Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoodDay (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 9 March 2023 (→Lead section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British Royalty This page is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty Commonwealth This page is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth United Kingdom This page is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom

Getting Charles's article to GA/FA status

Hello. This discussion has been split off from Charles's talkpage in order to go into more detail about how to achieve its goal. It is an initiative to get HMTK's article to either "Good article" or "Featured article" class. Below will be a breakdown of the article by section which can serve as a suggestion on how to improve it. This will require discussion and consensus-building from other editors on how best to go about this.

Breakdown

Lead section

Possible issues:

• Length;
• Textual discussion of the "realms".

I think my present preference for "king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom" or "king of 14 independent countries, in addition to the United Kingdom" (the British monarchy website's wording) is known. I'm more partial to the former, as it makes clear, using less words, that the UK is a Commonwealth realm. However, either seems to address concerns expressed elsewhere; namely that 1) the UK gets special mention, 2) the not-UK realms, which include G7, G20, and NATO countries, don't get relegated to the anonymous, second-rate blob of "other" and 3) the term "Commonwealth realm" is avoided, as it's assumed most people don't know what that is and will, given point 2, just assume it's a different way of saying "British colony". They're, therefore, compomises (which, of course, means "an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions "). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I shouldn't have been quite so terse, my bad. Here I meant less the lede sentence, which I think there's considerable consensus needs to be kept short'n'snappy. But now that we have a "reign" paragraph (albeit clinging by its fingertips with one bare sentence), there's the possibility of expanding on that. I can think of several options:-

1. Nope, retain the status quo.
2. Restate the same information from the lede sentence, but in different words, to avoid screaming redundancy, and ideally to spell out the co-equal status of the realms, etc.
3. A partial list of the realms, such as (as was suggested in a slightly different context), the half-dozen most populous, linking to the realms article for the 'tail'.
4. Similar, but organised geographically.
5. A complete list.

My current preference would be for #3 or #4, but IMO anything but #1 would be a decent-sized step forward. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't strongly oppose #3. My immediate reaction to it is always "it will lead to an endless argument over what criteria govern which countries are named explicitly. But, then, I recall limited lists are all over Misplaced Pages and don't seem to cause much, if any, controversy, so long as the parameters are clear. So, I guess I'd say my preference is for #2 first (in either of the ways I worded it above), followed by #3. I know #5 will never fly with some editors. And putting the non-British realms in a footnote (from the lede; the infobox is a whole other issue) screams colonialism, which is grossly out of touch with reality. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa pointed out in the "infobox" discussion that there's a fair-sized population cliff after Jamaica, so if one were todo it by size, IMO that's the place. As a piece of writing, it's also plenty for the reader to get the hint that it's the start of a list of theoretically coequal independent countries, and doesn't scream "just the white former dominions" too much. Alternatively, if we list everything but the smaller Caribbean countries we have a longer list, but arguably a more structured one. But I can certainly live with the "explain don't enumerate" option if there's support for that. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

How about a footnote in the prose itself rather than a list in the paragraph? This would allow us to list all of them there, rather than just the half-dozen if it were to be a part of the text. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I was assuming we'd keep the existing footnote (in all cases other than #5, I suppose necessarily). I do feel that the footnote (and any IB mention) is insufficient on its own. I think that's pretty much minimal as regards "summariz the most important points", per the MOS. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Didn't you already propose something like this, at Charles III's talkpage? So far, that proposal hasn't gotten a lot of support. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned at Talk:Charles III, there's the Good Country Index. Four of Charles' realms fall into the top 20. Of course, they're thought to be the "old, white" realms; but why and whether or not they actually are anymore is a whole other debate to be covered at other Misplaced Pages articles.

But, all of this is what keeps pulling me back to "king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom".

1) It significantly lessens the potential for persistent questioning of why only certain countries are named,

2) it doesn't use any more words than "King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms" (it's actually one word shorter),

3) it still names the UK explicitly while, simultaneously, recognizing its equal status with the non-British realms (it being shown to be in the 15, not as apart from the 14 "other"),

4) it doesn't relegate the non-British (some globally and economically important countries) to a forgotten space of "other",

5) it doesn't use the term "Commonwealth realms", which most people probably don't recognize and aren't likely to want to find out just from a throwaway obviously begrudgingly tacked on to the end of a sentence in the lede of Charles' bio, and

6) it will fit into the lede of Elizabeth II and, maybe, others, whereas the partial list, I suspect, won't work (nor will it after Charles is deceased; a long way off, I know, but, since we're coming up with arguments...).

What goes in the infobox, I think, will depend on what's in the lede. Presently, the problems are exacerbated by both the lede and the infobox using the same biased wording. If one wasn't so biased and explained things more honestly, the other could be more tolerable. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I must disagree with you proposal. The United Kingdom should be listed first, as it's the realm that Charles resides in & is most recognised with. Indeed, the UK being his primary residence, negates the need for a UK governor-general. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a straw man argument. I didn't propose a list in which the UK is not first. Please comment on what has been argued or don't comment. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Bloating the section, with the 14 other Commonwealth realms (fully or partially) isn't the way to go, IMHO. A footnote for them (like in the lead) would be best. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, we don't need to list out all the realms in any part of Charles III's BLP. We only need to show the United Kingdom (which is his primary residence), then put the 14 other realms into a footnote, as @DrKay:'s footnote does for the intro. GoodDay (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

• Length;
• List of realms?

(Top-posted for the sake of maintaining same order as article.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the infobox is one of the few things in the article that isn't grotesquely bloated. All the information within it seems to be consistent with other royal bios, and seems to be relevant and important. As I've said, there are far worse examples found all over the 'pedia, like James Callaghan, Neil Kinnock, and Theresa May's ludicrously long 'boxes. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Early life, family and education

• On the whole, this section doesn't look too bad. Maybe some minor rewording needed around paragraphs 4 and 5, but overall provides a good, succinct summary.

Prince of Wales

• Perhaps some of the more minor aspects could be moved to other sections (his trip to the United States, for example, could be moved to the "Official duties" section).

Military training and career

• I would suggest removing "following in the footsteps of his father, grandfather and two of his great-grandfathers" as it doesn't provide much, as royals do typically serve in the forces, and Philip, George VI and Edward VIII's time in the RAF isn't noted despite Charles's service there too. I would also suggest the removal of "requested and" and "On 8 March 1971, he flew himself to the Royal Air Force College Cranwell to train as a jet pilot" as we don't need a blow-by-blow account of his training.

Relationships and marriages

Bachelorhood

• I would suggest the removal of "In June 1980, Charles officially turned down Chevening House, placed at his disposal since 1974, as his future residence. Chevening, a stately home in Kent, was bequeathed, along with an endowment, to the Crown by the last Earl Stanhope, Amanda's childless great-uncle, in the hope that Charles would eventually occupy it. In 1977, a newspaper report mistakenly announced his engagement to Princess Marie-Astrid of Luxembourg" as, whilst true and verified, isn't too important that he never lived in a specific house. It also wouldn't go amiss to slightly copyedit the third paragraph either.

Lady Diana Spencer

Camilla Parker Bowles

Official duties

• This is probably the worst offender of irrelevant content in the article. The following quotes I would recommend the removal of:

1. In 2008, The Daily Telegraph described Charles as the "hardest-working member of the royal family". - What The Telegraph said 15 years ago doesn't matter all that much.
2. In 1970, Charles visited Bermuda to mark the Parliament of Bermuda's 350th anniversary. In his speech to parliament and referring to the actions of Charles I, Charles joked, "Bearing in mind I am the first Charles to have anything to do with a Parliament for 350 years, I might have turned nasty and dissolved you". - It's a good story to tell, but otherwise not needed.
3. In 1981 he became the patron of the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum, and in 2001 he placed a specially commissioned wreath, made from vegetation taken from French battlefields, at the Canadian Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. - He became patron of a museum 42 years ago and laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Whilst the latter was a sombre event and should be treated respectfully, these things unfortunately don't hold much long-term significance.

(I'm unsure of how to voice my opinion here--do I just interject like this...? If this is the wrong way to go about it, please correct me.) Regarding the Warplane Heritage Museum: there's already a section on philanthropy. There's also already the article List of Canadian organizations with royal patronage. I'm sure that info you're quoting can get condensed and moved to the other section and, somehow, a link to the associated article (and similar ones, if they exist) can be worked in there. To the wreath: That info can go to Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (Canada) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

1. He has attended official events in the United Kingdom in support of Commonwealth countries, such as the Christchurch earthquake memorial service at Westminster Abbey in 2011. - "
2. In 2013, Charles donated an unspecified sum of money to the British Red Cross Syria Crisis appeal and DEC Syria appeal, which is run by 14 British charities to help victims of the Syrian civil war. According to The Guardian, it is believed that after turning 65 years old in 2013, Charles donated his state pension to an unnamed charity that supports elderly people. In March 2014, Charles arranged for five million measles-rubella vaccinations for children in the Philippines on the outbreak of measles in South-East Asia. According to Clarence House, Charles was affected by news of the damage caused by Typhoon Yolanda in 2013. International Health Partners, of which he has been Patron since 2004, sent the vaccines, which are believed to protect five million children below the age of five from measles.
3. In the run up to Charles's visit, two Irish republican dissidents were arrested for planning a bomb attack. Semtex and rockets were found at the Dublin home of suspect Donal Ó Coisdealbha, member of a self-styled Óglaigh na hÉireann organisation, who was later jailed for five and a half years. He was connected to a veteran republican, Seamus McGrane of County Louth, a member of the Real IRA, who was jailed for 11 and a half years. - Given undue weight in this section.
4. Charles made frequent visits to Saudi Arabia in order to promote arms exports for companies such as BAE Systems. In 2013, 2014, and 2015, he met with the commander of Saudi Arabia's National Guard Mutaib bin Abdullah. In February 2014, he took part in a traditional sword dance with members of the Saudi royal family at the Janariyah festival in Riyadh. At the same festival, British arms company BAE Systems was honoured by Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz. Charles was criticised by Scottish MP Margaret Ferrier in 2016 over his role in the sale of Typhoon fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. According to Charles's biographer Catherine Mayer, a Time magazine journalist who claims to have interviewed several sources from Charles's inner circle, he "doesn't like being used to market weaponry" in deals with Saudi Arabia and other Arab Gulf states. According to Mayer, Charles has only raised his objections to being used to sell weapons abroad in private.
5. In April 2021 and following a surge in COVID-19 cases in India, Charles issued a statement, announcing the launch of an emergency appeal for India by the British Asian Trust, of which he is the founder. The appeal, called Oxygen for India, helped with buying oxygen concentrators for hospitals in need.
6. On 25 March 2020, it was announced that Charles had contracted COVID-19 during the pandemic. He and his wife subsequently isolated at their Birkhall residence. Camilla was also tested but returned a negative result. Clarence House stated that he showed "mild symptoms" but "remains in good health". They further explained, "It is not possible to ascertain from whom the prince caught the virus owing to the high number of engagements he carried out in his public role during recent weeks." Several newspapers were critical that Charles and Camilla were tested promptly at a time when many NHS doctors, nurses and patients had been unable to be tested expeditiously. On 30 March 2020, Clarence House announced that Charles had recovered from the virus, and that, after consulting his doctor, he was no longer isolating. Two days later, he stated in a video that he would continue to practise social distancing. - Recentism. I would mention that he had COVID elsewhere in the article, but briefly, as it is notable that he contracted the disease; we would mention if Edward III had caught the Black Death, for example.

Other things there can be reduced down, but those were the most obvious ones to tackle, in my eyes.

Reign

Polling

• Suggest incorporating this into "Accession and coronation plans"

Accession and coronation plans

• Once the coronation has taken place, I would say that instead of simply putting "Plans for Charles's coronation have been made for many years, under the code name Operation Golden Orb. Reports before his accession suggested that Charles's coronation would be simpler and smaller in scale than his mother's in 1953, with the ceremony expected to be "shorter, smaller, less expensive and more representative of different faiths and community groups – falling in line with the King's wish to reflect the ethnic diversity of modern Britain. Nonetheless, the coronation will be a Church of England ceremony and will require a coronation oath, the anointment, the delivery of the orb and the enthronement" into past tense, we should remove it altogether as it will have served its purpose.

Philanthropy and charity

Investigations of donations

Personal interests

Built environment

Livery company commitments

Natural environment

Alternative medicine

Sports

Visual, performing and contemporary arts

Publications

Religion and philosophy

Media image

Reaction to press treatment

Guest appearances on television

• Suggest removing this section entirely as trivial. In particular, the paragraph on Ant & Dec was added in 2006 and never removed. It is, in essence, a longstanding WP:RECENTISM.

Elizabeth II has a whole "Media depiction and public opinion" section and there's a separate atticle, Personality and image of Elizabeth II. Something similar can be done for Charles. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

That'd argue for keeping the section, but making it very short, and more-or-less just enough to hang a hatnote over and make sense of that. Split the rest out to media portrayals of Charles III, media image of Charles III, personality and image of Charles III, or any reasonable facsimile. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds about right. To me, anyway. Condense the whole "Media image" section. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Residences and finance

• A lot of material here should probably be removed as they don't really aid the reader in understanding Charles.

Titles, styles, honours and arms

Titles and styles

Honours and military appointments

Arms

Banners, flags, and standards

As heir apparent

As sovereign

Issue

Ancestry

See also

Thanks for reading. - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Seems fair comment. But let's not forget the lead section (presently inadequate) and the infofox (currently excessive). I know we're already nickel-and-dining those to death ("like herding glaciers which are also cats") on the article page, but they're also important (and per the eyeballs-on criteria suggested by the MOS itself, the most important. Whether one works top-down by trying to do that first, or bottom-up doing it last, or some back-and-forth between the two. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

A consensus for the lead is already established = "...King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms...", with DrKay's footnote. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus changes and the ceaseless dispute around the contentious phrase "King of the United Kingdom and 14 other Commonwealth realms" could be rectified with a simple compromise: rearrange the words to "king of 15 independent countries, including the United Kingdom" or "king of 14 independent countries, in addition to the United Kingdom" (which is the exact wording used on the British monarchy website). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Stick with "King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms", Tim. Putting it backwards would appear rather odd. BTW - The website that keeps being alluded to is called the British monarchy, not the Commonwealth realms monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No, Tim, don't. The British monarchy site's wording is rather normal. Also, I'm sure you realize "allude" is not a synonym for "explicit". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I should caution you @Tim O'Doherty:, myself & the preceding posting editor, have been at logger-heads over this general topic, for 15+ years. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I should caution you, Tim O'Doherty, that the preceding posting editor ignores the other party's willingness to compromise, as illustrated by the relatively new acceptance of a wording that highlights the UK (as the preceding posting editor wants) while both avoiding the unfamiliar-to-most-readers term "Commonwealth realm" and relegating the non-British realms to a second class, pseudo-colonial status. But, really, I know you know this isn't really a caution--it's evident from our participation in discussions elsewhere that you're already aware of the issue--and that you're not in charge of changes to the article; we both know it's a team project that endeavours to make things the best they can be, regardless of the presence of certain... Obstacles. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No comment. :) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's an old argument between two editors, Tim. You're (of course) free to make your own observations on that old argument :) GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, I'm talking about the entire lead section. If you're here just to play the 'revert to the B-Grade status quo' police role, that's hardly going to be helpful. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies 109. I thought you were pointing to the lead opening. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. For clarity, I don't see any immediate need to revise the opening sentence or indeed paragraph at all. Unless the rework elsewhere later suggests such, though I can't see why that'd be the case to any significant extent. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Additional summary-style articles?

Tim has helpfully identified a number of existing related/subsidiary article, but very few of the sections -- as he points out, several of which are very likely infeasibly long -- currently have a {{main}} hatnote. Do we need additional subsidiaries, or is this more of a case of not having joined the dots most effectively? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

We could move some info from the financial section to Finances of the British royal family; it'd be tricky to do right, without polluting that article with unneeded information too. Again, I suggest deleting the TV appearances section entirely as cruft, and put a hatnote on the larger media image section, directing the reader to Cultural depictions of Charles III and then slicing that section in half, only providing a brief overview (we don't particularly need to keep "In 2003, Diana's butler Paul Burrell published a note that he claimed had been written by Diana in 1995, in which there were allegations that Charles was "planning 'an accident' in car, brake failure and serious head injury" so that he could marry again." and "In 1995, he obtained an injunction that prevented a former housekeeper's memoirs from being published in the United Kingdom, although they eventually sold 100,000 copies in the United States."). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Oops, see, I knew I might be missing a mapping to an existing article in some cases. Yes, that'd work fine for that one -- we (or ideally, someone else!) can tweak the name and the scope later if it comes to that. As a human-factors exercise, always good to be able to say "don't panic, I didn't delete anything, it's alive and well and living on a farm-- eh, in another article." Might indeed be worth keeping with just the "family" article, if the "good" content that'd be separate is slight. A fork-and-dump and worry later is an option too though. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Project-Class British royalty pages
• NA-importance British royalty pages
• WikiProject British Royalty articles
• Commonwealth of Nations articles
• Project-Class United Kingdom pages
• NA-importance United Kingdom pages
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles