Talk:Elizabeth II

RfC on popularity and support for the monarchy claims in the lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lead section sentence "However, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom has been and remains consistently high, as does her personal popularity." be changed to "In the United Kingdom, support for the monarchy remains high but has been declining in recent years. Elizabeth's personal popularity has been and remains consistently high."? (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

No sources have been provided to oppose this change nor have the sources I provided been refuted in any way. Three people are either indifferent to or open to changing the sentence, with 2 in some form of opposition.

The material in the article is outdated and an update to it is warranted. There've been no replies here in 3 1/2 days. I'm ending the RfC and applying the change to the lead, with citations. DeaconShotFire (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You don't get to close an RFC you started & then unilaterally make a ruling on it. You wait until the RFC tag expires on 22 August & then seek closure at the proper board. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Misread the last 2 rules on the RfC page. Let's have it run its course then. DeaconShotFire (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey

Note: RFC closer should see Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_44#Revert_image_change and six other threads on image below it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment While I would agree that the aging of the prior data is a concern, it does look like the most recent is from 2012 (at least according to the lead comment). If such exists, I think more than one more recent data source would be helpful. Has any other source collected more recent polling data on this subject? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/three-five-favour-britain-remaining-monarchy-although-support-falls-2012-peak-more-become-0 - This, by the way, is a more recent poll from one of the 2 sources currently cited in the article. This only furthers my point.

  https://www.itv.com/news/2022-06-01/poll-dramatic-decline-in-support-for-monarchy-in-decade-since-diamond-jubilee

  https://www.npr.org/2022/06/01/1102335388/queen-elizabeth-platinum-jubilee-great-britain-royal-family?t=1658523026450

  https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/platinum-jubilee-queen-half-britons-wont-celebrate-royal-family-out-of-touch-poll-1665587 DeaconShotFire (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, DeaconShotFire, I'll take a look at those. You will also need to reformat the RfC's introduction to something neutral (in this case, probably of the form "Should X be changed to Y?"). Currently, it argues for your position, which is not appropriate. If you want to argue for your position, do it in this section, not the RfC introduction itself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  Given the more recent polling data including falling support levels, I think some material regarding that change is appropriate (so long as it's contextualized appropriately; it looks like a majority still generally is in favor). I also do agree that material regarding the level of support for the British monarchy in general is appropriate in this article, as Elizabeth is the most visible symbol and essentially "face" of said monarchy and as such is inextricably linked to it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment (apologies for the editing mess) The article contains an editor's note citing polls conducted in 2006 and 2007, implying the sentence shouldn't be changed because of them. I argue these polls are extremely outdated and no longer reflective of reality. I sourced more recent YouGov polls in my edit which show a decline in support for the monarchy, but consistent popularity for the Queen herself. The sentence is even later directly contradicted by a more recent inclusion in the article: "Whilst not as universal as it once was, various polling suggested the popularity of the monarchy remained high in Great Britain during the Platinum Jubilee". Why is this article still citing polls conducted a decade and a half ago, when more recent data is so readily available, as evidenced by the latter quote?

  https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2022/06/01/platinum-jubilee-where-does-public-opinion-stand-m

  https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Queen_Elizabeth_II DeaconShotFire (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral - I've no concerns either way, if it's added or not. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• No: - the proposal just has not met WP:ONUS of providing cites showing any noted drop for Elizabeth II nor showing it WP:DUE mention, and the vague phrasing gives a false impression of significant shift and/or low approval. The NPR cite above gives her approval at 80%+ in 2022, Really this is not a vital thing as it's not like she is standing for election or that her rule is greatly affected by minor shifts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  A drop of approximately 10% in 10 years is not substantial? The phrasing also doesn't have to be set in stone. The sentence maintains that her personal popularity is high, while mentioning declining support for the institution of which she is the figurehead and most recognisable member. You haven't refuted any of the sources I provided suggesting that the information in the article is outdated. DeaconShotFire (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Definitely not any substantial change nor any impact. The minor variation over 30 years is not widely remarked upon like something of importance would be, nor did the trivial variations affect her life. The Diamond Jubilee 10 years ago did mark a minor peak -- but it is hardly significant as seen by there just was not much notice of it. It is not WP:DUE any remark, let alone wandering off into offtopic remarks not about Elizabeth II. Look at the chart in Ipsos and it is just 30 years of not much change and no importance. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  If it's got nothing to do with her then surely we should remove any mention of the monarchy as a whole from the article. Clearly that's an absurd idea because it's entirely relevant to her.

  "The Diamond Jubilee 10 years ago did mark a minor peak -- but it is hardly significant as seen by there just was not much notice of it." - No source to back this up I guess, ignoring the 5 that I've posted above countering exactly that statement.

  "It is not WP:DUE any remark, let alone wandering off into offtopic remarks not about Elizabeth II. Look at the chart in Ipsos and it is just 30 years of not much change and no importance." Again -- no explanation for why you think this is unimportant. Not that whether you think it's important is relevant; I'm alleging that the information in the article is outdated -- and you claim that new data conducted by Ipsos and YouGov is not important enough to include, therefore we should leave the article as is? DeaconShotFire (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, I can explain again. Yes, leave it alone or removal would be fine, and the support for monarchy just is phrased separately from her and is not a big debate so trimming that out would also be fine. The proposed statements are not fine. In 70 years it seems approval rating is proven insignificant by having no major variations, no effects, and no major coverage. One could even add the 2022 links to the existing text as there just is not much going on here.

  I did not ignore the 5 cites shown, but observe that the Diamond Jubilee was a minor peak and the rating simply returned to the norm shown in the 30 year chart, so a statement summarising that solely about the minor decline is a misleading distortion of that material and an incorrect implication of cause. I again note it all seems an UNDUE issue because 5 cites out of tens or hundreds of thousands of Diamond Jubilee links available just is microscopic. Approval rating in her case just has not been anything of great change or impact or public coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support - the proposed wording regarding the monarchy ("remains high but has been declining in recent years") appears accurate, brief and well supported by the sources DeaconShotFire points to at the top of this survey. The sources explicitly describe this shift as being a significant feature of/challenge within Elizabeth's reign, evidence of due weight. I agree the current wording regarding the monarchy generally ("has been and remains consistently high") is poorly supported, likely outdated and contradicts the sources raised above, while being a better reflection of Elizabeth's personal popularity. Jr8825 • Talk 10:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• No. I don't think the new wording is right. The article text says the popularity was lowest in 1997, which is believable and cited. Popularity was high before then, it then sank to a low point in the late 1990s, it then rose again. This new sentence doesn't appear to reflect that. Even at the low point, support for the monarchy was still far higher than for republicanism. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Polls are open to so much interpretation, from the questions to the results, that it's best to leave them out of an encyclopedia, unless maybe it's an indepth analysis considering many polls and poll results over many years. It certainly shouldn't be in a lede. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment* If anything, the statement should at least be cleaned up to remove a few redundancies. "However, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom has been and remains consistently high, as does her personal popularity." Kerdooskis (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, If you look at Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom#Opinion_polling, support dropped in 2019 after the Andrew episode and has since been fairly stable at a lower (but still quite high) level. As such, saying it's "declining" does seem inaccurate.--Llewee (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, I've debated on this sentence before, and at the time we ended up not changing it. This was in mid-to-late May this year. I added 2 opinion polls to the article from 2020-2022 and that meant that the sentence could be kept intact. This issue has been thoroughly discussed very recently, and AFAIK there has been no major change in the popularity of the monarchy. I see no reason as to why it should be changed now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: I would suggest editing that statement to "However, she remains a consistently popular monarch", or something similar (with appropriate citation), and removing all reference to the popularity of the monarchy itself. The popularity of the monarchy is actually a concept quite separate to the popularity of Elizabeth as a monarch. Many of the things that have influenced the popularity of the monarchy (Prince Andrew, for example) haven't really involved Elizabeth directly. This would, happily, spare us the obligation of assessing whether the British Public are currently royalists or republicans. Elemimele (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  I would argue she is more or less the embodiment of the monarchy. Plus, not everything in the article is directly or has to be directly exclusively about her. The article goes on to talk about increased criticism of the royal family as a whole in the 1980s, and states that Elizabeth's own personal popularity is credited with Australia voting in 1999 to keep their monarchy. DeaconShotFire (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  Her personal popularity is inevitably linked to the popularity of the monarchy itself. From what I can tell, Elizabeth seems to be consistently popular, unlike some of the royals. I don't see any good reason to change the language in the fourth paragraph. Векочел (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  "Her personal popularity is inevitably linked to the popularity of the monarchy itself." This is a sentence that argues for my side. If they're linked, it should be mentioned.

  You also haven't refuted the evidence I've posted above that the information in the article is outdated. DeaconShotFire (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Please let the RFC run its full 30-day course. Then seek closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests, when the RFC tag expires. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Constant image swapping

This is a Featured article that has been constantly tended since its promotion, and yet every editor who wanders by seems to feel the need to insert or swap an image. Please discuss and gain consensus for image changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I find the current image appropriate for the subject as a historical subject of an encyclopedia biography. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Recommend page protection, until/if a consensus is reached on a 'new' infobox image. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not talking about the infobox, which is the subject of an RFC (above at #Infobox photograph for after her death) ... I'm referring to the other seemingly random and ongoing image changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

What SandyGeorgia said. And a reminder to editors who wander by that edit warring may lead to blocks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

They should. Keivan.f I am unconcerned to know your reason; I am concerned about the nonchalance with which people are changing images here without discussion, and the edit warring. You were reverted once, and you reinstated without discussion. Not a good thing-- particularly not on an FA. Discuss image changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Keep it at the original image prior to all this flip flopping until consensus is reached. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Repeating post above: I am not talking about the infobox, which is the subject of an RFC (above at #Infobox photograph for after her death) ... I'm referring to the other seemingly random and ongoing image changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

To experienced Wikipedians: please understand that when current events impact a high-profile article like this, we draw a lot of attention from new and newish editors. Please view their (possibly misguided) efforts to improve the article in a good light. This is precisely the type of editor that does not read talk pages, and especially not huge ones like this. So, no, I don't agree with the stance I feel is implied here: "these people should know better". Instead we ought to live with these edits (which aren't exactly edit wars) and simply bear it until the interest dies down. The takeaway is: editors need to feel welcomed when they first contribute to Wikipedia. Being told your photo is unwanted and that you should have scoured complicated and, frankly, intimidating-looking "talk" pages is NOT the way to handle new traffic.

Something to keep in mind the next time you (yes you the experienced Wiki veteran) feel frustration over constant and seemingly random changes back and forth over your favorite article. Thank you for reading and best wishes, CapnZapp (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Elizabeth II is what every editor sees when they press the edit button for this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the current image is silly. Everybody in Britain thinks of Queen Elizabeth firstly as she appeared in the latter decades of her life. That is the image of her that immediately comes to mind when one thinks of the late queen in this country. To suddenly change the picture, as soon as she's died, to one of her from the 1950s, appearing to very quickly make her nothing more than a historical character, for which we can now pick a photo from any period, seems totally disrespectful both to Her Late Majesty and to the British people who are reading this.

Pictures of the younger Queen can, of course, appear throughout the article, but the main picture should be of the Queen we all knew and recognised in recent decades. Alan162 (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Article quality

It's not really at FA level is it? Samples:

• "Elizabeth's solicitors had taken action against The Sun five years earlier for breach of copyright, after it published a photograph of her daughter-in-law the Duchess of York and her granddaughter Princess Beatrice. The case was solved with an out-of-court settlement that ordered the newspaper to pay $180,000." Why would they pay in dollars? John (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• "The number of her realms varied over time as territories gained independence and some realms became republics." "Varied", or decreased? John (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with the overall topic here but this sentence is fine and "varied" is correct. I think you are misreading "gained independence" as independent from the monarch. The number went up when British colonies "gained independence" to become sovereign states of which Elizabeth II then became monarch. The number went down when these sovereign states "became republics". For example, the non-sovereign territory of British Kenya gained independence in 1963 to become the The Dominion of Kenya with Elizabeth as Queen of Kenya (so the number went up by 1). Within a year they abolished the monarchy and became the Republic of Kenya which removed Elizabeth as head of state (so the number went down). JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Varied. DrKay (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The lead is usually a summary of the article. Which part of the article does this summarise? John (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Acceleration of decolonisation and Continuing evolution, plus the succession boxes and incidental mentions (e.g Fiji and Mauritius) in later sections. DrKay (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

There's been 6k+ edits since it became an FA. I guess it's par for the course for a decade old FA. DeCausa (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It isn't great that in order to access the information this supposed factoid summarises, we have to click a "show" button in the infobox, then Ctrl-F for Fiji and Mauritius. It would be nice (perhaps after the fuss around her death has died down) to rewrite this article as a proper biographical FA. John (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

On reading the article again, it seems that the number of countries listing Elizabeth as their head of state increased, but both the area and number of people living in them decreased over time. What would be wrong with just stating that, since it's the truth? If I take a cake off you, cut it into four pieces, eat two of them, then hand you back two pieces, and justify it by pointing out you now have twice as many pieces of cake as you started with, anybody over the age of one is going to feel cheated. That's what this article currently does, and it's dishonest. John (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe the hidden text in the infobox is a MOS breach, and (yet again) an artefact of ridiculous infobox parameters (just because the parameter is provided doesn't mean we have to use it), If that hidden infobox info is still in the article when/if it comes to FAR, I'll be listing that as a deficiency. Remove it to the body of the article; that level of detail in an infobox is one of the many absurdities that infoboxes impose on us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• The current state of the article does not support the FA rating. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Guess an excuse was needed to put it on the front page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.43.60 (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Throughout her lifetime, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom remained consistently high, as did her personal popularity." The first point is contradicted by the sources, which describe support for the monarchy declining over time. For example this source gives a decline from 73% to 62% over the period 2012-2022. That isn't "remaining consistently high", that's "declining fairly rapidly".

• "Intense media interest in the opinions and private lives of the royal family during the 1980s led to a series of sensational stories in the press, not all of which were entirely true." Sounds a bit weaselly: most of us know that the press makes both mistakes and deliberate errors. Are there more specific examples?

• "In the broadcast, she expressed admiration for Diana and her feelings "as a grandmother" for the two princes. As a result, much of the public hostility evaporated." I'd like to see more evidence of that. What does "much of" mean? It's fairly easy to find sources that contradict this view, so it certainly shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice.

• "While touring Manchester as part of her Jubilee celebrations, Elizabeth made a surprise appearance at a wedding party at Manchester Town Hall, which then made international headlines." Given what she did for a living, almost everything she did would generate headlines. What was so special about this?

• "While not as universal as it once was, various polling suggested the popularity of the monarchy remained high in Great Britain during the Platinum Jubilee." Hmm. Is that straining to say that the royals lost popularity over time, without actually saying so?
• Why is the mention of her "voluntarily" paying tax not under "Finances"?
• We skate across the awkwardness of her second son paying out a millions-of-pounds settlement to a woman he claims he never met; yet we omit to mention that she paid at least some of the settlement for him? Why's that?

• No mention of The Crown or The Queen, both highly respected dramatisations of her life? That's a bit strange.

There's a good article to be written about this subject, and the sources are certainly there to do so. But this isn't it, yet. John (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You're kinda late. It's already on the Main Page, as an FA. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that. It's lucky that there is no deadline, and that WP:FAR is there if we need it. John (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I was just looking at the version that was promoted, and at the relevant FAC. I see at least a couple of the points I made above were made there, but seemingly not actioned. I also see how much better the article was then. I agree with DeCausa above that this can happen to a well-edited FA over time, that it can degenerate in quality. I'll give it a week three weeks here and if there is no progress we can consider FAR. John (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd leave the bit about the UK & the commonwealth realms alone. As for most of the rest, my impression is that your observation is that the bio was written with a pro-monarchist PoV. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

John the instructions at WP:FAR call for two to three weeks between notice and FAR (have you listed this at WP:FARGIVEN ?), but in this case, I'd argue that three to four weeks would be better, because the article has been so heavily hit since Elizabeth died, and cleaning it up will be hard with the traffic as high as it is. I was struggling for several days to keep up with the bad edits, and gave up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I have listed it there. John (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the FA-rating is an especially useful framing device for discussion of this range of topics, and maybe they'd be better factored out. But whatever works for people. I'd recommend we don't immediately go off to FAR, but proceed on the basis of revising the article in the light of recent events, and if we can fix some longer-standing issues in the process, then all to the good. Once it's stabilised might be a better time to address the rating issue; no deadline, indeed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I've amended my timescale in light of Sandy's advice above. There is no way an article as weak as this should be represented as our best work. My preferred option would be restoring it to FA quality. If the prospect of losing the bronze star motivates anyone to start fixing some of the problems I've outlined above, well and good. Some responses would be a good first step. Why are we pretending that the size of her "realms" varied over time, when in fact it shrank? Why are we pretending the royal family is as popular as ever, when in reality it has lost popularity over time? John (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, you claim that the numbers of realms has reduced, a claim which you appear to be repeating. There were seven at the start. There were fifteen at the end. Obviously, not a decrease. I suspect that you have confused political realms with territorial area. While it is useful to know that ill-informed people mistake the two, we can't say that the number of realms decreased when that's obviously wrong. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that might be the justification for this. I'll repeat the wording from my 14:56 post, so we are really clear: "Why are we pretending that the size of her "realms" varied over time, when in fact it shrank?" The size of her "realms" shrank greatly over time, as countries gained independence and became republics. That's an honest way of putting it, isn't it? That would be a great start. It was brought up at the FAC ten years ago too, but not actioned. I couldn't put the dishonesty of the current version better than the late, great Brianboulton did over 10 years ago. That this was not actioned is a shame. Better late than never, eh? John (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't say 'size'. It says 'number'. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That's correct. But this is a dishonest and misleading claim which will lead most readers to think it means the extent or size has increased, when in fact the contrary is true. This will be confusing to the general reader (not merely the "ill-informed"), especially when the specialist word "realm" is used, and this was pointed out over ten years ago but not actioned. Let's action it now, shall we? John (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think it's dishonest, and even if I were to, I'd attempt to proceed otherwise in the interests of constructive discussion. I agree it's not ideal or at all clear, but I think that's because of the difficulty of summing up Empire -> Commonwealth v1 -> Commonwealth v2, in a sporadic case-by-case manner over seventy years, in succinct manner. And because editors of such topics love to use the "correct, official" terminology, regardless of their helpfulness to the general reader -- hence we have the word "accede" being double-digits times on a single royal article, as if that were a stylistically reasonable choice. I do think this needs a little more context to make clear that the "gain" of realms was due to countries becoming independent, having previously been colonies and dependencies, and the "loss" is due to them becoming republics. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you say, 109.255.211.6. In terms of AGF, I should clarify that I am not accusing any individual editors of dishonesty; perhaps unconscious bias towards the subject of the article has played a part? But I don't care to analyse the motivations for keeping the article as it is for such a long time, as I am more focussed on how to fix it. John (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Many of these criticisms are nit-picky—and I'm not saying that they're not germane (nit-picks are an important part of the FA criteria!), but they're sort of missing the forest for the trees. Given that she just died and scholarship is likely to shift substantially in the next few years, I'm not sure what the benefit of an FAR at this exact point, weeks after her death, is going to be, versus workshopping stuff on the talk page and inviting interested parties/wikiprojects. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Point taken, User:David Fuchs. (I don't agree that claiming/implying the opposite of what the sources say on two important things about the subject's life is "nitpicky", but there you go.) In suggesting FAR as the next logical step, I was influenced by reading this talk page and observing that ~50% of the discussion is about images, one of the least important things in an article, and also by reading the section #RfC on popularity and support for the monarchy claims in the lead above, where one of my points was raised in July, with no consensus to improve the article, in spite of how obvious it was even ten years ago to reviewers. But as I've said, I don't really care how it is done, and I accept it might take a while, but I do think (as always) it is more of an honour to the subject of an article to present a truthful and well-balanced account of their life, than one which looks like it was written by their fans. This happens to coincide with 1b, c and d of the criteria for FA, so I thought that might be a useful frame for improvement. I would prefer to see change arise organically from the article's usual writers than to give the impression of imposing it from outside. If there is even a start at meaningful improvements prior to 11 October, there will be no need for an FAR. John (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree it's a little peacockish and royal-wonkish in general. This is for somewhat understandable reasons in the circumstances, and as a practical matter you might struggle to get timely relief, either by a wholesale change of tone, or getting it off the "recently featured" bar. As is often the case for articles in a particular niche, it attracts editors who are on the one hand sympathetic to the subject, and on the other, are keen to use the "correct" terminology for things, as opposed to that most helpful to the general reader. On both counts, this is exactly why we're instead supposed to follow the sources. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

John, I was influenced by reading this talk page and observing that ~50% of the discussion is about images, is precisely the problem that made me give up. Focusing on substantive issues re WP:WIAFA is probably not going to be possible until the traffic subsides. Wikipedia never ceases to amaze, and I'm personally shocked and dismayed at the volume of this talk page that has been consumed by repetitive posts about images ... at one point (now archived) there were seven different image threads, and we seem to be headed back that direction. We'll be in better shape to address issues here once traffic subsides. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that's exactly right. It won't be back on the front page for the foreseeable future, so the deadline pressure is negligible, even by usual standards for there not being such. The image-chat is rather bizarrely intense, but short of giving them their own talk page (or vice versa), then yes, just ride it out, and likewise any other recentist-related issues. I don't think that precludes us from leaf-by-niggling other matters, but as I said above, I'd strongly suggest splitting them up topically. If we try to have an FAR-style "500 Things I Hate About This Being a FA" section, it'll get very unwieldy. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I've been trying to focus on keeping the talk page size manageable by archiving where possible, so we can see what's left, and thankfully, both Guerillero and Wehwalt have been helping out on that front by closing off done items. I suspect in another week it will be easier to proceed with the real improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

For some reason, it has become common for articles about people to near immediately change the infobox image after the death of a person. Personally, I only somewhat understand it, but that has been the trend. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Place of death and birth consitancy

The infobox rows for the place and birth are currently inconistant, as the place of death row includes the country in the UK, in which it occoured (Scotland), however, this is not the case for the place of birth row, which does not.

Is there any objection to me changing the place of birth to the folowing:-

Mayfair, London, England, United Kingdom Csharpmar (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Mayfair, London is all thats needed. That's why we have wikilinks. Is anyone in doubt where London is? We don't want even more unnecessary descriptors. DeCausa (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Should the Scotland from the place of birth be removed then? Most people wouldn’t be in any doubt that Aberdeenshire is in Scotland. It seems odd that the individual country of the UK is needed in one case, but not the other. Csharpmar (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

See #Should we list Scotland in place of death field of infobox? above. Consistency is hard to achieve in this area. I agree though, for what it's worth, that the article should be internally consistent. John (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I think there's less of a case for adding "England" here as London's a global city and not in especially urgent need of contextualisation, and because (at the risk of a degree of WP:RECENTISM) the subject's place of birth is of less notability, as measured in what's currently reliably sourceable. We don't need strict consistency across the entire article, as that would lead to maniacal repetition, but if a parallel construction is required for the purposes of the infobox, that's somewhat reasonable. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Well there seems to be a concensus, that they should be consistant within the infoxbox. Per #Should we list Scotland in place of death field of infobox?, it is probably best to place England in the place of birth row, as the best means to achieve this. Csharpmar (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There's inconsistencies on this matter, across many royal bios. Maybe we're better off, leaving out England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. Thus removing the 'problem'. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Update - I've removed "United Kingdom" from the infoboxes of William IV's & Charles III's infoboxes, to bring them into line with Elizabeth II's infobox. Recommend we have an RFC on this topic, though. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Undiscussed removal of ancestry table sections by user

@Surtsicna: I'm not sure where you got the idea that this ancestry table to this degree of ancestry is recent to the point of the last few weeks, should not be deleted without being discussed here first, simply to support your argument for removing it from the page of Charles III. The ancestry table on this page has remained like this for many years at this point, and needs discussion before hasty deletions simply to support your viewpoints on other pages AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

"Many years" is quite a stretch given that it was added last year. No Oswald Smith needs to be mentioned here. This is a general biography, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. Surtsicna (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Summary - (the degree of ancestry has been there for many years before its brief removal last year in fact) instead of cherrypicked individuals, the people on the previous chart were not insignificant, its hardly a scroll of their entire genealogy and would be of interest to readers in my opinion. This is the entire point of the collapsable ancestry table. Will wait for other opinions in case of starting edit wars on the other page, as I fear it may lead to otherwise AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I am 100% in favor of continuing to include the ancestry chart. It's notable information for a person who derived their office from their ancestry, and we have oodles of RS indicating that this is notable information. Duh. Please note the text from WP:NOTGENEALOGY: "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." in this case, the notable topic is the fact that this person was a literal queen of a country that uses a birthright system to determine who sits on the throne. This is a real no-brainer. Joe (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Her descent from an Oswald Smith is of no relevance to her accession to the British throne. Surtsicna (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Surtsicna The ancestry section doesn't even go back far enough to include Oswald Smith. Oswald Smith is also only one of the many ancestors of the late Queen—along with more relevant people like Elizabeth Lyon, a possible child of James VII; the Duke of Portland, Prime Minister for roughly four years; and Richard Wellesley, Foreign Secretary and sibling to the Duke of Wellington. Allowing users an easy way to find out these ancestral connections is plenty enough reason to keep the ancestry section. Yo.dazo (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It does not indeed go back that far, nor should it. If some of the numerous biographies of Elizabeth mention these people as her ancestors, we can do so too. If, as I suspect, they do not, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide readers with genealogy deemed interesting by one editor or another. Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll only support the usage of a (vertical) family tree, limited to the 'monarch', her parents & grandparents. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Protection level

Just, FYI, I've lowered the protection level from "Require extended confirmed access" to the next-click-down "Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access." It had been rightly-elevated 8 September 2022 amid the frenzy. This is the same level currently held by the Charles III article. This isn't an inherently controversial article (see, e.g., Israel-Palestine) that would be the subject of permanent edit wars. It will, of course, be the sad victim of glory-seeking vandalism, but that's what the milder protection is for. —GoldRingChip 13:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

GoldRingChip I'm wondering if you might have waited until the article is off the main page (one more day)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Perhaps you're right‽ I hope our diligence will suffice. —GoldRingChip 14:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

GoldRingChip It's been hard to keep up with, so maybe just keep an eye on it for the next few days, in case it needs to go back up ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Yes, ok. —GoldRingChip 14:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

One autoconfirmed series of edits discussed below (#Multiple issues). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Multiple issues

There are multiple issues in this series of edits by User:Hieliz., but as Neveselbert has made extensive citation changes after these edits were made, reverting will now be difficult, and they'll need to be manually adjusted.

• recorded -> verified, not an improvement
• Why do we need her burial place in the lead?
• First (new) sentence in Early life Death has grammatical error and wayward space.
• Why was a citation removed?

A revert of the entire series of edits would be in order, but can't do that now because of considerable citation changes (it would so nice if folks would hold off on that until traffic here subsides-- the article will be off the main page in a day, and more settled within a few days). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I've reverted the changes to the lead. As for my edits, I assumed with the funeral having taken place that traffic would have subsided somewhat; I didn't realise the article remains on the main page. I'll hold off any more reformatting until it's off. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thx, Neveselbert; not only is it still on the main page, but see the thread just above this one ... the protection was lowered so we may get (did get) edits from editors who might not be familiar with WP:WIAFA and WP:FAOWN. Thx for understanding :) We may still need to repair the other items I raised ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I think all of this is repaired now, except the time of burial ... I can't find it in the source, and don't know why it was changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Do readers really need to know the exact time of burial? GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Neveselbert I was going to suggest holding off on tweaks until the pageviews drop back to a manageable (historical) range, but I see the pageview tool glitched yesterday, and we didn't get numbers;[1] I hope whatever it was is fixed for tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep an eye on the tool over the next few days. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Changes to “Longest female monarch”

Hi guys, I changed the part about the female monarch, but if it isn’t good you can change it. Hieliz. (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

We already have that her's was the longest British reign & the second longest reign in World history. That's enough. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hieliz. you have now introduced, and been reverted, the same change three times. That's WP:EDITWARring. If you do it again, you could be blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

1. 22:29 21 Sept
2. 19:19 22 Sept
3. 19:24 22 Sept

And you did this edit warring even after discussion at #Multiple issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Change the Death section?

I think the death section should be changed, starting with “Elizabeth died on 8 September 2022 at Balmoral Castle at the age of 96.” and then say the things that happened earlier and keep the rest. Hieliz. (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Also it’s okay if not. Hieliz. (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Almost any reader will know that Elizabeth is dead, and that is stated in the lead. We don't need to redundantly repeat something that is already in the article at this stage, and will again be repeated at the bottom of the same section. Thanks for discussing first, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

That sounds logical, EXCEPT the lede is meant to summarise the (remainder of the) article proper. There should never be anything in the lede that isn't covered in greater detail below. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the "age of 96" part should be in the body, since it's also in the lead and the infobox, but as Sandy says, that doesn't mean we have to add a whole new sentence at the top of that section, just inserting the age below would be sufficient.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Correct. (I had missed that the age part was not in the body.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The portrait

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think it is wise to reinstate the picture of the Queen taken in her later reign and used by Wikipedia until her death. 40.138.165.55 (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Can these be hatted please? We do not need a new section every time someone wants to voice an opinion on a matter recently discussed and decided. Surtsicna (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is suffering from "change the portrait" fatigue. Perhaps a six-month moratorium would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Female soverign

I think Elizabeth should be more recognized as the “longest verifiable reign of any female sovereign in history”, because not only she’s the second longest, she’s the longest female sovereign (verifiable). if this isn’t agreeable, feel free to change it Hieliz. (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Protection Status

This article is currently protected on the grounds that it is a biography of a living person.

As this person is now dead, if its protected status is to remain then the cause for that status must be changed.

1.126.111.213 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The WP:BLP policy also applies to those who are recently deceased, as well as the living, and as a high-profile individual whose family members are also prominent, I imagine Elizabeth II would be covered by that for a few months.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Birth place in infobox

Elizabeth was born at 17 Bruton Street in Mayfair, London. Should this be in the Infobox? Balmoral Castle is listed under |death_place=, and that's as specific as saying 17 Bruton Street. So, if we can't have the house in |birth_place=, shouldn't we remove the castle from |death_place=? Strugglehouse (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we can safely say she died at Balmoral Castle, without needing to list in the infobox the exact street address where she was born. Since the castle is several miles from any village, we would be wrong to simply say "Ballater" for example. The Bruton Street address is within Mayfair.Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't recall ever seeing a street address in the infobox for birthplace; it's usually a city, and a well-known castle plus the city is more than enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia Most exact street addresses of birth aren't known so aren't listed. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia I've seen exact hospitals written as birthplace. Isn't this similar? Strugglehouse (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Give me an example to understand why that was done ? The issue here is not that we know the exact address, but that we don't need that level of detail in the infobox; it's in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The Balmoral estate is about 50,000 acres, so it's a fair bit less specific than a townhouse address. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

She died at the castle and that's what we say. Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

My point is that it's hard to be any less specific -- than a place which while notionally a single address, is actually several squares miles of countryside -- without being silly about it. "Ballater and Crathie Community Council"? "Somewhere in rural Aberdeenshire"? Doesn't even pass through the Gate of Things You'd Say in a Sentence, never mind what's sourceable. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it should just be Hakkasan, Mayfair.[2] DeCausa (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as we're not going to use "United Kingdom"? I've made changes to the infoboxes at William IV & Charles III, although (for consistency sake), I recommend an RFC on this "place of birth, place of death" topic. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: religion

Should the infobox for this article mention the subject's religion? Whether as "Protestant" or as "Church of England". As the article body notes, she had to be 'officially' Anglican (as ), and in addition to this made any number of references to her beliefs. Several other 'British royals' articles do mention it there, presumably for reasons relating to the succession act. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

No. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Cause of death

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just seen the death certificate if it’s even real declaring HM passing was deemed “old age” 2A02:C7F:5C30:4200:BC4C:F9D6:EBE2:707A (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed: https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//images/entry-in-the-register-of-deaths-hm-the-queen.jpg. Time for another argument over whether her surname is Windsor? (It is.) Celia Homeford (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No. We already had an RFC on that & the result was - not to show Windsor in the intro or the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"Old age" is an accepted cause of death in Scotland. The appropriate citation is the National Register of Scotland, as above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S C Cheese (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Better to use a reliable secondary source. Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Earlier today I twice attempted to add https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//images/entry-in-the-register-of-deaths-hm-the-queen.jpg as a citation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_II&action=history) but each time it didn't appear. Now I see it after 15:10 BST, where I tried to insert it, with my author wording. Was there a delay in its appearance? Mcljlm (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

1 The citation was deleted at 11:18, just over an hour after my previous reply, by User:Amakuru. Considering it's the official source on which all other reports are based isn't it worth including? Mcljlm (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You added the citation twice. First, you added it here. You added it a second time here. Note in the second diff, the first citation you added was still there. Please also notice that both times, you added the citation at the beginning of the paragraph, which is not a typical place to place a citation. Keivan.f removed the duplicate citation not long after and moved the remaining citation to the statement regarding the Queen's cause of death. Maybe you didn't see the citations when you first added it because you didn't realize you were adding it to the beginning of the paragraph?

In any case, Amakuru's removal of the citation seems OK to me--there's already a secondary source (BBC) that supports the Queen's time of death, and a copy of the certificate is embedded in the article. Having both in the article seems duplicative. Aoi (青い) (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Since it was intended to follow 15:10 BST I must have clicked the beginning of the paragraph as well as the intended position where it did appear eventually. If so I don't understand how I did that twice. Your "Maybe you didn't see the citations ... because you didn't realize" is exact.

Since the BBC article is based on https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//images/entry-in-the-register-of-deaths-hm-the-queen.jpg isn't that preferable to the BBC article User:Amakuru? Mcljlm (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Meh. I understand your point, but I prefer the BBC source because 1) it provides context beyond the raw document, and 2) it is an article and thus is more accessible to those with disabilities than a JPEG, which, if i understand correctly, can't be parsed by screen readers. Aoi (青い) (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

We should be very careful to be objective, considering both reliable sources and not to be manipulated by the Palace. "Old age" may be listed on the death certificate, which is considered a "reliable source" so it ok for Wikipedia. However, we must realize that it is not a clinical term. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8651340/ What likely happened is that the Queen had a stroke or heart arrhythmia and, having the philosophy of "it's better to be healthy or dead" and not wanting to be wheelchair bound like the Queen Mother (who took great pains not to be photographed in a wheelchair, even reported on Wikipedia), she and/or the Princess Royal, decided to be a Do Not Resuscitate or Do Not Treat. The doctors could have thought it was very likely a stroke but since the Queen may not have wanted to go to the hospital for a CT scan, a stroke couldn't be proven without an autopsy.

If you read the link, you may come to realize that people don't die of "old age". When old, then may suffer a heart arrythmia causing death or maybe suffer a pulmonary embolism. Even saying "she died of a broken heart" is not clinical. What may be clinical is that severe situational depression, like a death of a spouse, can lead to irregular heart beats (arrythmias) and, coupled with old age heart block, can result in death.

I know people in Wikipedia will say "you have no proof of the above" but we don't need proof. We're not making an edit saying the Queen had a stroke. Rather, by analyzing the situation, we can be aware not to be a stooge or mouthpiece of the Palace. Since we can suspect the clinical cause of death is not "old age", we can write in WP something that reflects the truth AND doesn't contradict the Palace. That something could be along the lines of the death certificate listing "old age" and a time of death of 16:51 BST. CandyStalnak (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

What nonsense. She was 96. She obviously died of old age. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the link? Saying "she obviously died of old age" or "she died of old age" shows lack of understanding. I know it's a British thing to say people died of "old age" or "natural causes", but that is vague, imprecise, and inaccurate clinically. I know the Palace wants privacy so it got what it wanted, i.e. a vague term used. Also, look at the Duke of Edinburgh who lived nearly 5 years longer. You can also say a 85 year old died of old age but if that were the Queen, it would have been murder at age 85.

CandyStalnak (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Calling me 'dum' is in no way comparable to calling your comment 'nonsense'. How can you possibly accuse me of incivility when you reply in the same vein or worse? Celia Homeford (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

False accusation. Someone else called you "dum" (someone who cannot spell or speel correctly). CandyStalnak (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a rather pointless argument. Obviously "old age" isn't an actual biological cause of death, there must be something more immediate like a heart attack or organ failure or whatever. But then again, we don't have any other info on this than what the sources give us, often it's not even verified what happened for very old people. And Candy's analysis above looks a lot like original research. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The appropriate wording will carry the meaning that the death certificate gave the cause of death as "Old age". This is an acceptable cause in Scotland. If any other information on the cause becomes available it should be added with its provenance. S C Cheese (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it's NOT original research. Original research is when you edit the article that way. What it is called is "thinking" and "not being a stooge to propaganda". Think what is the true story and don't be a mouthpiece of the press release. Instead, strike a balance between the two, truth versus the press release. What that practically means in NOT citing the cause of death as "old age" but citing that the death certificate lists "old age" (without mention of cause).CandyStalnak (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of free discussion -- and on thinking -- but when your defence is 'I didn't actually add my OR to the article, I just advocated it directly for it', we're in somewhere in the realm between 'inchoate OR' and 'unconstructive use of a talk page'. We're not using the 'press release' (or the primary source itself, the registration of death), we're using reliable secondary sources, which say things like "Old age was the only cause of death listed, with no other contributing factors." (Guardian.) It's tortuous to say something is "listed" on the registration without making clear how it's listed. Wasn't her Occupation, after all. (Not officially at any rate, that was Majestying.) Unless there's balancing sources that go big on "the registration listed 'old age', but that's terrible practice and couldn't possibly happen here", we should report what the RS say, in a clear and not in a misleading way, and that's it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Amakuru's and Wehwalt's comments in this thread are exactly right. If it goes in the article then it should be sourced to a reliable secondary source like the BBC article and not the death certificate per WP:PRIMARY. Speculation on whether "old age" is a real cause of death or not is WP:ORish. The text cited to the secondary source should be along the lines that the cause of death "as stated on the death certicate" was old age. I can't see that there's anything else to be discussed. DeCausa (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Face it folks, the Queen's death certificate is opaque and doesn't tell us anything much. There have been plenty of suggestions that the Queen became very ill with something or other during 2022, but without reliable sourcing, this is going nowhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source: https://www.businessinsider.com/what-does-it-mean-to-die-of-old-age-2016-6

Quote:

"Old age" isn't really a medical cause of death.

Queen Elizabeth's death certificate says she died of "old age" at 96.

Conclusion is that the legal cause of death is old age but not the true cause of death or medical cause of death or clinical cause of death. So they want to keep it secret....fine with me as along as we're honest about it.

CandyStalnak (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Further citations:Listing old age as a cause of death for the Queen is misleading | Letters | The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/03/listing-old-age-as-a-cause-of-death-for-the-queen-is-misleading 09:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC) CandyStalnak (talk) 09:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

That source also notes such a diagnosis is not unique to QEII, suggesting an individual focus here is a bit misguided. CMD (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a letter to the paper, it's not a reliable source. And Business Insider doesn't have firm consensus as a reliable source either, per WP:BI. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK for reporting propaganda because there is no reliable source reporting the Queen's real cause of death, only the legal cause of death on the death certificate. I get it that the King wants family privacy but that is no excuse for WP to be like Putin's Spokesman and report only propaganda. There IS a way to report things tactfully by specifying the legal cause of death, for example. CandyStalnak (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8651340/

these terms are not used in clinical practice and there has been some criticism recently regarding the use of ‘frailty of old age’ in the MCCD

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/queen-elizabeth-ii-s-death-certificate-says-she-died-of-old-age-what-it-means-101664596640445.html

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-cause-death-old-age-25140295 Why doctors were able to say the Queen died of old age when they're usually advised not to

A death certificate like the Queen's is only seen in 'very limited circumstances'

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/why-queen-elizabeth-iis-cause-of-death-may-never-be-revealed/news-story/ce817def509170777c898059ef6a67c6

Please provide citations to refute these 4 articles from The Guardian, Business Insider, Hindustan Times and National Library of Medicine. 10:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC) CandyStalnak (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The fact is that it has been recorded that way on the death certificate. Unfounded speculation about why it was recorded in such a way belongs elsewhere, and is outside the scope of this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not dispute that "old age" in on the death certificate. However, it's not a medical cause of death. It is a strawman to contend that either it's "old age" or a long conspiracy theory edited in Wikipedia. There is middle ground. For example, we can say that the legal cause of death was "old age". There is other middle ground that explains more extensively about the matter.

So I am suggesting moderate views, not radical views, such as the radical view of accepting the palace statements hook, line, and sinker or extensive explanations about the death certificate. CandyStalnak (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. What's wrong with simply sticking to the facts we know; that "the cause of death is recorded as 'old age'"? That isn't the palace saying that, it's officially recorded as that. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

CandyStalnak, you are becoming disruptive. Stop making ridiculous statements like we're being like "Putin's Spokesman and report only propaganda" (or this silly WP:POINTiness). You have no reliable sources. You're quoting vague speculation, WP:SYNTH and unreliable sources (Business Insider) to put forward what is verging on a conspiracy theory. WP:DROPTHESTICK before it's taken away from you. DeCausa (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not be disruptive, DeCausa. I am simply trying to write an encyclopedia with profound thought and not to be so quick to copy the Palace statements verbatim. There is clearly either privacy issues or a desire for secrecy. The danger of just repeating press releases may be seen with Trump, who had a press statement that he would be the healthiest President ever. No reliable sources are available to refute it but you want to say the above about Trump. Certainly not. CandyStalnak (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Not true. Business Insider is under new management. The RFC had reasonably good support of it. The RFC was closed as a non-admin closure and not a snowball. What Business Insider can be useful is when it cites information found in other reliable sources but mentions several of them. For example, fact A, B, and C in one article when other sources mention A, B, and C, but separately in 3 articles. In this case, the Business Insider makes no new statements but nice combines information found in several sources. 21:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC) CandyStalnak (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Go by secondary sources & leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Some secondary sources point to either vague or opaqueness of "old age" as used in the death certificate. That's why Wikipedia should be cautious and not simply be a mouthpiece of the Palace by writing "Elizabeth II died of old age". This is a compromise that fills all of Wikpedian ideals (reliable sources, not pushing one side's opinion, and truth). It is not Wikipedian ideals to put false information that has a citation nor misleading or incomplete information that has a citation. It must be all (citation, true, not misleading, not pushing the views of the Palace). CandyStalnak (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources confirm the Palace is secretive

From that period until her death — and now beyond — authorities have released only carefully curated snippets of information. https://futurism.com/neoscope/queen-elizabeth-death-cause

Such a vague cause of death not only raises questions about how someone died "old age" became a last resort phrase to describe an unknown cause of death. Or it became useful where a person may have died from a number of complications https://theconversation.com/the-queens-death-certificate-says-she-died-of-old-age-but-what-does-that-really-mean-191666

In your 90s, 'anything can take you': Why the Queen's cause of death may never be revealed https://nationalpost.com/news/world/in-your-90s-anything-can-take-you-why-the-queens-cause-of-death-may-never-be-revealed (major respected Canadian newspaper)

Doesn't mean we need to incorporate this but should give us pause that there is something more to write. CandyStalnak (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. "A death certificate like the Queen's is only seen in 'very limited circumstances'." Absolute nonsense. Death certificates are public documents; anyone can buy a copy. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There are reports that reporters requested the death certificate but were denied until later. 21:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC) CandyStalnak (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Where are these reports? -- DeFacto (talk). 05:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

That's nothing but unfounded mischief-making by the press though .Why would we, if it is encyclopaedic content we want to add, take any notice of that? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Citation please that the press engage in "unfounded mischief-making". That sort of excuse can be used by authoritarian regimes who do not want transparency. There are citations that the cause of death for the Queen has been very opaque. I get it that the Royal Family wants more privacy than afforded the ordinary British subject, which is why they are subjects and sometimes not called citizens.

A good compromise between being a mouthpiece of the Royal Family and writing substantiated truths is to simply allude to the "legal cause of death" as "old age". This allows the reader to take the hint that the medical cause is different. Indeed, there are several citations, including medical journals, about "old age" not being a cause of death. Likely is that the Queen didn't want to be taken to a hospital but just allowed to die. That is not so bad and not scandalous. 21:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC) CandyStalnak (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

With only speculation and no verifiable facts related to any wrongdoing, it is mischief-making. It's not "authoritarian regimes" making this allegation, it is me as it is perfectly acceptable for a doctor to record this as a cause of death. Without substantial and verifiable evidence (i.e. not gossip, tittle-tattle, mischief-making or hearsay) that it is likely that there was a nefarious reason to have recorded it that way, it is unacceptable (and against WP:BLP) to throw these wild allegations of potential wrongdoing.

A few questions that I think need answering:

• Where are the citations alluded to that the cause of death for the Queen has been very opaque?
• What is meant by the Royal Family wants more privacy than afforded the ordinary British subject?
• What is meant by which is why they are subjects and sometimes not called citizens?
• Who is being a mouthpiece of the Royal Family?
• What is the substantiated truth about the cause of death, if it isn't that as certified by the Queen's doctor?
• What is meant by legal cause of death, and how does it differ from the certified cause of death?
• What is meant by This allows the reader to take the hint that the medical cause is different and what is known about any medical cause?
• You say there are several citations, including medical journals, about "old age" not being a cause of death. So what. What we need are reliable sources saying "old age" is never valid on a Scottish death certificate, and that say this was used illegally. Without those, you do not have a case.

You seem to be trying to introduce a fringe theory or conspiracy theory into the article without adequate sourcing. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep. And this allows the reader to take the hint that the medical cause is different. wtf, CandyStalnak? We absolutely can’t “give hints”, especially to unsourced conspiracy theories affecting BLPs. You appear to have no understanding of Wikipedia DeCausa (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.rcpjournals.org/content/futurehosp/8/3/e686

‘old age’ could be used if a person is above the age of 80 years. However, these terms are not used in clinical practice and there has been some criticism recently regarding the use of ‘frailty of old age’ in the MCCD,

When you say " 'old age' is never valid on a Scottish death certificate", that is not true. It is legally permitted even though it is not a term used in clinical practice.

You mention " 'legal cause of death', and how does it differ from the certified cause of death". That is a good idea. The article could be changed to "The certificated cause of death was 'old age'". Note that there is no certification but it is certificated, which is technically slightly different. An alternative is what is in the article now that "old age" is listed on the death certificate. We should not say "the cause of death is old age" because that implies a clinical diagnosis, which is the propaganda that we want to avoid. Words mean things and we must be precise for this high profile article.

I might add that the current version of the article is ok! That is because some of the deceptive palace language that was there in mid September is no longer there. CandyStalnak (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation for time of death / cause of death

The current citation for the time of death and cause of death is an Express article. Being a tabloid, such a source would rarely be used - wouldn't https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63078676 be better? 84.92.90.18 (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

See "Cause of Death" on this talk page. S C Cheese (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The article reads

On 8 September 2022, Buckingham Palace released a statement which read: "Following further evaluation this morning, the Queen's doctors are concerned for Her Majesty's health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision.

Note that the Palace statement did NOT say she received medical supervision, just that it was recommended. This suggests that the Queen wanted a DNR Do Not Resuscitate Do Not Treat."

The Palace does not blurt things out but writes things carefully. When they want the public to think one way, they will carefully craft a press release so that technically it is truthful, even if a little deceptive. Naturally, there will be no news articles about this unless years later someone writes a book about it. That means WP must be very careful not to be a mouthpiece for propaganda, at the same time observing Wikipedia's reliable source requirement. It's a fine balance. CandyStalnak (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Full ascension date in first sentence

Opening sentence writes that she reigned "from 6 February 1952 until her death in 2022". I do not understand why the full date of her ascension is in the first sentence. Isn't it a tad trivial from a high-level perspective? It's odd that we provide the full date of ascension but not the full date of death. It is more concise to just say "from 1952 until her death in 2022". TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The entire accession date is shown, as that's when her reign began. We don't need to show the entire date of the end of her reign, as her death date is already in the intro. This style appears to be used, in the intros of her predecessors. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding years to the section title for Elizabeth's reign

I made an edit that added the years Elizabeth reigned in the section title that says reign. GoodDay reverted me and said that it is already in the infobox. However, we can make similar arguments for removing the years in the section header for other articles like Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, and Ronald Reagan because they are already in the infobox. I am hoping that we can get a consensus regarding whether it is appropriate to use the years in section headers for this individual or similar ones as well. Interstellarity (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Put it back in, if you want. It's nothing too concerning, to me. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Interstellarity Worth pointing out that all your examples are people who went through different duties throughout their life. Thatcher, as an example, was an MP, then Education Secretary, then Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister. Adding years to the section heads here make sense so they can provide context about the times while they were in office.

Compare this to Elizabeth II, who was a princess for a while then reigned as queen for seven decades after that. It's less like *writing the years for a President's term* and more like *writing the years for someone's Adult Life section*. Noting down the years might make more sense for some of the subsections under *Reign* though, particularly the Jubilee years and the Annus Horribilis. Yo.dazo (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Peter Ormond for some input on adding years who removed them. Interstellarity (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Per Yo.dazo's rationale. It's redundant as she only had one job her whole life. Peter Ormond 💬 13:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Anne, the Princess Royal, was the informant.

DeFacto cited WP:BRD. She reverted and did not discuss but cited WP:BRD. To help her, I will discuss.

Anne was the informant. This is likely to be interesting to the reader because the King, the oldest son, didn't do it. He and Anne were there at the time of death. Anne also signed. This was reported in many, many places, BBC, CNN, Sky, etc. Originally, only one citation was used but I propose more to help DeFacto.

She died at 15:10 BST. Anne, the Princess Royal, signed the death certificate as the informant with the cause of death of "old age". .

Is there any dispute that Anne was the informant?

CandyStalnak (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)