Talk:Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II at the Reference desk.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Death C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. project's importance scale.

Template:London Bridge task force

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jody Serrano (9 September 2022). "How Wikipedia's 'Deaditors' Sprang Into Action on Queen Elizabeth II's Page After Her Death". Gizmodo. However, editors didn't limit their work to the Queen's Wikipedia page. A six-membered task force deemed "WikiProject London Bridge" appeared and began to create and maintain new articles, "Death of Elizabeth II" and "Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II." Annie Rauwerda (9 September 2022). "Who the hell updated Queen Elizabeth II's Wikipedia page so quickly?". Input. On September 8, a new task force cropped up specifically for Operation London Bridge. Its official project page hit the internet just twenty minutes after Her Majesty's death was announced, and it monitors the articles Elizabeth II, Death of Elizabeth II, Operation London Bridge, Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II, and Charles III.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

For this section, does this refer to the

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Commemoration on Buildings

Minute of silence

Gan Salute

Flags on half mast

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.^[1]

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)[reply]

@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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• Oppose section per reasons given above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

• 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?^[1] Leaky.Solar (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Should we list the reactions of US Governors? ​

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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
• Sao Tome and Principe
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

@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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

... is now a DAB, rather curiously not pointing to any of the actual people allegedly describable by the term (most plausibly,

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I've been working for the past few days on a section on the impact of the death on UK television

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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".^[1]

• 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".^[2]

• 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".^[3]

• 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".^[4] 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.^[5]

• 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.^[3][6]

• 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.^[7]

• 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."^[8] 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.^[9]

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.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

RfC: Should the opening lead paragraph mention discourse around the future of the monarchy?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Seeking resolve to a dispute on whether the opening lead paragraph should mention discourse around the future of the monarchy. As a starting point to stimulate initial discussion—the most recent suggestion in favour is for it to read "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."—and in contrast the most recent suggestion against is the article's current revision that reads "The new king, Charles III, paid tribute to his "darling Mama" in a broadcast to the Commonweath the next day. Politicians throughout the Commonwealth paid tribute to the Queen, praising her long public service.". However, to reiterate, responses don't need to agree with any of the two suggestions in order to answer yes or no to the subject question — They have been mentioned only as a starting point to stimulate initial discussion. 17:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• No The
  WP:LEADPARAGRAPH. Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]