Jump to content

Talk:Charlene, Princess of Monaco/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Parents

Point de Vue (issue # 3107, 6-12 Feb 2008) names her parents as Mike and Lynnette Wittstock. It also says that at age 14, Wittstock achieved the South African national junior championship. --Ashley Rovira (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Translated

The article sounds as though it has been translated from French or the like. It is not worth the effort of improving it. I have made a slight improvement, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.135 (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Miss Wittstock appeared with Albert in St. Tropez recently, according to the "Metro" paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.204.198 (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing/contributing to Wikipedia

Someone keeps deleting my entries and reposting their own. This is inappropriate. I just found this article which supports what I'm saying:- http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10309840-71.html Have a read and think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.15 (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You removed your own section! --Cybercobra (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No I didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyBlue73 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello magazine

Just deleted a page from Hello magazine.Renata (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Conversion to Catholicism ?

There is no evidence, I believe, that Charlene has already converted to Roman Catholicism. However, the article says she has. Has anyone proof of that? Renata (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a source which clearly says so and no source which denies that. What proof do you need? Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Please quote both.Renata (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There are no "both". There is only the source that confirms it. It says: "Born Protestant, she has converted to Catholicism and received catechism – conditions imposed by Monaco's Constitution. The former schoolteacher also learned French, Monegasque and European court protocol." The source is already cited in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet Miss Wittstock herself has recently said that she has not converted ?( a more reliable source , I would say.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.60.153 (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your word is not a more reliable source. Cite a source that says she hasn't converted. Surtsicna (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It is impossible for her to marry into the Royal Family of Monaco without being Catholic, so she has to convert. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Slightly confusing

When's the civil marriage, July 2nd or 8th? GoodDay (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the info from the Palais Princier website...

http://www.palais.mc/monaco/x-net/internet-palais-princier/francais/mariage-princier/informations-medias/informations-medias.1823.html. Renata (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Open water swimmer

Tons of photos of her at an open water swim in Durban, South Africa, are here: http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/2x5HYWHWehv/2011+aQuelle+Midmar+Mile+Race I do not know of the license for the pictures, so just the link. Rauterkus (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Career?

Just out of curiosity, does this woman do anything for a living? Has she continued to model? Or has she been supported by Prince Albert during their relationship?68.72.84.177 (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read this article I think you'll find that she is a professional swimmer. However, her swimming activities have been curtailed by a recent string of injuries. --Cazo3788 (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I did, indeed, read the article, and perhaps I am quite naive, but I am not aware that one can make a living out of being a "professional swimmer," except via product endorsements gained after success in various national and international competitions, such as the Olympics. Is this how Ms. Wittstock has been making her living while dating Prince Albert? I go back and forth between the U.S. and Europe, and I have not seen Ms. Wittstock endorsing any products related to swimming or otherwise.68.72.110.55 (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind she is not European or American, but South African. She might have business deals in African countries, and she would still make a salary as a swimmer. I am sure he pays for many things for her as well since they are engaged. She has probably taken up residence in Moncao. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

TV interview with Patrick Poivre d'Arvor

In this interview with one of France's top interviewers, Wittstock emphasised that she was "a Christian". No mention of Catholicism or any other denomination. Renata (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the article already states that she was a Protestant. She has converted to Catholicism, as is procedure for non-Catholics marrying into the House of Grimaldi. The Constitution of Monaco will not allow her to be the Princess Consort (wife of the Prince Regent) unless she is a practicing Roman Catholic. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The Monegasque Government stated that Wittstock was not obliged to convert to Catholicism; being a Christian would have been enough. However, she decided to convert anyway. Renata (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I ask someone to please show a source of what was her Protestant denomination before her conversion to Catholicism. That would be a interesting fact to state in the article.Mistico (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

First name pronunciation in French

Since her name is now pronounced on French and listed as Charlène (pronounced [ʃɑlɛn]) rather than her former English name, could someone edit on lead page. See Wikipedia:IPA for French for details. ApprenticeFan work 13:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, but according to WP:NCNT the form of the name used in reliable sources in English should be used. And according to the English page of the Monegasque palace website her first name is without a accent grave, thus Charlene. Source: [1]. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't really mind which one is used, but maybe there was a little haste in moving the page and saying in the article that it's the French version now, especially since the English official site & English news sources are still sticking to the old. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 19:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
So, will the faulty move be reverted then? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I have changed it back + also added her name pronounced in French. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that renaming an article while it is linked on the main page is a good idea. I am even surprised that it is possible. Hektor (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Really? I didn't know that.. Anyway, I only have reverted a controversial move. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
And even, diacritics are not usually used in Queen/Prince/Princess/Empress consort. That is too redundant to add. ApprenticeFan work 13:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Normally the articles linked on first page are protected, so I am surprised that anyone can modify them. Hektor (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry

Whoever keeps deleting it stop now. It's relavent information to the article. I'm going to continue to repost it, and next time it is deleted the person who deleted it will be reported to Wikipiedia for abuse. Just becasue YOU aren't interested in that information, doesn't mean someone else might not be. And if you knew ANYTHING, "none of her relatives are notable", you'd realize that she is the greatx4 granddaughter of Christian Friedrich Wittstock who was one of the first imagrants to South Africa from Germany. Besides, she will be royalty soon enough, and then people will be curious about her background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.23.77 (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The link is unsigned, unvetted, and unsourced. I will continue to delete it until you source it, sign it, and have it vetted. We do not host links to amateur speculation, you must be a published genealogist to insert your own work as source material.Wjhonson (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Nobody will care about the name of her mother's father's mother's mother! Nobody! It's enough to say who her parents are and that she comes from a family of commoners. That's it. Surtsicna (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Articles on royals normally include their ancestry, not just their parents. Her ancestry is of great interest as she is the Princess consort of a European monarchy and will be the mother of the future Souvereign. Her ancestry has already attracted great media interest.[2][3][4]. The article on Queen Elizabeth II includes unnotable ancestors such as Oswald Smith. Mocctur (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's nonsense to assume that an article has to have an ancestry chart just because its subject married someone whose ancestry is actually relevant. Her ancestry is of great interest to geneaologists only and this article needs an ahnentafel as much as the article about Bill Gates does. Actually, the article about Bill Gates deserves it more - after all, at least his parents are notable enough to have Wiki articles. When/if she becomes mother of the future sovereign, her ancestors will be shown in the article about the child. The ahnentafel is absolutely useless here. Furthermore, it's incomplete and unsourced, which cannot be tolerated since this is a BLP. Surtsicna (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Bill Gates is not the the wife of a souvereign prince. The Ahnentafel is not unsourced, it's well sourced and her ancestry has been widely reported on.[5][6][7] Her family background is unusual, interesting, and notable. An Ahnentafel doesn't have to be "complete" either, you include the information that you have. Mocctur (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the relevant precedent. All articles on queen consorts, crown prince consorts or similar who were not born as royals include an Ahnentafel, whether their ancestors were notable or not. Per precedent, this article should have an Ahnentafel, like all other comparable articles.

Mocctur (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't mean those articles should have ahnentafels, nor does it mean that this one should. I am going to (once again) remove the unsourced ones, on the basis of those articles being BLPs. Anyway, the last two articles are very different than the preceding because their subjects descended from peers and had quite notable ancestors - royal or not. Surtsicna (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to unilaterally enforce your opinion on Ahnentafels in those articles? How about Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is a policy on "contentious material" (or material "challenged or likely to be challenged"), which is clearly emphasized on that page. Information on ancestry (which is easy to verify in the case of queen consorts and crown princesses) is not "contentious material". The Ahnentafels of Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, and Diana, Princess of Wales all include people who are not accounted for in inline references or otherwise -- although of course, this information is uncontentious and easily verifiable material just like the Ahnentafels of the queens and crown princesses mentioned above, and of Princess Charlene. Mocctur (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The policy I linked you to unambigiously says that everyone has the right to remove any unsourced material in an article about a living person. Only when you find sources for all the claims made in that section, we can discuss whether or not mentioning the names of her great-grandparents contributes to the article at all. If Charlene were to divorce Albert, would we remove the ancestry chart? Notability s not inherited. "Her husband is a prince, therefore we should list her grandparents' grandparents" is not a convincing argument. Surtsicna (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't. It's a policy on "contentious material", which is noted in the lead. And if Charlene were to divorce her husband, she would probably retain a royal title, and in any event, she would still be just as notable as before regardless of her status. Notability is indeed inherited in the case of royals. Mocctur (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's another one, completely unnotable ancestors: Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (and speaking of notability, no notability in her own right, is it "inherited"?). I'd say you first obtain consensus for removing Ahnentafels from all such articles, and, if you really think notability is not inherited, for redirecting Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge to the article on her husband (or maybe he also is a case of "inherited" notability?). Mocctur (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Duchess of Cambridge and the Princess of Monaco have both received quite enough media coverage to be notable in their own right. Their notability is not inherited. An example of inherited notability would be mentioning the ruler of Monaco's great-great-great-grandfather-in-law, which is absurd. I am quite sure you know the difference. Besides, this ahnentafel is ridiculous, going back five generations on her father's side and mentioning no ancestors on her mother's side. It's more empty than filled in. Yes, of course Charlene would remain notable if she divorced Albert but you seem to associate notability with the need for an ahnentafel, as if readers would like to know the names of paternal great-great-great-grandparents of any notable individual. What I do not understand is why her ancestors were not significant while she was a (former) swimmer and suddenly became significant when she married a man with notable ancestors. That's what's wrong here. That's the inherited notability. Surtsicna (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Ahnentafels serve to show the subject's descent from notable persons and are often there because the subject's notability is directly or indirectly derived from his or her ancestry. For example, the Queen of Denmark is queen due to her ancestry. The Princess of Monaco is not a princess due to her ancestry; the Ancestry section here is completely unrelated to the rest of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I would say that, on the whole, I am generally opposed to the use of ahnentafels in any article. A person's parents should be noted in any biographical article, because they are always relevant to that individual's life. Other ancestors should only be noted on a case by case basis, when they have relevance to that person's life. Families which are themselves notable should have articles about their genealogy somewhere. Beyond that, it seems particularly ridiculous to have ahnentafels for people with no notable ancestors whatever, as in this case. john k (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Those ahnentafels should be limited to 'family tree' articles, which can be linked to these bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The way it works now, however, is that Ahnentafels are standard practice in articles on royal people, as demonstrated above. If you want to change this, you should start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility and obtain consensus for removing Ahnentafels from all articles on royal people, as suggested by john k. You cannot remove the ancestors just from Princess Charlene's article -- in that case, the ancestry section needs to be removed from Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (who has no notable ancestors whatsoever) and countless other articles too. Personally I would oppose such a proposal, because I believe many readers are indeed interested in reading about the ancestors of queens and future queens of Europe, as demonstrated by the great media interest their ancestors receive, which has been the case for Catherine, Charlene and any other such person in recent times. Mocctur (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

We can start by eliminating ahnentafels for people with no notable ancestors whatsoever, as John has suggested. The ahnentafel should be removed from the article about the Duchess of Cambridge as well. It should have never been there. Tell me, what's there to read? It's not like the ahnentafel tells the story of her family and origins. It merely states that a certain Marie Christine was her father's great-great-grandmother. How does the reader benefit from knowing that? Anyway, the media shows much more interest in gossips and how her shoes did not match her dress and other things Wikipedia should never write about. And yes, we can improve an individual article. Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I repeat: Ahnentafels are standard practice, so removing information that's by convention normally included in such articles is not an "improvement", that is, until you first obtain a general consensus for not including such information in articles on royalty. Mocctur (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
The Ahnentafel in this article is very useful to demonstrate her family background, i.e. mostly German and English people who emigrated to southern Africa in the 19th century. Mocctur (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
And I repeat: something that's done is not neccessarily good or desirable. Mispellings are standard practice. I am fairly certain that there is no convention requiring the use of ahnentafels.
Her family background would be much better demonstrated by a sentence such as: "Her ancestry consists mostly of German and English people who emigrated to southern Africa in the 19th century". That's much more informative than "19. Mary Ann Baker (born 11 June 1859 in Lower Blinkwater, Stockenstroom District)". Do you honestly think that her great-great-grandmother's birthday is a valuable information? Surtsicna (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the harm of including both. You have to actually click on the Ahnentafel to open it. It uses almost no space in the article in its collapsed state. And just because you don't think this information is interesting, other people do. I don't offer my personal opinion here, the media interest in Charlene's ancestors (and the ancestors of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, and others) demonstrates that her ancestry is worthy of inclusion, because reliable sources report on it and because many readers think this is interesting information. Mocctur (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said, if Wikipedia mentioned everything the media reports, it would no longer be an encyclopaedia. We shouldn't be able to put any kind of rubbish by just making it collapsible. I beg you to explain to me why an average reader would like to know her great-great-grandmother's name and birthday. Wikipedia is written for these average readers, not for any die-hard fans. Surtsicna (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion: There's nothing inherently wrong with including the ahnentafel, since it has become the norm for royals anyway. As long as the ancestry is backed by a reliable source, just let it be. In fact, it already goes to show that some people who are experts in genealogy, for whatever reason, are interested in the topic. There's no question over notability here, hence the who cares? argument does not stand.

If the ancestry info is provided by a non-reliable source, then remove it because it violates WP:BLP. If it's backed by a reliable source, then leave it there and drop the WP:STICK. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 09:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the fifth opinion ;) If I understood you correctly, it is not wrong because it has become the norm? That's not very logical. Anyway, Wikipedia is not written for those who are experts in geneaology. How come there is no question over notability here? I strongly question the notability of Ms. Marie Christine, the subject's grandfather's great-grandmother - if she is not notable and has had no impact on the subjects' life, I fail to see why she oughts to be mentioned. The but her great-grandson's granddaughter married someone with relevant ancestors argument does not stand.
Quite frankly, I don't know what makes that source reliable anyway. I see no citations. I see no credits. It's not official or scholarly. We do not even know who the author is. Surtsicna (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. Wikipedia is also written for those interested in royal genealogy, a topic which attracts great media interest.
  2. Ancestors don't have to be independently notable to be included in the biography of a descendant. Explain to me how Mr. Oswald Smith is notable.
  3. As you are very well aware, there have been many media reports on her ancestry, and for instance this article from n-tv was cited as a source as far as her paternal ancestry is concerned; someone—not me—removed the citation from the ancestry section for whatever reason. As I have shown to you on this talk page, more sources on this can be found.
  4. As you are aware, inline citations are not generally provided for Ahnentafels. There is no citation for Mr. Oswald Smith in the article on Queen Elizabeth II. However, this is uncontentious material that is easy to verify; excessive use of citations would not be helpful, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is specifically a policy on contentious material likely to be challenged. Mocctur (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Mocctur has pointed out that an RS (from n-tv) was cited. In an argument like this, and in the spirit of inclusion in Wikipedia, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the one adding reliably-sourced information. This argument has run its course, both should just let it go. - Yk3 talk ~ contrib 22:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Running away?

Why haven't you wiki freaks included information about her attempts to depart / leave / flee Monaco? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.127.151.124 (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If there are reliables sources, someone can add it, but you seem to be a "wiki freak" yourself, if you are so concerned. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The London Metro of today, on page 13, speaks of three attempts to run away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.5.12 (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Box

At the moment, the box for Ancestry looks odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It has improved slightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.5.12 (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Three more have appeared in the box for Ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.11.197 (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Now, three have vanished again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

Is Wittstock pronounced with a /v-/ or a /w-/ ? 158.50.204.15 (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In German it is a "v". The English spelling pronunciation is "w". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Afrikaans pronunciation depends on dialect. Two are possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry part 2

Charlene's grandparents are Rhodesian (her maternal grandmother), South African (paternal grandparents) and English (maternal grandfather) descent. STOP ADDING IRISH!!! SHE IS NOT IRISH AT ALL. Unless you can source it, don't change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.10.91 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia, not fashion mag

It would be useful if contributors would be able to follow the information at Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Citing sources, and to also to consider this biographical article than other than an extension to celebrity fashion. Blogs are not credible resources, and what someone wear to a meeting with the pope or whomever is unimportant within the encyclopaedia, unless of course it was a meat dress … — billinghurst sDrewth 11:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right. Articles such as these are, unfortunately, very prone to insertion of various trivia. Surtsicna (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement

I am quite certain that you know very well what I am talking about, but let's play as if you don't. The official statement reads: "Le Prince Albert II et la Princesse Charlène de Monaco ont l’immense joie d’annoncer qu’Ils attendent un heureux événement." "Prince Albert II and Princess Charlene of Monaco have the immense joy to announce they are expecting a happy event", to translate it quite literally. For the sake of argument, the statement does not even refer to an immense joy over pregnancy, but to an immense joy over the announcement of pregnancy. That aside, it is entirely unnecessary to state that "the couple expressed their 'immense joy' at the news". Such expressions of joy are standard in pregnancy announcements, but we never before mentioned them (see histories of articles about princesses who were recently pregnant, such as Madeleine of Sweden and Catherine of the UK). It is understood that an expecting couple is happy about the pregnancy. Explicitly mentioning Albert and Charlene's "immense joy" implies that there is something noteworty about it. There is not. And for what it's worth, the official press statement in English makes no mention of any "immense joy". Surtsicna (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

For comparison:

  • Announcement: "Princess Madeleine and Mr. Christopher O'Neill are delighted to announce that The Princess is expecting their first child."
    • Our article: "On 3 September 2013, it was announced that the couple is expecting their first child, a girl, due in February 2014."
      • Note the exact same phrase - "delighted to announce".
  • Announcement: "Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are very pleased to announce that The Duchess of Cambridge is expecting a baby. The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales, The Duchess of Cornwall and Prince Harry and members of both families are delighted with the news. "
    • Our article: "On 3 December 2012, St James's Palace announced that the Duchess was pregnant with her first child."
      • Of course, there was never any mention in the article of anyone being "delighted with the news".

I can cite as many examples as you need. Surtsicna (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

All I did was copy the exact same quote/sentence from several news sources. If you disagree, then you should contact all of the official news agencies, such as the BBC, telling them that they are wrong...: 1) See BBC source 2) Daily Mail Source 3) Express UK 4) Another source 5) And another source... And many more. --Blitztall (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

And the Palace itself used an entirely different wording. I wonder which source is more reliable, the one that gave the statement or the one that reported the statement. If you disagree with the Palace, the official authority which issued the statement, perhaps you should them that they are wrong. I hope you see how senseless your argument is. Anyway, you completely ignored the issue of relevance. Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if English is your first language as it seems like you have misunderstood the wording of the quote.--Blitztall (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but that is an answer to which of my questions? Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I have to say that protecting the article after Blitztall reverted all of my edits, including grammar improvements, was not a particularly good decision. Who did you advise to go the talk page? I have been waiting for her or his response here for four days. The user obviously does not intend to discuss anything. As I have shown by citing examples of recently pregnant princesses, writing of any "immense joy" over a pregnancy is completely unheard of in Wikipedia, and for a good reason. Then Blitzall comes in and says that this is my personal opinion, as if I wrote all those articles myself! Not to mention that the Palace itself did not mention any "immense joy" in its English language statement. The sentence adds absolutely no value. Protecting the article after four days of being ignored at the talk page seems like a reward for refusing to cooperate. Surtsicna (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If this is the case (which I did not check), I would advise follow the WP:Dispute resolution process. Reverting each other is not the solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
In the meanwhile, can the reversion of at least a part of my edits be reverted, or is grammar too going to be a victim of stubbornness? Anyway, what kind of dispute resolution would you suggest to someone dealing with a user who does not bother at all to discuss? Surtsicna (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I would not do it, WP:WRONGVERSION. If you think smth is really critical, please leave here a formal protected edit request.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
What about the dispute resolution? Surtsicna (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Please iniciate it, WP:DRN--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The official statement of the palace in the official language (French) did use the exact same words that I have quoted in the article. And most other reputable media outlets have used the same words that I used in the quote too.--Blitztall (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

And you believe that literal translation is the correct way to translate the statement into English? Incredible. The statement, translated word-for-word, says that the couple "have the immense joy to announce announce they are expecting a happy event"; they are not immensely joyous to be expecting a child, but to announce the pregnancy. It is also complete nonsense to claim that the Palace's official English language statement is somehow inferior to the literal translation used by some media. And will you finally respond to my argument regarding the way pregnancies are normally reported on Wikipedia? Surtsicna (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here are a few more examples, hopefully to induce you to say something meaningful about it.

  • Our article on Crown Princess Victoria: "On 17 August 2011 the Swedish royal court announced that the princess was pregnant and expecting the couple's first child with a due date in March of 2012."
    • Official statement: "Their Royal Highnesses The Crown Princess Victoria and Prince Daniel are happy to announce that The Crown Princess is expecting their first child."
      • Note that our article never said that Victoria and Daniel were "happy to announce" anything.
  • Our artice on Crown Princess Mary: "On 6 August 2010, it was announced that the Crown Princess was pregnant with twins. They are due to be born in January 2011."
    • Official statement: "Their Royal Highnesses the Crown Prince and Crown Princess have the great pleasure to announce that the Crown Princess is expecting twins. The birth is expected to take place at Rigshospitalet during the month of January 2011."
      • Note that our article mentioned no "great pleasure".
  • Our article about Princess Marie: "On 24 August 2011, the Royal Court announced that Princess Marie was expecting the couple's second child, due late January 2012."
    • Official statement: "Their Royal Highnesses Prince Joachim and Princess Marie are happy to announce the pregnancy of Princess Marie. It is expected that the birth will take place at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen (Copenhagen University Hospital) at the end of January, 2012."
      • Note that our article never said they were "happy to announce" anything.
  • When Cotillards added the information about Princess Claire of Luxembourg's [current] pregnancy a few months ago, she wrote: "On 14 January 2014, it was announced that the couple is expecting their first child in June 2014."
    • The official statement said: "Leurs Altesses Royales le Grand-Duc et la Grande-Duchesse ont la grande joie d’annoncer que le Prince Félix et la Princesse Claire attendent Leur premier enfant. La naissance est prévue pour le mois de juin. Le Grand-Duc, la Grande-Duchesse, le Grand-Duc Jean et toute la Famille grand-ducale, ainsi que la famille Lademacher, s’associent à ce grand bonheur."
      • Note that our article says nothing about any "happiness".

Do you need more? Surtsicna (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you an expert at French translation that you think that your translation is the only good one? Talking about stubbornness and unwilling to compromise...You are just giving your own subjective opinion on what you think is "right". You are also contradicting yourself as you first complained that the issue was the meaning of the quote and now it looks like the issue - again according to you - is the translation...I do not appreciate your tone as you are acting like only your opinion matters. Quite frankly, it is unprofessional. I don't think you are that much of an "expert" at Wikipedia as you claim to be as your arguments are, again, your own personal subjective opinion...--Blitztall (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
My translation? You are either manipulating or desperately trying to avoid responding to my arguments. You cannot seriously think that I translate for the Palace. If you think that this is about opinions, that tells a lot about the strength of your arguments. I have never in this section used the phrases "I think" or "I believe"; I cited mere facts, yet you have the audacity to claim that this is about my "own personal subjective opinion" (talk about pleonasm!). For the fourth time: have you nothing to say about the clearly established precedent on the matter? Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Our article on the Countess of Wessex: "On 2 July 2007, Buckingham Palace announced that the Countess is expecting her second child, due in December 2007."
    • Note that there is no mention of the Earl and Countess being "thrilled and excited", as stated in the BBC article.
  • Our article on Zara Phillips: "On 8 July 2013, it was announced by Buckingham Palace that they were expecting their first child in early 2014."
    • Official statement: "Mr and Mrs Mike Tindall are very pleased to announce that Zara Tindall is expecting a baby in the New Year. The Princess Royal and Captain Mark Phillips, Mr Phillip and Mrs Linda Tindall, and members of both families are delighted with the news."
      • Note that our article did not mention anything about the couple being "very pleased" about the pregnancy, or about their family being "delighted", for that matter.

Frankly, I am becoming tired of tracking old pregnancy announcements, especially since you keep ignoring all of this, so I just listed a few articles to compare with this one. All of them stated plainly that the subject's pregnancy was announced, with no flowery language to make it sound like a Victorian encyclopaedia. Surtsicna (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I am getting tired of your arguments...you can say what you want, but it is still your opinion. I do not see the relevance in any of your examples or arguments. I am not going to discuss this further and I conclude therefore that no consensus has been reached. It seems like a waste of time to find so many "examples" of what you think is best just for the sake of removing 2 words from a quote. Why are you acting so childish about it? I have literally just quoted 2 words from official media outlets and from the Palace itself. I do not appreciate your aggressive and subjective tone and your accusations towards me too.--Blitztall (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
You do not see the relevance? That might be a sensible response if you attempted to explain what makes the listed examples irrelevant. I conclude that you are not able to defend your position since you have given absolutely no arguments in your favour. Therefore, the sentence (not just "two words") should be removed. Surtsicna (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I have initiated the DP. Surtsicna (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
@Surtsicna: and @Blitztall: Reading the above discussion, I see that this is mainly about the relevance of this statement "the couple expressed their "immense joy" at the news."

I conclude that this statement, which is currently there both in the lead section and in the article, is irrelevant and can be removed. Though it can be said the most news sources say this, we are an encyclopaedia and we need to provide concise information. News reports have the habit of writing in such a way, doesn't mean we add everything they say. As I see it, the statement on its own adds no extra information to the original announcement and seems trivial. WP:Recentism comes to mind here. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I have seen this conflict before, so I feel that I should also contribute a third opinion here. In my opinion, I do not see anything wrong with the statement/quote. It seems like it has been mentioned in a lot of sources and I do not see any harm in keeping the information that the subject expressed "immense joy" at the news. I can see that some information in this article as a whole seems irrelevant and is also unsourced. This statement has a lot of sources to back it up. I say keep.--OhioJack (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem here is not a lack of sources. You can find lots of sources that confirm Charlene's shoe size. Does that mean that her shoe size is relevant? The sentence is entirely pointless and adds no value to the article. It is trivial, and Wikipedia strives to cut back on trivia. This article should not sound like Albert and Charlene's personal blog. "We're preggie and totally, immensely overjoyed!" Surtsicna (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
If you think this is trivial, Surtsicna, then I am afraid a lot of information in this article must also be removed as it contains a lot of "trivial" information as OhioJack also mentioned. You can go on literally forever trying to argue that something is "trivial". At least this information has a lot of sources to support it...--Blitztall (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course it is trivial. I don't see any other trivia in the article. Do you? And do you really think that we need sources to confirm that the couple are happy about the pregnancy? Of course they are. Anyway, you said that you would not be participating in this discussion anymore. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I thought you were getting tired of arguing...but you are still continuing to argue with your irrelevant arguments. Let it be and waste your time on something else...--Blitztall (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I never said I was getting tired of arguing. I have tons of arguments, and you apparently have no response to any of them. Your best bet, it seems, is to describe as "subjective" something that has been practiced by Wikipedia community for a decade. Quite ridiculous, but probably not as ridiculous as your attempts to dismiss my examples as "irrelevant". Why are they irrelevant? Are those women not princesses? Were they not pregnant? Did they not announce how happy they were about the pregnancy? Why are they irrelevant? Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You can try to have the last word like a little child, but in my opinion the quote should be kept. At the end of the day, it is still my opinion versus your opinion. I am not going to waste my time on your useless and childish comments anymore. Some people actually have a life and are not waiting to respond to your tiring comments every day. Your comments are not even making any sense anymore as you are constantly contradicting yourself. It seems like you are just finding any reason to argue...--Blitztall (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Contradicting myself how? My examples are irrelevant how and why? Why does your opinion outrank the clearly established opinion of the community? And waiting to respond to my "tiring comments"? You have not responded to anything! Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, passing through. Blitztall, please read WP:NPA. You are violating one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. You are free to have a different opinion, but you are not free to denigrate another user by calling them names. Please stop. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The immense joy of the couple is commonplace and the phrase is routine in press releases and reports but is superfluous puffery in an encyclopedia article. If secondary sources had reported the couple's disgust and fury, that might have been worthy of inclusion. NebY (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"The immense joy of the couple is commonplace and the phrase is routine in press releases and reports but is superfluous puffery in an encyclopedia article" Couldn't have said it better myself, the information is trivial at best and adds little value to the article. Refer to WP:IINFO. —Dark 22:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • All the personal comments need to stop. Keep the discussion on the merits, not on personal observations of each other. Hammer it out. If you can't, go to WP:DRN. We're all adults here, folks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to add my voice in support of Surtsicna here: formulations like the one in question are standard. We should no more comment on them than say that a person is especially sincere because they sign a letter 'yours sincerely'. The proposed wording is clearly unduly implying something about the announcement that just isn't there. And there is nothing wrong with the French-to-English translation here; the French wording uses a platitude just like the English one, with no more meaning than that. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The sentence, as currently worded, is identical to the material on the source page (except we have omitted the phrase "who married in July 2011"). It needs to be removed as a copyright violation, or completely paraphrased if it stays in. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 June 2014

Delete the last sentence of the lede, "In a very short statement, the couple expressed their "immense joy" at the news" as copyvio of source's "In a short statement, the couple - who married in July 2011 - expressed their "immense joy" at the news".[8] Rephrasing is unnecessary as - in this participant's view - a clear consensus for complete omission is emerging.[9] NebY (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. The sentence is so ridiculously pointless that I did not even notice the blatant copyright violation. I suppose the administrator should have paid attention to the object of dispute before locking it into the article; administrators shouldn't protect articles just because they can, especially not when doing so is not any "protection" at all. Luckily I managed to remove the tabloid gossip about twins, added by the same user, before the article got "protected". The protection should clearly be lifted as well. Surtsicna (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Done Also, the page is now unprotected. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Princess Charlene's Pregnancy

 On May 30, 2014, it was announced that Princess Charlene and Prince Albert are expecting their
 first child by the end of the year.[1]

The web site for Riviera Reporter magazine has just announced that the Prince Albert II and Princess Charlene are expecting twins.
☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.rivierareporter.com
I believe we should wait for an official statement. Surtsicna (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Spelling of Name

I see that in Monagasque publications in English her name is rendered "H.S.H. [Her Serene Highness] Princess Charlène" with a diacritical grave accent even though she was born Charlene Lynette Wittstock in Zimbabwe when it was still Rhodesia: http://www.monacowealthmanagement.com/monaco/hsh-princess-charlene.php

☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charlene, Princess of Monaco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlene, Princess of Monaco. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlene, Princess of Monaco. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlene, Princess of Monaco. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charlene, Princess of Monaco. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charlene, Princess of Monaco. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlene,_Princess_of_Monaco/Archive_1&oldid=1242253574"