealth. Politicians throughout the commonwealth have not reflected on the future of the monarchy, except perhaps the British monarch's role as the head of the commonwealth which is at best only by convention and generally considered at least partially distinct from their role as a monarch. (There have been wider questions over the future of the commonwealth too.) Let's remember most commonwealth countries are already republics; and for 5 of those which are not, the death of the queen is only of limited relevance to their monarchy. And many countries prefer limited interference in the politics of other countries so whether the monarchy should consider in other countries is not something they comment on a great deal, especially at a time like this. AFAIK, even in the Caribbean where countries may have close relations, most commonwealth countries that are not commonwealth realms have not used this time as an opportunity to suggest those that remain realms should abandon the monarchy nor for that matter have those that are realms commented on what the other realms should do. Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes (Summoned by bot) The lede should mention (as it does as of this writing) that the Queen's death prompted (renewed) discussion of the legacy of the monarchy and its status in Commonwealth realms. I see mentions of the subject in (at least) three sections/subsections: Public Figures->International; Social Media; and Political. Such discussion has been a significant part of the worldwide reaction, and that is the title of this article: "Reactions to the death..." DonFB (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, as I explained in the #Third opinion I offered above. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• No - it doesn’t earn lead prominence because it textually is tiny in the article and negligible in WP:WEIGHT of coverage. In content, it also seems somewhat OFFTOPIC. It is not a reaction to her death anyway so much as speculations about the future years from now and the history of polling about monarchy - not tied to her being alive or dead nor triggered by her death. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

British Royal Family; Extended Family Members Statements and tributes

Hello Everyone,enquiring if we can post statements and tributes from extended family members of the British Royal Family, and add sources to the statements. For example family members who are:

• The Queen's grandchildren-in-law(s); who are married to Queen's Granddaughter(s) or Grandson(s).
• The Queen's Nephew, Niece, Great-Nephews and Great-Nieces, Nephew-in-law,and Niece-in-law.
• The Queen's cousins and cousin-in-law.
• The Queen Grandchildren-in-law families members.
• The former family member of the British Royal Family, who was related to Royal Family by their former marriage, and also member of their person family.

Thank you for your help. 92.17.78.146 (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Moderate support. By virtue of us including foreign royalty, politicians in countries with no connection to the Queen, and all sorts of random public figures, I wouldn't remove any content reliably sourced about the extended British Royal Family. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Support. They are all members of the family. Maybe they can just be listed as bullet points and not as large quotes as the Queen's immediate family is. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion. Add a level three "Extended family" header below the immediate family and list them as bullet points. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you everyone, I have found a post and statement from "Extended Family" member from their official and verified social media account, will edit this to the main article of the British Royal Family if this ok in due course, edit the British Royal Family section article. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.78.146 (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: Cancellations, Postponements and Closures in the UK

Suggestion: Restructure the article and revert this section back as a subsection under organisations—>United Kingdom as it was previously instead of it being its own section.

Reason: 1) avoids confusion I noted in #Do not give a country or a group of countries (like Commonwealth realms) their own Level 2 section header 2) currently feels out of place compared to the overall structure/categorisation of the article where most sections are better clarified but more encapsulating 3) Organisations—>United Kingdom is fairly sparse and could do with the content being moved there JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Support for above reasons. I also think we need to cleanup the clunky, unnecessary wording. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, for obvious reasons. The UK is a special case, obviously. And Primark is not an organisation. A university making a statement is not the same as a shop closing. // Hippo43 (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment—Of course, and it is why the UK often has its own subsections within multiple sections of this article. I just think it makes the structure irregular and potentially confusing to have it as a standalone section. I also think businesses/corporations are widely considered organisations. A university making a statement is not the same as a shop closing and that's why previously they were still different subsections under the same section to represent that—likewise, people posting on Twitter is not the same as the BBC suspending its TV programming but yet they are under the same section in Media. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

categories

@JamesLewisBedford01: you've been adding things to the social media social media which aren't about social media and adding things which aren't about the responses of political figures to political figures. Why are you disregarding the categories? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

have you noted my edit summaries? tell me why you disagree with my reasoning? JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Please explain your reasoning as to why information which is not about social media belongs in the "social media" section and why information which is not about the responses of political figures belongs in a section about them, your edit summaries do not adequately do so. Also note WP:3RR which you have violated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Content moved was to eliminate duplication and provide it with a better home to the very things it is referring to. You mention in the talk page that these moves did not make sense but as per edit summaries, all this content suited the context of social media better than other political section that doesn’t define anything. The second section to this article was also “political” prior to it being changed somewhere by someone and there are "political" talking points in it that makes another "poltical" section needless. As per edit summaries, this content lacked any specific answer to Who? and instead treated things in a vague there was x response in a country (full stop). When breaking down the context of what it is this content was actually referring to I added it to the necessary section to improve its description.

For example, your content on the Mau Mau rebellion that had already been discussed in Social Media (using the same source that specifically talks about it trending). This change got rid of repetition in the article by removing the one that was a singular non-descriptive statement, and kept the one that was included in a wider paragraph about the general public’s response about the legacy of the British Empire in Commonwealth countries.

Another example was the criticism of India’s declaration of mourning which I moved from, again a standalone entry, to being underneath the political responses in India, in particular the already existing content about its announcement. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This is the problem, you apparently have no idea what any of these categories are for... Its not a category for political responses in India its a category for the responses of Political figures from India. Is English a second or third language for you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, to reiterate, `'the second section to this article was also “political” prior to it being changed somewhere by someone and there are "political" talking points in it that makes another "poltical" section needless." This section is about political responses not only with what already exists but what continues to be added, for example, in this (post—this talk page section) recent addition about "abolition the monarchy protests". If you read this section, the content is not only about political "figures", it is about political reactions to the death more generally. As mentioned above, there is no need for these redundant "new" sections, and you have still yet to provide me with a reason in the contrary except ask me whether English is a second or third language. I have a perfect understanding of what these categories are for and hence is exactly the point. English is my first and only language—not that any of this is relevant except for a cheap "I gotcha" point which adds nothing to the discussion. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Salvation Army

Question ... why was the reference to the Salvation Army removed from the Christian groups section? Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The better question to ask is why in the world it was ever there... Theres zero WP:DUEWEIGHT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to understand that unless there is a secondary source something should not be on that page, it is currently a trainwreck. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You cite that there isn't a secondary source - a great many entries on this page have only one source. What are you going to do - delete all of them too? The page will then become rather pointless. Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Lol, yes actually unless someone adds secondary sources. Thats how wikipedia works. Also note that it has nothing to do with the number of sources, even if there were a dozen primary sources it would still be a problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Taking a look at the page history they appear to have largely been added by a single IP with minimal experience [2] who didn't really understand how to edit wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Your comments are extremely condescending Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm also honest and knowledgable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

and perhaps like to put people down? Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you need to be put down or can you edit constructively? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Not a WP:RS

You understand that this source you added [3] is not a WP:RS, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

WP|IDONTLIKE ?

I seen Horse Eye's Back removed many sections in the article with weak reason like Not RS ? Some of sources are considered as reliable source. May i know what is your problem ? Taung Tan (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"Not RS" is one of the strongest possible reasons to remove something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry you cant everything you want on Wikipedia, Pls dont over actions! It's not fair. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

But I can do this... If you want to be mad at someone you can try tracking down the disruptive users who added the material in the first place and talking to them. No use yelling at the person working hard to clean up the mess, go yell at those who made it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, some refs you removed are reliable not primary. Taung Tan (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

If I removed reliable secondary sources that was in error. Can you point them out? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Orthodox Times

@Rhyddfrydol2: that looks like a secondary source to me[4]. Not sure about its reliability but I don't think it is primary as you claimed in your edit summary[5]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

so why is the Orthodox Times a secondary source and the website of a church not? Help to understand, without being condescending, please Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

So lets say you Rhyddfrydol2 are Bishop of Wikiland... If you issue a statement from your official website (bishopwiki.wi) thats a WP:PRIMARY source. If the Wikipedia Times publishes a story about the statement you put out on your website thats a WP:SECONDARY source. If someone makes entry on the wikipedia page for Bishop of Wikiland which was based on the article in the Wikipedia Times thats a WP:TERTIARY source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

so ... why is Churches Together in Cornwall still a primary source? Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

they published an article based on the entry on the Salvation Army's website - it makes it a Secondary Source surely? Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It is secondary, but it is not a WP:reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Their data privacy policy seems to accord with Wikipedia:NEWSORG Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

What in the world does data privacy have to do with WP:NEWSORG? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Reaction from India

The reaction to the death of the Queen from the President and Prime Minister of India was present in the article as of a couple of weeks ago, but it seems to have been removed now? Was it removed by accident? Anirudhgiri (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It was removed for lacking reliable secondary sources, if you can locate those you can add what they say to the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't speak for this particular content but I've indiscriminately checked three of your content removals on two separate occasions and for all of them I easily found reliable WP:RSPSS secondary sources mentioning the content. Likewise, I'd guess the reaction from the President and Prime Minister of the largest Commonwealth nation could be found. The prompt at the top of the article recommends editors fix the problem of its reliance on primary sources by finding secondary and tertiary sources. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Why haven't you added them then? If you think it should be in the article add a source, I didn't remove it as unsourced I removed it as undue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

For the [6][7][8] that I have checked, I have added them. As I said, I did not see what content was removed for India and "can't speak for it". You "removed [this one I didn't see] for lacking reliable secondary sources" and for the ones I did see you listed "unsourced" in some of those edit summaries as to why they were removed. My point was that—at least in the small sample I have experienced— you have identified a problem that you could have fixed yourself but instead just deleted. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You didn't put a link for the one you said I removed for lacking reliable secondary sources. Are you sure that wasn't a due weight removal? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? I linked all "three checks" that I reverted. I'll also linked your original versions too then. [9] is a revert of [10] with your edit summary "unsourced". [11] is a revert of [12] with your edit summary "half is unsourced and half is undue". [13] is a revert of [14] with your edit summary "undue without secondary".

I removed it as undue, not for lacking reliable secondary sources. That was only an indication of its status. As for the unsourced info about living people you are aware of the existence of WP:BLP, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Your quoted summaries are there for you to see and all the replies, no need to keep moving the goalposts. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Nothing about this conversation points to a lack of WP:BLP summary. Reliable secondary sources were added in responses to you citing the lack of them. My point is simply, Wikipedia:Do it yourself JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Apparently you do not actually understand BLP, if you did you would know "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and nowhere (point me if so) has that been contested. Again, for the third time rephrasing in a different way, my point is that you have jumped the gun on removing content when–at least in the small sample I have experienced, you could have easily corrected the "contentious material" instead. And by contentious, what we are referring to here is content with a lack of a reliable secondary source. As is the case for 80% of the article that we are in the process of fixing, as per template. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Also note the size of this article, we either need to split or downsize. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

No mention of the size of article in your initial reply or in referred to edit summaries, as per above. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Were you unaware of how large the page had become? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Very much aware. I believe the article to be too long especially the "political" section which is essentially the same repetitive "condolences" from every government leader. However, this was not the subject of this section or your response to it. On the article being too long, see my response on #US Governors for example. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You should work on that, good luck and happy trails! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Partially recognised states

@Horse Eye's Back: I have opened a discussion, even though WP:BRD suggests it is not my responsibility. Entities such as Northern Cyprus, Western Sahara and Somaliland should not be recorded as countries in the same manner that other countries are in this article. For example, does the recognition of Northern Cyprus by one other country constitute it as an official state? No, I don't think so. So I think it would be wise if we move them back to the "partially recognised states" section and move the rest under a "UN member states" section. Without doing so, this page may not look WP:NPOV. Also please don't say that I am "going to have a hard time arguing" this; that kind of sounded a bit WP:PASSIVEAGGRESSIVE. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

BRD is an optional process, it doesn't suggest that anyone has any responsibilities. These are all countries, we don't separate UN member states from non-UN member states. NPOV is about reflecting what the sources say, none of our sources separate the two so how can separating the two possibly be NPOV? Also note that most partially recognized states are also UN members, China for example. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Reactions varied

There were a lot of people who celebrated her death, like a lot of Irish people and Kenyans, I actually came here specifically for info on that and was surprised to see very little acknowledgment that people celebrated her death and mocked and hated her. Not everyone likes that, but it's factually what happened. Interesting to see history rewritten in real time. 2600:1008:B062:62D0:6127:A7AA:A4C3:B530 (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Republican Reactions

Hello. I think at least some of the republican reactions should be added. And the arrests, are not, as suggested above, "minor misconduct", as they provoked outrage, since in other countries they wouldn’t have been possible, or legal. There was a lot of talk after the death of Elizabeth to abolish the monarchy, and it got coverage. I don’t want to get involved myself since this is controversial, but it does need to be mentioned in a paragraphe, not in a list. Also, it seems like the British royal family is getting too many of these death-articles, compared to other monarchies (mainly Spain, but also Benelux and Scandinavia). This article is clearly notable, but surely not all death articles on the royal family in Britain are notable. Cheers, Encyclopédisme (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)