Jump to content

Talk:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valetude (talk | contribs) at 15:27, 22 September 2022 (→‎Lead Paragraph: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:London Bridge task force

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)[reply]

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

The Queue

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I've re-worded it, so that it clarifies that William is already Prince of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Or the Canadian. 69.171.101.60 (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
They do, but we don’t. Bondegezou (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

MOS:FLAG would favour removing them all. Bondegezou (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Surely we can find a better citation in that instance than a tweet. Bondegezou (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Sorry for the short question, but why? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_and_state_funeral_of_Elizabeth_II&oldid=1111726079"