Jump to content

Talk:Death and funeral of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

People attending

The BBC have now published a list of the people attending the funeral, which matches the one we already have: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56761074 I'm not sure where their source is but the BBC are fairly reliable Carandol (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and the article has been updated to include the list. The list has already been confirmed through an announcement on the royal family's website. Keivan.fTalk 19:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I was not asking for the list to be added to the article. I was noting that the list is the same list as we had before the announcement, before we found the source to be unreliable. The current announcement on the royal website definitely reliable: https://www.royal.uk/funeral-duke-edinburgh-0 It would be a better source to quote than the BBC. Carandol (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, what source are you saying was unreliable? And, no, we prefer secondary sources (BBC) to primary (royal.uk) Kingsif (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC) but I thi
The source we cited before the list was released, earlier today. Also, I think I saw recently saw a list of exceptions and reliable primary sources, but that might have been a different wikiproject, or maybe something still under discussion.
Also, the royal website gives a much clearer list of who will be walking behind the coffin Carandol (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

National Rail Enquiries

Is this worthy of inclusion? "The National Rail Enquiries website has reverted to normal after switching to black “as a mark of respect” for the Duke of Edinburgh, who died on Friday" by Simon Calder at The Independent. "‘It’s virtue signalling of the worst kind’ – one of many negative comments on social media." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Bhutan

Why does Bhutan have a section? Nearly every other nation is listed and they're only given a literal footnote. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It's been discussed before. Bhutan did not only release a single statement in response to the Duke's death. They actually held official memorial services for the Duke with their king and queen in attendance, so it deserves a separate section. Keivan.fTalk 19:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Attendees

We list 30 family attendees at the funeral, per the BBC source and per Covid regulations. However, we then say "only members of the Royal Family and the Duke's private secretary, Brigadier Archie Miller-Bakewell, will attend the ceremony inside the chapel", citing an ITN source of 10 April. Miller-Bakewell is not one of the 30, so it seems that may be out of date. GrindtXX (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I fixed the sentence. Keivan.fTalk 22:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Image for Bhutan

Can we use the fourth image from this source as a fair use image for the section of Bhutan, like there are fair use images in the articles - Royal Christmas Message and Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten? Peter Ormond (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: Is it in the public domain or under a Creative Commons license? If not, we can't use it. Those fair use images you referenced provided "illustrated the subject in question" in a way a free use image couldn't. --Aknell4 (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Long paragraphs

MOS:LINEBREAKS says 'paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read' so I have split up some of the longest. Carandol (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Marking of the funeral

Union Mill, Cranbrook with its sails in the traditional mourning position.

Bringing this up for discussion. A number of windmills in the UK have set their sails to the traditional mourning position today to mark the funeral of the DoE. Mills that have done this include Wrawby Windmill in Lincolnshire Official Facebook page announcement, High Salvington Windmill in Sussex Official Facebook page announcement, and Draper's Mill, Margate, Kent post in Windmill Hoppers group on Facebook.

Can these be added to the article? The first two meet WP:FACEBOOK, but the last one doesn't. Can a WP:IAR exemption be applied there? Mjroots (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Naturally, if better sources can be found, the will be used. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there a description somewhere of what constitutes the "traditional mourning position" for a windmill? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Top sail just past the vertical. I can reference that easily enough to a book source. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I see it's described at Windmill#Sails. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Cause of death?

Heart failure? Everyone's heart stops beating eventually. It is one of the indicators of death. We need something more specific. Furthermore, I cannot imagine why someone who was only 99 might have died.174.17.158.27 (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Back to black

The current .edinburghlive.co.uk source says: "All newsreaders must wear black, alongside any other presenters who are on the television, as a sign of respect." Is this really happening on all UK TV channels? For the full mourning period? Assume this means a black tie for male presenters, and "some black" for female presenters? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is really happening. Great Britain has no freedom of the press in the American sense, and members of the press who refuse to follow government directives are liable to punishment. Or perhaps being summoned to appear before Parliament to explain themselves. In September 2013, for example, Rupert Murdoch was summoned before Parliament to explain the content of articles published in his newspaper.174.17.158.27 (talk) Britian is not a democracy. It is a constitutional monarchy, which has evolved into an elected dictatorship, headed by the Prime Minister.174.17.158.27 (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Is it really happening? Of course... Black ties for men, and a black coat (outside) or blouse (inside) for women isn't a hard standard to keep up for a week. Even people with no respect for him know they'd be crucified for not mourning appropriately. Kingsif (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Errm. Have you tuned in to Channel 4 News lately? e.g. like now? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I couldn't if I tried, but I imagine there will be an RS report about the complaints over presumably some reporter not wearing black very soon, at which point it can be added. Martin, you know that's what we wait for, I thought you were genuinely asking if people would follow the directive, so what was the point of bringing this up before RS? Just add it when you've got a source. Kingsif (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I know of no source. I know of no compliance with any such "requirements". Tonight Channel 4 News came live from Brooklyn Centre, Minnesota where Krishnan Guru-Murthy was dressed all in black. But back in the studio, for your information, Matt Frei was dressed in a light blue shirt, mid-blue jacket and bright red spotted tie. Here's the link for those who are able (registration required). Even back at BBC News at Six, George Alagiah was wearing a blue shirt, a blue jacket and blue patterned tie. I don't really see "edinburghlive.co.uk" as an authoritative source here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Edinburgh Live appears to be one of a family of "local" newspapers that recycle the same Press Association stories, so it's as reliable as grabbing the same report from any of them, and has the authority of PA. If you want to PRIMARY an evening of news reports you seem to have watched with the intent of making this talkpage a forum, they'll be removed from the article in due course, and I don't know what else to tell you. There's enough fresh sourcing issues with enthusiastic users adding bare refs from social media to cite non-SPS-suitable claims, so it would be helpful if you could hold off on complaining about your OR on this until an RS has something different to say about wearing black. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I have no intention of adding links to news reports "that I seem to have watched" to the article. It's unclear in that existing source from where this directive has arisen. Their hyperlink to "Forth Bridge" doesn't quite work, does it. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The Scotsman here says "To announce the death, news readers will generally wear black on air as a mark of respect. The royal family, meanwhile, are required to take black clothes and armbands with them whenever they travel, to be worn in the event of a royal death." Nothing here about "all television presenters" having to wear black, for all items, for the whole period of mourning? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
And I'm struggling to see any reference to "All newsreaders" here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The The Scotsman story has an important clarification about the newsreaders wearing black - it say they should wear black when making the announcement of the death rather than for the mourning period - the "other presenters" presumably refers to other presenters who are present when the announcement is made.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Of course, it's not long before we get a bit of good old tabloid "outrage" where some presenters are "slammed" for not wearing black. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Well the Express does have a slight obsession with "viewers being outraged" by the presenters on BBC Breakfast TV - it isn't just this incident that provokes their ire.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Certainly true. The Press Association (now actually called PA Media) seems to be clear that "During this period, all UK television presenters must wear black." Perhaps someone is able to provide the primary source for this "rule." The fact that not even the BBC have followed it suggests it's not a rule at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
This is the problem with Wikipedia privileging traditional media outlets and news agencies over the clear evidence of everyone's eyes and ears, in an era of declining journalistic standards. There is no such rule, despite what the source says. The BBC, especially, have certain protocols to be followed in the event of a royal death, and their newsreaders have been visibly sombre in their dress in the days following the death. Other channels have done the same to a greater or lesser extent, but the practice is manifestly not universal. Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Perhaps the sentence should be commented out, or removed, until the actual situation can be properly sourced? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Even starting this discussion, which is almost entirely FORUM whining, was. WP:V strictly says Wikipedia includes what is verifiable, so there was no need to snarkily point out that not all news presenters are wearing black even though that is a supposed directive. If a RS points it out, someone could have simply updated the article. Since that is the final point on the matter - if you find a suitable source that says something different to the current, you are free to update, and until then there is no point chatting about disparities without an end goal - I'm closing this circle. Kingsif (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not looking for an argument here, but I have reverted this premature and unilateral closing of the discussion. I cannot imagine why you want to insist on including information in this article that will strike any reader who has been watching TV in the UK as obviously and straightforwardly erroneous. It is clear from the error that the source here is not useful to us, despite its hosting on the website of a newspaper, hence it should be removed. Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
It is useful. It is an RS - from an agency, too - that is supporting quite a bit of information. So there seems to be disparity. Glad you noticed. Have any RSs noticed, too? If they have, they would presumably update their reports or write a new one saying "oh, maybe not everyone has to wear black all week" - or maybe they don't because they don't care? Either way, until those new reports show up, there is no source to support changing the content. As said, go read WP:V. Even if you think the current source should be removed (which it shouldn't: the ref is dated, so readers are free to assume the information sourced is outdated), repeatedly adding the information you anecdotally have evidence for without a ref is nothing but WP:OR. So there is no point to discussion until sources appear, because these pillar policies don't change because you watch the news. And when sources appear, there is no point to discussion because you can just update the article. So, we close the talkpage section that is mostly whining about policies. Kingsif (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
(ec) By all means, close all the metaphorical circles you like. But I'm keeping this thread open, which I think is far from "ridiculous." I'd also take issue with your claim that this is "almost entirely FORUM whining." Ok, AP is aa reliable source, but I think they must have got this wrong or misunderstood in some way. We ae still yet to see the official source. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
"... so readers are free to assume the information sourced is outdated". Errm, I don't think that's a very good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
That is literally the purpose of dating and archiving sources on Wikipedia. Without an expert watching every article every second of the day, things get outdated. So we date sources so readers know at what point statements were verified. This is most pertinent in current articles, like this one. Kingsif (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
It's a bit tricky to assume exactly how much detail all readers, as opposed to editors, actually read. This still does nothing to convince me that the claim was correct in the first place. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Let's get this straight. You want patently false information to be included in articles, and readers are expected to dig around in the footnotes and conclude from sources being a few days old that they may no longer be true and should therefore not be relied on? Why not just take them out? This is madness. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Replace "patently false" with "most recent verified statement" for accuracy. It's not madness, it's accountability. Kingsif (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, and we aren't going to find an official source for a rule about broadcasters wearing black, because no such rule exists. We are being asked to prove a negative here. It is much easier all round, and in the best interests of writing a useful encyclopedia, to just take out misleading information, however careful the editor who inserted it was to cite a supposedly reliable source, when that source says something that is obviously and straightforwardly contradicted by reality. Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
We are being asked to prove a negative here. - No you're not. If there are enough RS newspapers reporting on how many complaints each channel got for coverage, surely there is at least one that would be bothered to report on newsreaders not wearing black if the RS has itself previously said the newsreader should wear black. Kingsif (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
If a journalist wrote an article saying that everyone called Bill has to stand on their head on a Tuesday, we should not feel the need to find another journalist who says "there is no rule requiring people called Bill to stand on their heads on Tuesdays". What actually is the purpose of the encyclopedia in your mind? Beorhtwulf (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
What actually is the purpose of the encyclopedia in your mind? To collect the sum of all human knowledge. If we have a policy to make sure everything can be fact-checked to a date, I will follow it, because it has a purpose. That purpose can appear to constrict current events articles, but since these articles are written for the long-term, it is still appropriate to follow the rule. Kingsif (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The "fact" in question was a claim made by AP Media via edinburghlive.co.uk. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
You're assuming that "at least one ... RS newspaper" knows about this "rule" and believes it to be true? Because they read it on Wikipedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I haven't said anything about a rule, at all. In the comment you're supposedly quoting I said surely there is at least one [RS newspaper] that would be bothered to report on newsreaders not wearing black if the RS has itself previously said the newsreader should wear black. Someone else suggested resolving the issue by finding "the original rule". I just want to stick to sources, and PA said "all presenters must wear black". It now appears apparent, as you've seen below, that this is true, just not totally specific. Kingsif (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree. It should be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Martinevans123 and Beorhtwulf: You can't form consensus (of 2...) to impose an edit that goes against policy, you know that right? Like, voting on this is pointless. But if either of you had put some effort into typing "philip presenters black" into google, instead of whining about WP:V, you might have found result number 3 on page 1, which says "BBC sources told Insider that presenters always had black clothes on standby for news around high-profile deaths, such as the royals or heads of state. The presenters on the Friday show changed quickly, they said. Croxall's first interviewee, Camilla Tominey, the associate editor of The Daily Telegraph, appeared on the show wearing black. BBC reporters also wore black from then on." - it focuses on the BBC but infers that black was to be worn per a BBC policy during the interrupted programming period on 9 April. So the other source is correct, but did not give the timeframe. How about we update the article. Kingsif (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Are we talking about just the BBC now or "all television presenters"? How about we start by taking out that existing sentence and replacing it with something more sensible? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The next result says that the BBC presenters were still wearing black on April 12, while ITV hosts were not. The RSs are there, you just needed to look instead of make the edits without them. Kingsif (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah I see, I've been just slacking again. I don't remember making any article edits on that sentence. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Notice that neither the Express or The Metro (neither of which are fantastic sources) actually mention any rule about having to wear black - and the Express is anti-BBC enough that if there was such a rule (or even strong guidance) it would definitely mention it. Now it may be worth mentioning that some viewers were offended that everybody who takes part in a news problem isn't in full mourning garb and therefore complained (just like we mention the complaints about the disruption to the TV schedules) but that is something different. Nigel Ish (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
A bit of a tangent, but since I think both those are used in the article already, what are the perennial consensuses on them? The Express has too many sticky ads for me to want to trust it, but since Metro is a derivative of(?) or otherwise associated with the Evening Standard, I find it fine for general British news. Kingsif (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:RSP advises "Generally unreliable". It says: "The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper (accessible via metro.news domain) are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The Metro is owned by the same people who own the Daily Mail, which doesn't inspire much confidence, and as a free newspaper given away on buses and the like it probably isn't going to great effort to generate original journalism, but it is probably a bit less likely to make things up than the Mail.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Past tense-ify

Text relating to the funeral of the Duke of Edinburgh should now be made into past tense (some sentences still use future tense, such as, "they will be followed by the Queen," because at the time of writing, the funeral of the Duke of Edinburgh has finished. MBihun (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Already done. --Aknell4 (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Music

Other music, during the ceremony, is detailed in the Independent. Some information on the choir is in Royal Central and Classic FM. Extensive details are in the i and Heart. Kingsif (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

And some information on the buglers from an interest piece in The Courier. Kingsif (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
One knows things are serious when The Sun explains to its readers, in its tvandshowbiz column, what the Russian Kontakian of the Departed is. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't look like a shop-bought toy to me. One of the Queen's more original outfits. But great to see Prince Harry with his civilian bobble hat. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_and_funeral_of_Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh/Archive_4&oldid=1026132560"