Talk:(Almost) Straight Outta Compton

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Philroc (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that an article headlined "(Almost) Straight Outta Compton" led to Prince Harry's Communications Secretary issuing a public statement denouncing "racist" and "sexist" commentary about Meghan, Duchess of Sussex? Source: "When one newspaper dubbed Markle "(Almost) Straight Outta Compton" last year, there was an outcry. A week later, the royal family issued a rare public statement denouncing the "racist" and "sexist" commentary about Ms Markle, whose mother is African American." ([https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41391607 Regan Morris, BBC News, 'Meghan who?' LA shrugs over Harry's hometown girlfriend, 27 September 2017)

• Reviewed: Astor Place station

Created by No Swan So Fine (talk). Self-nominated at 14:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC).

• Appropriate length, newness satisfied, supported by inline citations. Earwig flagged the Daily Mail as a source for plagiarism, but given the quote, I think it is okay. Hook is interesting and supported by source. One small recommendation: probably an introduction to the city of Compton, California (as mentioned in the headline) would be nice. Other than that, this is good to go. HĐ (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, I've expanded it slightly as per your suggestion. No Swan So Fine (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am unable to see the hook fact in the article; I see a statement by Prince Harry's Communications Secretary, but not one by the royal family. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The BBC citation above says royal family, presumably because Harry is part of the royal family. I have amended the hook. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Replacing tick for the amended hook as per HĐ's review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"Meghan" vs "Markle"

In this article, I started changing "Meghan" to "Markle" per WP:SURNAME. However, now I'm not sure whether we should use "Meghan" or "Markle", and "Harry" or something else. What's the proper guideline, and should the article be internally consistent? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Great question! It's proper form to use first names only for royals after their first introduction on the article. I've expanded it slightly to clarify her normative developments. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Respectful request of article creator

User:No Swan So Fine : It is respectfully acknowledged that you created this page a few days ago, but please look at Meghan's main page before changing edits by other Wikipedians ... These editors: @Bettydaisies: @Keivan.f: @Martinevans123: are very familiar with related articles, and may care to kindly assist with expanding (Almost) Straight Outta Compton. Sampajanna (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to write to me so obsequiously! I of course concur with WP:OWN, none of my edits have suggested otherwise. Regards, No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

User:No Swan So Fine : Why use unnecessarily big words when smaller words would work just as well? For example: You don't have to write to me so obsequiously! What exactly are you trying to say? WP:GF is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Also, why include an exclamation (!) mark? Separately, in the (Almost) Straight Outta Compton Revision history, you wrote: (RV most of recent changes, her extended name helps guide the reader through her normative developments in rest of article.*[1] Again, what exactly are you trying to say? Sampajanna (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I am proud of my vocabulary, and my ability to write snappy prose. I've written thousands of articles, and contributed more than 100 DYKs, so I feel some justification in my writing ability. I used the exclamation mark to make it clear that I had written it in a light hearted manner, and that I was not chiding you. A full stop could have been interpreted as more aggressive. I considered using a smiley emoticon, but disregarded it, because I was worried you would see it as patronising. In any instance, my reply has led to further conflict on yet another talk page about the Duke and Duchess. If the other editors you pinged wished to edit this article, they would, but at present it is only you. You write to me as if I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia and its community. I used the word 'obsequiously' in a light hearted manner because I felt that your use of 'respectfully acknowledged' and 'Respectful request of article creator' was unnecessary when we assume good faith, as I have always done on Wikipedia. I am physically anxious when I interact with you. I have never sought conflict in my many years on Wikipedia, and am used to writing and editing in a pleasant community of friends. You are one of the most aggressive editors I have ever interacted with. To introduce her as 'Meghan, Duchess of Sussex' then refer to her as (nee Markle) to tell the reader of her former name, then refer to her as 'Markle' when we are discussing her at the time of the article, then 'Meghan' when wee are referring to her at the time of the wedding and interview shows the evolution of her name over the last four years. Best wishes, No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

User:No Swan So Fine wrote : " I used the word 'obsequiously' in a light hearted manner because I felt that your use of 'respectfully acknowledged' and 'Respectful request of article creator' was unnecessary when we assume good faith, as I have always done on Wikipedia." From a quick search that I have just done of the word 'obsequious' online : Obsequious people are usually not being genuine; they resort to flattery and other fawning ways to stay in the good graces of authority figures. An obsequious person can be called a bootlicker, a brownnoser or a toady." User:No Swan So Fine further comments : "You are one of the most aggressive editors I have ever interacted with." Such could be literally taken as a personal attack against me. Wikipedia encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. Sampajanna

I have nothing further to say. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Prince Harry of the British royal family

Does it need to be explained in the article that Prince Harry is of the British royal family, especially when his name is linked to his own Wikipedia article? An alternative description, which has been previously submitted and changed, is 'British Prince Harry'. Sampajanna (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because without assinging the precursor 'American' to her initial description it could be read that he married a fellow aristocrat. 'PH of the British royal family' is just straightforward and accurate. He could be a Prince of Denmark for all the reader knows. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to mention that "Prince Harry of the British royal family" is technically an incorrect term, since one cannot be the prince of a family. It's the country's name that should appear in this case, like Prince of Denmark as you said, or Prince of the United Kingdom, etc. The phrase British Prince Harry also works really well. Keivan.f^Talk 19:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Cool :) No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:No Swan So Fine has just very promptly changed the lead to read "towards the Anerican Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (née Markle), prior to marrying the British Prince Harry." I have since changed it to "towards American Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (née Markle), prior to marrying British Prince Harry." Sampajanna (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it just feels far too vernacular to omit 'the' as a prefix No Swan So Fine (talk)

@No Swan So Fine: Your opinion is acknowledged. 'Anerican' is a simple typo for anyone to make. Otherwise, her nationality is also included in the first sentence of the body ('Origin' section). Sampajanna (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thats alright :) Thanks for all your help so far. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:No Swan So Fine You wrote (above): "Yes, it just feels far too vernacular to omit 'the' as a prefix". 'The' is actually a definite article, not a prefix. Sampajanna (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine: Also, I noticed that you have nominated a fact from this page to appear on the main page's "Did you know..." section. What caught my attention was the source saying that the palace issued a statement defending Meghan against sexist and racist claims. Do you think this should be mentioned under Oprah with Meghan and Harry#Veracity and context of claims because I think in her interview she said she didn't receive any protection from the palace against the press and this contradicts that claim. Keivan.f^Talk 20:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a decision that I'm comfortable for others to make. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Great, I'll look into the source and see what I can add. Keivan.f^Talk 20:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, looking at the original statement it seems that Harry was behind the statement, in other words palace issued it on behalf of Harry not the whole family. So I guess it's better not to change anything on the interview article at this point. Keivan.f^Talk 20:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

General inquiry

I apologize if I've already commented here but I would just like to point out that this and some random person's Twitter depiction of Harry and Meghan's child as a monkey are the ONLY potentially racist media items I have seen about them since she was made famous in 2016 after announcing she was dating Harry. I have not seen any other article that even remotely has racial undertones in it (and this is why the 'racist' articles they had to use in the interview were doctored because they didn't actually have any evidence of racist media items). People are literally being called racist for saying anything negative about her. That is not racism, I'm sorry. It's just silly that this page exists when other royals have suffered much more abuse (e.g. Kate, Fergie, Andrew even though he deserves it, DIANA). 173.35.240.92 (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@173.35.240.92 : This article was created to coincide with the Oprah with Meghan and Harry interview in March 2021. Read what you like into that. Otherwise, have a look through the various discussions further up this talk page. Sampajanna (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

This post comes very close to violating WP:NOTFORUM. This article is about the "Almost Straight Outta Compton" headline and story specifically. It does not matter if you have not seen other examples of racist stories. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that I've seen interpretations of this article since it keeps being brought up again and again by them as 'evidence of racism' when from everyone I've heard who is actually from the UK and understands the context of UK culture, this article was at worst classist, not racist. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)