Talk:Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England

Judicial Review: Judgment of the Court

 * Helen Online  15:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Helen Online  15:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Helen Online  18:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Helen Online  18:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"Believe"
I'm probably being ridiculously pedantic, but I think the wording in the fourth paragraph could be improved. The University's official statement was:


 * "It is the academic conclusion of the University of Leicester that beyond reasonable doubt, the individual exhumed at Greyfriars in September 2012 is indeed Richard III, last Plantagenet king of England."

but in this article we use the word "believe". I don't think that's an adequate synonym for "academic conclusion". (In fact, I don't think "conclusion" would be an adequate synonym for "academic conclusion" either.) A belief is a claim; an academic conclusion is a judgment made on evidence. I suggest changing the relevant sentence to something like:


 * "On the basis of these points and other historical, scientific and archaeological evidence, the University of Leicester has reached the academic conclusion that the Greyfriars remains exhumed in 2012 are those of Richard III."

Comments? --NellieBly (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need "academic", even though that's their choice of word, just "reached the conclusion". Paul B (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Academic" is implied as they are an academic institution. I would suggest simply "concluded". Helen  Online  08:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Concluded" is fine – but I also think we should add (in quotes) the key phrase "beyond reasonable doubt". GrindtXX (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've made the change. Thanks everyone. --NellieBly (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Roadmap to Featured Article status
Having started this article in February last year, I'm pleased at how it's developed since then - well done to all the contributors. Now that the reburial date has been announced (26 March 2015) I suggest that we start thinking about how we can get it onto the Main Page as the Featured Article of the day - there will certainly be a lot of media coverage around the world and the article is certain to attract a good deal of interest on that day.

This will require several things to be done over the next few months:


 * Rename the article to Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England - now that there is a significant amount of coverage of the reburial we can include it in the article.
 * Nominate the article for Good Article status as a precursor to a FA nomination. I see that the "Burial site", "Looking for Richard III" and "Greyfriars project and excavations" have been converted into date lists rather than narratives (though I don't see any sign of this major change having been discussed in advance). This is not an approach that will be accepted for either GA or FA, so I will be reverting this back to narrative format.
 * After the GA nomination, nominate the article for FA status.

I'm happy to take the lead on the GA and FA nominations, as I've got plenty of experience in that area. Prioryman (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 21:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Exhumation of Richard III of England → Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England – To reflect the fact that the article covers the reburial as well as the exhumation Prioryman (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as unnecessary. Other options would have included mummification or similar desiccating, pickling, freezing, storage in a deoxygenated environment or conversely cremation.  I think most people are likely to assume reburial but this is POV.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  15:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I think the reburial ceremony, the new tomb, etc, will soon be generating enough content to become an article in its own right. We should stick with the status quo for the moment, but spin off most of the reburial debates to a new article when the content demands it, leaving a short section here. That's how this article came about, when the section at the main RIII article became too big. Paul B (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relatively feeble oppose. More accurately Exhumation, prolonged storage and reburial of Richard III of England? Agree any move now would be premature. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely Exhumation, storage, scientific examination, creation of heritage centre, and reburial of Richard III of England. Paul B (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly support - I didn't realize the York/Leicester reburial debate had escalated. And it seems confirmed that the Archbishop of Canterbury will be involved? The reburial is now notable too. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose unnecessary, see Exhumation of Yagan's head which also covers the reburial of same. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - I think the present title is misleading and too narrow. Deb (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support. It doesn't feel essential, but I don't think it would cause any harm. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - per Deb. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Prioryman, Martinevans123, Paul B, In ictu oculi, IdreamofJeanie, Hchc2009, Deb, Bill the Cat 7 Suggest, Exhumation, examination and reinterment of Richard III of England. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  16:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Feeble meh bleating sounds, Paul B out sarc-ed me. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Format of timeline sections

 * Discussion copied from User talk:Anthony Appleyard:


 * You've been making some major undiscussed changes to Exhumation of Richard III of England today, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to revert them. I will be nominating the article for GA and subsequently FA status soon. Unfortunately the list item format you've adopted for three sections of the article isn't compliant with the relevant section of the Wikipedia manual of style, the first point of which states, "Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs". GA and FA reviewers will certainly pick up on that and the format will have to be reverted back to plain paragraphs. Prioryman (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * New discussion here.


 * "is read easily as plain paragraphs": some would say that that story is read easier in timeline format, and in the prose version some of the events were described out of time order. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Anthony, I'm definitely with Prioryman on this one - I don't think the bullet points improve the flow, and equally I don't think they're in line with the MOS guidance. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Bullet points aren't designed to improve the flow - they're intended to break it up. They might be appropriate for a timeline article but this isn't one of those - it's a narrative. It simply isn't appropriate to use such a format in an article like this, particularly as it's against the MOS. There's not the slightest chance that their use here would pass an FA review. If there's an issue with the chronological order of the content then let's discuss that, but changing the format radically without any prior discussion isn't the answer. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Nature article published today
Just posting links FYI. Helen Online  17:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting. It was very interesting, but I don't think the Queen needs to worry.  :)  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's another version of the article with more information and video. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It was covered on tonight's BBC Radio 4 Six O'Clock News, although strangely not as a lead item. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Re-internment Attendance?
Is any wikipedian in the UK (or from wherever) going to the re-internment next year? If so, it sure would be nice to take a bunch of pictures that we can put into the article. Also, if the reconstructed head is on display, a picture of that would be good too. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Re-interment. Although I personally think he should have been interned... :-) I agree, photos would be good! Deb (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Very funny, Ms. Smarty Pants. :)  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate review
Please note that I've nominated this article for consideration as a Featured Article Candidate, with the intention of having it ready to appear on the Main Page on the date of Richard III's reburial in late March. Any input on the nomination would be very welcome - please see Featured article candidates/Exhumation of Richard III of England/archive1. Prioryman (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Link in lead section
I edited the wikilink to the University of Leicester Archaelogical Services, an article which does not exist, and instead linked it to the University of Leicester. My edit was swiftly reverted. I believe that a link to the University of Leicester is better than a link to a non-existent article, especially as the university itself describes the archelogical services unit as being "embedded in the School of Archaeology and Ancient History" and describes ULAS as "forming part of the School". Hence, I think it's fair to link to the University of Leicester until an article for ULAS is created. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm in the process of writing an article about ULAS, so could you hold on until it's done? Prioryman (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've created a redirect for now, which should give us the best of both worlds. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair to me. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of the discovery
Under the above section it says "On 12 September, the University of Leicester team announced the human remains were a possible candidate for Richard's body, but emphasised the need for caution. The body was of an adult male; it was buried beneath the choir of the church; there was severe scoliosis of the spine, possibly making one shoulder higher than the other (to what extent would depend on the severity of the condition)". None of this is supported by the citation given (ref 46). Is this the correct citation or should it be another one? Also in the lead it says "As a condition of being allowed to disinter the skeleton, the excavators agreed that, if Richard was found, his remains would be reburied in Leicester Cathedral" although there is nothing about this in the article. All it says is that this would be normal archaeological practice. Richerman   (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Marine radiocarbon
The article currently says "marine organisms absorb carbon-14 at a different rate from land organisms, skewing the dating of any terrestrial organism that consumes a significant proportion of seafood": this is incorrect, and as far as I can see it's not supported by the source. The sea's surface waters contain less radiocarbon than the atmosphere, because of mixing with very old (and hence radiocarbon-depleted) deep sea water. As a result marine organisms contain less radiocarbon than land animals, so they appear older when tested unless a correction is made. Perhaps rephrase this to "marine organisms contain less carbon-14 than land organisms, skewing the dating of any terrestrial organism that consumes a significant proportion of seafood"? That skips all the technical details but is accurate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds good. Thanks - I'll make that change. Prioryman (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why "absorb carbon-14 at a different rate" is wrong. It's just that, if the op is correct, they absorb it at a different rate because sea's surface waters contain less radiocarbon than the atmosphere. Paul B (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought about this and it's a little more complicated. Surprisingly, it's not true that there's less carbon-14 in seawater; see here for an explanation.  Short version: fractionation and upwelling cancel each other out, so there is about as much carbon-14 in seawater as in animals on land.  That raises another point, however; if the lab wasn't correcting for either fractionation or the marine effect, I don't see how they came up with a different age.  I'll read the source this evening and see if I can understand what happened.  It might be better to simplify the statement even more but I don't want to suggest another change without looking at the source again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you going to tell them they got it wrong and it's not Richard after all, can you do it before the rebury him? otherwise it will be very embarrassing for all concerned. ;-) Richerman    (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly I'm the one confused, not the lab! Short version: I suggest we change the sentence to "However, mass spectrometry carried out on the bones found evidence of the consumption of large quantities of seafood, which is known to cause samples tested by radiocarbon dating to appear to be older than they really are."  That avoids any reference to the technicalities.
 * Longer version, if anyone is interested: the lab corrected for fractionation, but not for marine origin, which is what they always do; I wasn't thinking straight. The fractionation and marine origin changes cancel each other out, so the marine distortion in sample ages only shows up after correcting for fractionation.  Land samples are corrected for fractionation too.  See Calculation of radiocarbon dates for the gory details if interested.  The net effect of the fractionation and marine effect mean that the carbon-14 ratio in surface waters is (I think) close to the ratio in the atmosphere.  Because of fractionation, the ratio in the terrestrial biosphere is not actually the same as in the atmosphere, and hence there's a difference between the ratio in land animals and marine animals. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No further comments, so I've gone ahead and made the change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Exhumed several other burials?
One of the captions reads Do you normally exhume a burial? I presume it was bodies that were exhumed, but wondered if there was some reason for this choice of wording. --Boson (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "The July 2013 excavation, which uncovered more of Greyfriars and exhumed several other burials".
 * They exhumed the entire burials, including the coffins, not just the bodies. Prioryman (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirect created
I've noticed that the traffic stats for this article are relatively low considering the reburial takes place next week. A google search for "Reburial of Richard III" finds lots of hits but not this article, so I've created a redirect from Reburial of Richard III. Hopefully, once this comes up on google it will increase traffic stats considerably, so we need to watch for an increase in vandalism. Richerman   (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Nice to have someone so observant around. Deb (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Should there be a separate article on the reburial itself? (There is also a case for 'a variant on the usual "Death and burial of..." type article') Jackiespeel (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Got a feeling there was some discussion of this somewhere and a suggestion that this article could be "converted" into a new one with a slightly different title when the burial occurs. Deb (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm afraid the redirect hasn't made it appear on a google search so far. There was some talk in the Requested move section above about spinning off a new article but that will, unfortunately, be after the reburial. Richerman    (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

...Well. I would think the best time for people to read about what happened at the reburial will be after the event, at which point we will be in a position to publish accurate details. In the meantime, you could either start a new article containing what we know so far, or make a request to rename this article and include the reburial details. Deb (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I was suggesting it as an option, as there are 'a number' of 'Death and funeral of...' articles (and several 'death of ...' articles) separate from those of the actual persons, and RIII's reburial can be seen as 'a different thing' to his 'rediscovery.' (An 'excess of quote marks' seems appropriate in the context.) Jackiespeel (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, at last! - it is now coming up on the first page of a google search for "reburial of Richard III" so we can think about whether a separate reburial article is necessary after the event. It will be interesting to see if it affects the hit rate. Richerman   (talk) 10:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The number of hits per day is now up from less than 1,000 to over 5,000 which is more like what I would expect. Of course it's impossible to know how much of that is due to Sunday's events and how much to the redirect. Richerman    (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England. There's definitely consensus to move, and the version with "reburial" seems to find more favour than "reinterment". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Exhumation of Richard III of England → Exhumation and reinterment of Richard III of England – Per WP:PRECISE. Yes, the bulk of the article is about the exhumation, but the reinterment is also a key part of the subject.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and User:Lugnuts suggest a quick move given current item. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I think there is enough on the reburial now to make this necessary. However, I think 'reburial' would be the more commonly used term people would search for. Richerman    (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and cf In ictu oculi also make it prompt due to current events. Indeed the reburial may even warrant its own article in the future, but until then this move will rebalance the main R3 article. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  15:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support but propose to →Exhumation and reinterment of Richard III. I was about to ask whether his reburial should be its own article, as reburial of a king 500+ years later is massively noteworthy, but doesn't really go in his biography. However, there's no reason for the article title to be so long; there is only one Richard III whose remains have been exhumed and reburied. When we have an article Exhumation and reinterment of Richard III of Sesame Street then we can disambiguate.  —Мандичка YO 😜 00:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The main article is at Richard III of England and not Richard III.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes but it really doesn't need to be, IMO. There are no other Richard III, just like Elizabeth II of England redirects to Elizabeth II. And while there have certainly been people named Richard Smith III or Richard Anderson III in history, there are none whose remains have been exhumed and reburied with enough signficance it merits an encyclopedic article or would cause any kind of confusion with this Richard III. —Мандичка YO 😜 11:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sure the reinterment is notable, but I don't think it needs to go in the title, any more than, say, the analysis that concluded it really was Richard III?  Seems like it can be part of the general topic, which is really Stuff done with Richard III's body after he was exhumed.  Just keep it succinct. SnowFire (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It should go in the title because it should be clear (WP:PRECISE) that the article covers both things. Otherwise, it should be a separate article; but I agree with the nominator that it should go together in this article. —Мандичка YO 😜 04:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, though I would prefer "Reburial". Deb (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, agree with Deb, "Reburial" is more commonly used term. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm happy with either reinterment or reburial.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. I think they are two very different subjects and should be split into two separate articles. This article is about the archaeology and science pertaining to the discovery and identification of the remains. It's essentially about scholarship. The reburial is a ceremonial event. Of course it would not have happened without the exhumation, but they are such distinct kinds of events, I think yoking them together undermines the integirty of the article. An analagous case is Death of Diana, Princess of Wales and Funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales. These are separate articles. Obviously the latter would not have happened without the former, but the separation is in essence because they a fundamentally different types of events and require different types of content. Paul B (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Would (or could) not the proposed re-name be a step towards that split? It certainly cannot preclude it? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The 'case for' - they are 'two separated but linked events' - the search, finding and analysis; and 'the service and re-interment.'

The 'case against' - this is 'a special case/variant' of the numerous 'death and burial of...' articles on WP.

I am willing to go with whatever is decided. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you request Speedy rename because of the timeliness of the event? It's almost universally approved. I think a lot of people will start at Henry III of England looking for information on it, or, like me, spend a couple minutes wondering why it doesn't have its own new article. (Although I do think it should be Exhumation and reburial of Richard III as there is no need to disambiguate as to which Richard III it was... "Richard III" redirects to "Richard III of England" anyway.) I"ll put in the request if I don't hear from you in a couple hours. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a speedy request process while an discussion is still active. Might be wrong. Drop a note at WP:ANI to see if if can be done.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:ANI is the right place, since I think that's for really serious issues/complaints about banning people, etc, but I'll ask about it at one of the move pages. —Мандичка YO 😜 21:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I suggest that a note of the decision with RIII be put on the Cervantes talk page (English and/or 'Spanish etc' pages): as there is a possibility that his grave has been rediscovered WP can then be consistent in naming 'the separate page or section of the author's article' (which it may remain, especially on the English WP page). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, IMO, there should be an article called Exhumation of Miguel de Cervantes since it's a very notable anthropological find. And it seems like they have sure it is him. It may be years before they rebury him though, so I would just call the article "exhumation" until they start with the plans. —Мандичка YO 😜 11:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have left a note on MdeC's talk page: there are likely to be occasional further cases. (What would the heading for the equivalent Lenin article be) Jackiespeel (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be Exhumation of Vladimir Lenin from his display case in Lenin's Tomb :-) —Мандичка YO 😜 11:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think 'in most cases' a variant on the established 'Death and burial of...' is appropriate - whether within the text (as in many other language articles on RIII, or English WP article on Phillip of Macedon) or as a separate article.

At the moment we are just 'thinking outside the box' on Lenin. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you're allowed to do that in Red Square? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Due to use of the word reinternment. Suggest replacing it with reburial which is commonly used by sources and I would support. Mbcap (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Silver gilt white boar
This source says this: "Once outside the city, the coffin was then taken to farmland near Dadlington where a silver gilt white boar, Richard's sigil - was recently unearthed." But I can't find any other source for this discovery. There is nothing at the Dadlington article. Does anyone have any further details. Apparently there was a church service held at Dadlington for Richard today. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It was found at a place called Fen Hole outside Dadlington in 2010 . There's a theory that the Battle of Bosworth was really at Dadlington, not at Ambion Hill. Paul B (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. I think both the find and the theory should be added at Dadlington. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Today's edits

 * user:Anthony Appleyard has made a number of edits to the article today but I am not happy with most of them so far. He has added some links which are repetitions of links we already have in the article and other additions use yesterday's TV broadcast as a reference. TV broadcasts may only be used if they are permanently archived (which this one isn't yet) and the form in which these are given is non standard anyway. Also I think we need to discuss what information is added to the article as the events progress. Unfortunately, I'm just on my way out so I can't get back to this until later. Richerman    (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is undoubted that Channel 4 has preserved the footage of that procession and events, far more likely than with some routine ephemera such as ordinary football matches and police incidents. And, millions of people will have seen it and could corroborate. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Easy to get swept along in the national celebrations isn't it, what with all the bunting and street parties. Just off to get my hunchback costume. "A source, a source, my kingdom for a source!" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I found another source for the statement that Michael Ibsen made the coffin. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Deeply thrilled. "As long as there's a box beneath the stars that shine." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Anthony, as I'm sure you know, the fact that millions of people can corroborate something does not mean we can add it to wikipedia. This is a featured article and, as such, requires good quality, reliable sources. And when I say it needs to be archived I mean in a form available for someone who wants to check what is said, so it needs to be available in a format such as a DVD that can be bought, or obtained from a library. Then the reference should say which company made the programme, who produced it etc. Even then, I don't know if that sort of source would be acceptable for a featured article anyway - perhaps someone could enlighten me - but I've never seen TV references used in one so I couldn't say. However, the fact that we don't have a standard template for them makes me wonder. Richerman   (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @Richerman, the relevant citation template is Cite AV media—it's named that rather than "cite television" etc as for obvious reasons regarding verifiability it will generally be a YouTube link or a piece of embedded video being cited, rather than the actual broadcast. It's rare for a TV program to qualify as a reliable source when you get to FA level, unless the TV program itself is the subject of the article, but there are rare cases (in Britain, generally via the OU), where a TV program itself would be considered academically reliable enough to use as a source. There is no hard and fast rule, and you'd need to go to WP:RSN if it's not clear whether a source is reliable or not. (I find it extremely hard to imagine anything shown on Channel 4 ever qualifying.) There are also occasional cases where a legitimate academic posts a YouTube video explaining their work, which I would also consider reliable—see The Sirens and Ulysses for a current example of this usage.
 * @Anthony Appleyard, I'm sure you're perfectly well aware that "millions of people will have seen it and could corroborate" means precisely nothing on Wikipedia, and if you continue to use this (or variations thereof) as a pretext to add uncited statements, or to continue using malformed citations (see section below) despite knowing they're inappropriate, I'll consider it a clear breach of WP:POINT. – iridescent  17:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

More bad edits
I'm sure you mean well but I would appreciate it if you would stop editing this article until you have taken the time to carry out some research on how to edit a featured article. Early this morning it took me almost an hour and a half to repair the damage you had done, only to find you had added back in some of the bad edits I had removed. First of all, can I point out that the sequence of events is Bold, revert, discuss. That means that when someone removes something you have added you take it to the talk page to discuss - you don't return it and tell the other party to take it to talk. The edits in point are the section you added on Michael Ibsen, which I have again removed. The reason why I removed it is that it is totally unnecessary as it is mostly repeating information already given. In the previous section it says:

"After two years' work he found that a British-born woman who emigrated to Canada after World War II, Joy Ibsen (née Brown), was a direct descendant of Richard's sister, Anne of York (and therefore Richard's 16th-generation great-niece)...Joy Ibsen died in 2008. On 24 August 2012 her son Michael Ibsen gave a mouth-swab sample to the research team to compare against samples from the human remains found at the excavation.[54] Analysts found a mitochondrial DNA match between the exhumed skeleton, Michael Ibsen, and the second unnamed direct maternal line descendant, who shares a relatively rare mitochondrial DNA sequence, mitochondrial DNA haplogroup J1c2c"

You have then created a new section under that one which begins "Michael Ibsen, born in 1958 in Canada, is a 17th generation descendant of Anne of York in the unbroken female line and a 17th great grandnephew of King Richard III of England, and proved to have the same mitochondrial DNA type. He is descended through his mother, Joy Ibsen, who died in 2008" The only new information which is given in those two sentences is that Michael Ibsen was born in 1958 - the rest of it repeats what is said a few lines above. The fact that he is the 17th grand nephew is clear from the fact that his mother was the 16th grand niece. Also you have linked Anne of York, Richard III of England and mitochondrial DNA all of which are already linked see:wp:overlink In some articles links are given in the lead and once again in the text, but always at the next occurrence - and this article doesn't follow that convention.

You have then started a new paragraph with one sentence that says "He is also a furniture maker, based in London, and made the coffin for Richard III, from British oak from the Duchy of Cornwall's estate" Two things - we don't use single sentence paragraphs, and the word "also" is redundant. So what we are left with is that Michael Ibsen was born in 1958, he is a furniture maker, born in Canada, based in London, and he made the coffin for Richard III, from British oak from the Duchy of Cornwall's estate. Do you really think that information needs its own section? It can quite easily be included in other parts of the article.

The other problem is that you added information without references and then when challenged, argued that it was something millions of people can corroborate. Then when you did add references they were either bare urls  or you made up something that you thought looked about right, but had information that wasn't needed and was missing information that was needed.. When we use someone elses work it is a matter of common courtesy to say who they are and cite their work correctly. There are citation templates at the top of the editing window for doing that - it really isn't difficult. Also many of your edit summaries are totally inadequate - "ed" doesn't tell anyone what you've done. Richerman   (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a "hidden drop-down box" format would be more appropriate? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A drop down box for what? I've now added the information about Michael Ibsen to the appropriate sections. Richerman    (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The coffin, of course. Sorry if my attempt at humour deserves to be buried. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop digging yourself a hole... Deb (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In the section "Death and initial burial", sentence 5, the word "monks" has been sicced incorrectly, as that is the correct plural form of the word "monk". I think it should be removed. I'll defer such an edit to those more closely involved in this article. 72.160.88.117 (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what the "sic" is referring to. I think it's probably meant to indicate either that it should just be "Convent of the Franciscans" (probable) or that maybe the word convent is misleading (this seems less likely).Deb (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's because they are friars rather than monks. Richerman    (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That might well be it. Deb (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The question is why the article needs to indicate that the quote is transcribed faithfully. What added insight does this sic give us?  I think the sentence is more than adequate without any sics, and I'm not sure sic is even appropriate for an otherwise correct synonym. 72.160.88.117 (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As Richerman says, the Franciscans are friars not monks. It's just there to note that we know 'monks' is incorrect, but that's nevertheless what the quoted person in fact said. Paul B (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) It is not a synonym - a friar is not the same as a monk. To quote from our article Friar: "Friars are different from monks in that they are called to live the evangelical counsels (vows of poverty, chastity and obedience) in service to society, rather than through cloistered asceticism and devotion". Richerman    (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Grey Friars Research Team?
Since they've now published a book together, do the Grey Friars Research Team warrant an article? —Мандичка YO 😜 04:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't get one when I wrote a book. :-) Deb (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll make you an article... if your book was good enough :-) —Мандичка YO 😜 20:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Alderman Newton's School
I grew up in Leicester in the 60s and 70s, and the school was only even known as Alderman Newton Girls' School. It was a single sex grammar school. I don't know what happened to it after the 11-plus was abolished and whether it became a mixed sex comprehensive or sixth form college and changed its name, but I wonder if 'Alderman Newton's School' is correct? 81.135.77.194 (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See Alderman Newton's School. Deb (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Buried where?
This doesn't sound quite right:


 * "buried in a crude grave in the friary church"


 * I am suggesting this change to the article:


 * "buried in a crude grave on the friary churchyard grounds"

--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It was in the church. Under the choir. Paul B (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That is bizarre. Thank you, Paul B.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all: in those days important people were buried inside the church, in stead of outside or in a graveyard. All in all the Tudors could have done worse things to his remains than that -- fdewaele, 26 March 2015, 20:51.
 * The more important you were, the more likely you were to be buried inside the church, preferably as close to the altar as possible. That's why, if you go into old churches and cathedrals, you will find numerous graves and monuments to high-ranking people. Prioryman (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The floors, particularly the walkways, of many old churches are composed of grave stones, sometimes worn away, but very well often protected by carpet. But floor brasses, placed on top of graves, are also pretty common. We don't really know if Richard's grave was marked or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do - it was marked but the marker was subsequently lost or destroyed. See Exhumation of Richard III of England. Prioryman (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I must have missed that. It sounds rather grand. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess being buried inside the church served two purposes: 1) He was perhaps "closer to God"; 2) The gravesite was reasonably safe from would-be grave robbers. EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They missed a trick, not digging him up then and making his bones into holy relics. Deb (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The grave monument was destroyed after the Dissolution of the Monasteries, thus after the Reformation. They were destroying holy relics at that point, not making new ones. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Holy Relics, Batman! You don't suppose that Philippa's hung on to a little finger do you? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, we don't know exactly what happened to the feet... Deb (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do. The fundaments of a 19th-century building cut them off. 46.114.3.180 (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

(reset) I have read that the tomb was still visible for some time after 'the remains of the friary' passed into secular hands. At the time of the discovery of the body it was said that there had been pipe laying works or similar through what became the car park in a previous era which had crossed the locality of Richard's grave (can't remember the exact details offhand). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought history had already passed its verdict. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Third trench of initial excavation
Excellent article, very interesting and well written, and I'm happy to see it on King Richard's big day. I have an improvement to suggest, though.

According to the article, the plan for the September 2012 excavation was "to open two trenches in the Social Services car park, with an option for a third in the playground." It is never explicitly stated in the article that the third trench was actually dug (as opposed to descriptions of the first two trenches, two paragraphs down), but excavations in the playground are hinted at in the last sentence of the aforementioned "Excavations" section, as well as in two captions. I believe a direct statement (and perhaps some detail about the trench's location, dimensions and orientation, as with the other trenches) would be desirable. Waltham, The Duke of 20:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Need a source for this. Deb (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Found under a car parking space marked R" :: ref here: http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/565502/Channel-4-s-Jon-Snow-importance-King-Richard-III-s-burial . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Remarkable coincidences indeed, if the article is to be credited, Mr Appleyard, but not much help in our case. What I was asking for was something like this, though it is a bit short on detail. Even better, one could use the same source as for the rest of that paragraph (fourth in its section), namely the University of Leicester's webpage, which describes the excavation quite extensively. The problem is not how to cite the digging of the trench, but how to mention it without interrupting the flow of the text—which is why I am reluctant to do it myself. The article gives only the outline of that stage of the dig, and I shouldn't be suggesting introducing this particular detail if I didn't consider its omission confusing. Waltham, The Duke of 17:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How much a coincidence it was, depends on whether:-
 * The parking spaces were marked A B C D etseq, and Richard III was under space R.
 * Several or many of the parking spaces were marked R for "reserved".
 * Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

These coincidences do happen - the (dwarf) planet Pluto happened to be 'in the place calculated' for the ninth planet by a theory that was based on slightly flawed premises (though it had been seen but not identified previously, and would have been discovered eventually anyway). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208172828/http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/FINAL-RESTING-PLACE-KING/story-16893072-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/FINAL-RESTING-PLACE-KING/story-16893072-detail/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831071828/http://www.canada.com/technology/Canadian+family+holds+genetic+Richard+puzzle/7151179/story.html to http://www.canada.com/technology/Canadian+family+holds+genetic+Richard+puzzle/7151179/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150324213520/http://kingrichardinleicester.com/topics/reburial/timetable/ to http://kingrichardinleicester.com/topics/reburial/timetable/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150324213520/http://kingrichardinleicester.com/topics/reburial/timetable/ to http://kingrichardinleicester.com/topics/reburial/timetable/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221181223/http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/New-twist-mystery-lead-coffin-near-Richard-III/story-19946113-detail/story.html to http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/New-twist-mystery-lead-coffin-near-Richard-III/story-19946113-detail/story.html
 * Added tag to http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-University-Leicester-decide-final/story-18077880-detail/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602084211/http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Leicester-City-Council-buys-site-Richard-III/story-17477308-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Leicester-City-Council-buys-site-Richard-III/story-17477308-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Coffin?
What happened to his old coffin? Was there one? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This is already answered in the article, in the last paragraph of the "Greyfriars project and excavations" section:  No sign of a coffin was found; the skeleton's posture suggested the body had not been put in a shroud, but had been hurriedly dumped into the grave and buried. Roger Hui (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Remains
Why no pictures of his remains? They are available and impressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.136.248 (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two pictures at Commons:Category:The King In The Car Park. Perhaps one could be added? Celia Homeford (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it proper to show Richard III's skeleton?
Are the photos of the bones necessary? I suppose the previous poster said that it was impressive, but are they actually respectful to Richard III as a historical figure who once lived? Not to mention its on an article also covering his burial. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not see why not. The photographs were published by Cambridge University Press in a paper, so Wikipedia is only following suit. Surtsicna (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just by way of comparison, there's Charles Byrne who was also "a historical figure who once lived". His complete skeleton "was purchased in 1799 by the Hunterian Museum at the Royal College of Surgeons in London and it was then displayed for nearly two centuries." The continuing display of the skeleton has been the subject of some discussion and has been described by some as "unethical". But we still have the image in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting question, but surely it's appropriate for us to allow people to judge for themselves how severe or otherwise his deformity was. Deb (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Somewhat macabre for a lead image? Most people don't suffer such a posthumous indignity, even if it's after 536 years? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead image, in my humble opinion, is as macabre as befits an article about exhumation. Surtsicna (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see the grave logic there. Looks like Tagan didn't get any photo taken. Curiously, in 897, "Pope Formosus's remains were exhumed and put on trial in the Cadaver Synod". A greater indignity, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I've always found the sight of Jeremy Bentham's body pretty disturbing (as in [[File:Jeremy_Bentham_Auto-Icon_2020.jpg]] ). Deb (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, although a skeleton, stuffed with hay, with a wax head and very nattily dressed. Perhaps not as creepy as his severed head, on display since 2020, at the UCL Student Centre at Gordon Square. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Henry Somerset
Has anybody checked for Charles II DNA in his line? meaning that Charles and Mary Capell's offspring was an earlier Somerset? 100.15.127.199 (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Role of Philippa Langley
Another editor and I are in disagreement at Talk:The Lost King as to whether it is appropriate to say that Philippa Langley "led the search" to find Richard III's remains. Other views welcome. GrindtXX (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is extraordinary that her name does not appear in the lede of this article when everybody, including the University of Leicester, has publicly stated that without her, the event would never have happened (there are lots of RS explicitly stating that). Is this article being sanitised by the university? 31.187.2.3 (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd have no objection to Langley being briefly named in the lede, and will add her name shortly. I see no sign of this or related articles being "sanitised" by Leicester University. By contrast, there have been definite signs of POV edits made by or on behalf of Langley (whose background is in marketing) – most openly here and here (both 2015); and, more recently but less obviously, those by User:ABologna22, the vast majority of whose edits to a range of articles appear to promote Langley's name and role in the discovery. GrindtXX (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

King Richard III has been found but the article has a paragraph that says otherwise
The article has a paragraph that says that the King Richard society did not search for King Richard III and that maybe someday someone will find him. I just think the paragraph needs to be removed. 75.184.45.51 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)