Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Racial Identity and the Media

Hi all! I wanted to discuss the addition of a section about her racial identity and the media, especially in the context of the Oprah Winfrey interview. Even though Meghan Markle is frequently described as a modernizing force, she is rarely considered in light of her biracial identity, which is an important factor in considering her relations with the British press. Markle has been often labeled as “black”, rather than as biracial, which enforces a racial binary. It also sets her apart from her sister in law, Kate Middleton. From this Guardian article, it can be observed that she has received twice as many negative reviews as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. 43% of articles written about Markle were negative, and 20% were positive. As well, this research demonstrates that her identity as a biracial woman has been reduced and ignored, while the Daily Mail describes her as “straight outta Compton” and her appearance as “messy”. Additionally, more negative reviews came after comments made by her father came out, and after she and Prince Harry made the decision to have a private baptism. 43% of articles written about Markle were negative, and 20% were positive. The abuse and harassment reached such a level that it at one point prompted a statement from the Press Communications Secretary. The harassment includes the Daily Mail describing Markle incorrectly as a “descendant of slaves”. As well, Prince Harry was the first British royal to sue the press for harassment of his wife, emphasizing the intensity of the comments being made. He is quoted as saying that Markle is a victim of the press, who he says were waging a campaign against her. It seems that there is a clear correlation between Markle’s identity as a biracial woman and racist undertones in reporting by the British press. It appears to be more significant than criticism that Kate Middleton faced, as it ties directly into Markle’s race, something that was hardly discussed or mentioned with Middleton. Considering that her identity is a significant part of who she is, it seems to warrant a new section addition.

Digitalculturestudent (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi! I think a lot of the content you mention surrounding, for instance, headline coverage and Press Secretary comments, could be synthesized into the "Privacy and media" section, perhaps with a subsection heading, if other editors concur. Further conflicts with the press, such as her successful lawsuit against AN/Daily Mail, are also covered in the same section.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Digitalculturestudent Also, have a look at the (Almost) Straight Outta Compton article. Sampajanna (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

To the extent you wish to represent a study and conclusions of an academic, you should consider putting them in the form of "According to linguistics professor X." Also, note, this Wikipedia article does note her ancestry, and the article you cite [1], does not really take issue with the facts of her ancestry, as incorrect, but rather the context in which the Daily Mail used it. Perhaps people might need some time to review your sources, but thank you very much for providing citations to sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

On another source, I'm not familiar with: [2]. There is a notice board on Wikipedia that discusses sourcing issues, WP:RSN, see WP:RS for the Wikipedia guideline. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, [3] appears to be an undergraduate thesis, so probably not usable WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but it might help you find usable RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. 2001:1970:5147:4100:4976:F112:693B:D9E3 (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of this, shouldn't she be in the category african-american? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.96.125 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Previously discussed at Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 2#African American categories, Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 4#Identifies Bi-Racial She is NOT African American and Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 7#Nationality/ethnicity categories. DrKay (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but, if it isn't a bother, why was american people of african descent taken off? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.96.125 (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

One of those 'falling through the cracks' things, I think the African decent category was deleted because some people thought it was being misused on other articles. IMO, yes we should have the AA category here, but oddly (imo) it seems some people don't understand that one can be AA and other things too, they treat AA like an excluding race (Really odd, since AA is an ethnicity not a race and the plain fact is AA are often of very mixed ancestry). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wording

@User:Alanscottwalker: Hi! Regarded the reverted wording - I think it's important to a. mention the publication that reported the allegations and b. summarize the content of the report without getting wordy - I don't believe either of these things amounts to "trivia", but it's a better summary then:

"In March 2021, a 2018 allegation of bullying by former press secretary, Jason Knauf, against Meghan was reported". In my opinion, this sounds too general and nonspecific - the original phrasing of:

"In March 2021, The Times reported that a bullying complaint was made by Meghan's close advisor, press secretary Jason Knauf, during her tenure as a working royal, which claimed that Meghan had caused two personal assistants to quit their positions in the royal household and had undermined the morale of a third employee" outlines the basics of the allegations - individuals involved, when it allegedly happened, what reportedly occurred as a result - etc. This can also be trimmed down to:

"In March 2021, The Times reported that a bullying complaint was made by Meghan's royal press secretary Jason Knauf, which claimed that Meghan had caused two personal assistants to quit their positions and had undermined the morale of a third employee". What are your thoughts on this matter?--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It's too much. No, the name of the publication does not matter. Look at the rest of the article, we don't normally say the name of a publication. And there is no special reason to do that, here. And no, it does not need more than the allegation and by who. What it does need is the fact that this was years ago, in 2018, and it does need to be stated as alleged, it is not proven to have occurred. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Other disputes with Splash News, Mail on Sunday, etc. have all named publications. Obviously it's not proven to have occurred - it's an allegation. I'd argue that the timing doesn't matter either - it was reported merely two days ago, which makes it relevant. The current phrasing makes it sound like Meghan bullied Knauf himself, instead of filing it on behalf of the employees. Context is important. To whom did he alleged it to? The Times itself? It's not specific enough to faithfully and succinctly summarize the widespread reporting by media sources.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Reported two days ago does not make it relevant it makes it less relevant for the encyclopedia per WP:RECENTISM. Nor is Wikipedia here to pass along gossip, see WP:BLP. Knauf allegedly made the allegation. And yes, it was years ago. And no, this is not a dispute with The Times. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Knauf allegedly made the allegation, but was not the receiver of the supposed and alleged behavior. Phrasing it like he was is inaccurate. These allegations have garnered press attention and multiple statements to multipel news outlets from the couple's lawyers. Again, current phrasing contradicts reporting stating why and who Knauf make the allegations to in the first place - summaries should be accurate.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Knauf allegedly made the allegation. It's not phrased like he was anything except the one who allegedly made the allegation. You have against policy fixated on recent reporting, and that is precisely what we should not do in the encyclopedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

"a 2018 allegation of bullying by former press secretary, Jason Knauf, against Meghan was reported" - It's phrased as if he made the allegation because he experienced the terms of the allegation. An encyclopedia should provide enough information to maintain accuracy of allegations, even in summary. --Bettydaisies (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't see it, but have rephrased that the allegation refers to staff. The when (2018) and who made the allegation still belong, and the paper does not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC) 21:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, thank you!--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The Meghan Markle Wikipedia has so many errors, we are left to believe it just be trolls who’re doing this on purpose. First of all it reads like a daily diary, with tabloid rumors repeated on here as if it was the truth. You go as far as to repeat a widely disputed and defamatory claim that she started dating Harry before breaking up with her ex boyfriend. There is no proof she ever dated that chef, never been confirmed by her in her old blog or any interviews, in addition in the months before she meet Harry, she was blogging about hoping to find a boyfriend. Secondly, you refer to Harry as the patron of Invictus games, when he’s the founder of this entire institution. A lot of trolls went on our page and incessantly changed him from founder to patron. There is so much more on Meghan’s page that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, but we’re not able to edit and it’s too much to go over it here. To everyone who are able to edit, Please take a step and treat it like any other Wikipedia page. Stop adding daily tabloid stories, about allegations etc. only add things that were resolved. Also, Meghan grew up in an area in LA called black Beverly Hills. A historically significant place for black Americans, yet no one added that info, instead adding defamatory fabricated stories about the exact date she broke up with a unverified chef boyfriend. Stop citing British papers, they’re infamous for hacking phones and lying through their teeth. InvictusGames (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @InvictusGames. Wikipedia WP:COI requires the public disclosing of involvement with article subjects, including the Duchess and your eponymous Invictus Games. If you truly represent the organisation, please refrain from directly editing articles relevant to your workplace, and instead suggest and discuss edits for consensus on the talk page (as you have done here - thank you!) The information you mention is largely sourced from WP:RSP, aka reliable sources. We therefore have little reason to believe that the information is false unless publicly declared so by Meghan, or if you receive direct authorization to speak on her behalf (?) and request it be removed. More information on Harry's founding and extensive work with the Games is found on his article, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. The issue of the location of her upbringing has been discussed before, and will be added in due course. Unfortunately, reputable British papers still quality as reliable sources on Wikipedia, so again, we have little reason to believe the information is false.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

She wasn't raised in black Beverly hills, that house was her grandfather's house (now deceased) that her mother moved into after inheriting it, circa 2013. She was raised in woodland hills, with her dad. 85Rose (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Referring to the comment from May 4, I should point out that the article says that she stopped dating the chef in May 2016 and began dating Harry in June 2016. I don't see an overlap there, or any statements that would imply she was dating both of them at the same time. Regarding the place where she was raised in, we need reliable secondary sources. I see contradiction between the two statements here. One says that she was raised in Beverly Hills presumably with her maternal granddad, and the other says that she was raised in Woodland Hills with her dad. A reliable source (whether it be American or British) should be used to support any such claims. Also, no tabloid references have been used to back up the information in this article. All the info comes from reliable news agencies, papers or outlets. And it is totally normal to cover occasional criticism about the subjects, as solely praising them would violate the neutral point of view policy. Articles on other royals contain information on scandals reported in the press as well as general criticisms, all of which are not necessarily resolved or addressed by the individuals but are noteworthy because they are widely reported. Keivan.f^Talk 21:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

Change "In 2003, Markle earned her bachelor's degree with a double major in theater and international studies from Northwestern's School of Communication.[25][23]"

To: ".. earned her bachelors degree in Communications from NWU"

She didn't double major. And International relations isn't offered at the school of comm its offered at the school of poli Sci. The NWU 2003 yearbook shows her in the graduating class of the school of communications with a major in COMM. 85Rose (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Not done. Your claim is contrary to the sources and unsupported. IR was offered as a second major in the School. This has already been discussed.[4]. Double majors always get one degree, while fulfilling the requirements for both (double) majors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I have photos of her yearbook proving her major. How do I post that as proof? 85Rose (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The sources for the original text of double majors in IS and theatre are not proper sources. Her NWU yearbook stating her degree would be the reliable source. 85Rose (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it would not, not only do we use secondary sources (so, you are wrong about what a proper source is), but nothing about the year book changes or challenges anything, you just misunderstand it, or read into it, your own personal conclusion. And as noted in the prior discussion, the University, itself, has contradicted your unsupportable conclusion. A year book is not a transcript. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

A primary source would be considered more reliable than a secondary source. Yearbooks are primary source. How is what I've seen in the NU yearbook, my "own" interpretation?? I have a masters level degree, I know how to research. Theres also this: In the Spring 2013 edition of the Dialogue, the quarterly magazine put out by Northwestern University’s Department of Communications, she is mentioned on Page 22 in the “Class Notes” section with this:

Meghan Markle (C03) is a cast member of the USA show Suits.

(X)

The ’(C03)’ indicates she graduated from the school of communications in the year 2003.

This data is independently verified by the University’s Department of Alumni Relations and would include the school and date of graduation. See page 20 of the magazine for this (copied here):

Class notes are selected from alumni submissions to Northwestern magazine at www.northwestern.edu /magazine, stories of alumni featured in the media as identified by the University’s Office of Alumni Relations and Development, and updates sent to Dialogue by mail or by email at dialogue@northwestern.edu.

Where has the uni actually contradicted her degree in comm? I didn't see that source listed. 85Rose (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how detrimental continuing to publish this false information about her degree is? Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased, factual accounting. It's also a slap in the face of those whom actually have earned their degree in IR, it's not an easy degree to attain. I question why you refuse to submit the real degree she has, instead relying on secondary sources, when primary sources are plentiful. 85Rose (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

If a person graduates from NWU School of Communications in 2003 with a major in theatre and an adjunct major in international relations, they are a C03 graduate. Spring 2013 Dialogue is therefore consistent with the article content and other sources. DrKay (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

"It's also a slap in the face" appears to be the latest basis for your mistaken, if not malicious, personal conclusion. She graduated in the SOC, at that time the SOS, and you have taken that as some kind of proof of your unwarranted denial of reliable sources. In the SOS, IR was offered as an additional major to theater and the other majors, as was already shown in the prior discussion to which you have been given a link. And in that prior discussion is the link to the University source which wholly contradicts your unsupported personal conclusion. The things you point to, like the year book and the Dialogue do not conclude what you personally contend or wish they conclude, and are instead consistent with the reliable sources, as used in this article (see also, DrKay's comment). See WP:BLP and WP:PSTS for proper sourcing and discussion of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. See also BLP, on why your personal unsupported conclusions are detrimental to Wikipedia and to living people, and do not belong here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Image

I think that a 2020 photo of Meghan at London House would be more appropriate. It is closer to the current time and is fitting. Can this be agreed upon?

File:Meghan-markle-at-canada-house-in-london-01-07-2020-4.jpg

Meghan Markle at Canada House in London.

I think the current photo used in the infobox is of better quality and is framed in a better way in my opinion. Not to mention that she hasn’t changed much since 2018, so both photos are actually recent. Keivan.f^Talk 02:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

To me, the 2018 photo is much more flattering. Sampajanna (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. The current photograph fufills both recency and quality, remaining an accurate and in my opinion, more flattering depiction of the subject.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Please comment your thoughts at Talk:Wedding dress of Meghan Markle#Title. Peter Ormond 💬 07:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Occupation : Actress, activist, author

Actress, at least in the past, is certainly an apt occupation for the infobox. However, activist and author does not seem so obvious to me. Any thoughts on this? Sampajanna (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Archie's birth certificate lists her occupation as "Princess of the United Kingdom". Peter Ormond 💬 16:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow. That's somewhat debateable. Maybe purely for tax reasons? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Debatable? It says what it says. Why guess why? Occam's razor: Whatever the custom/law in Britain is/was, also matching her husband's occupation. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, of course, goods and chattels, and all that. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, but why not, Act of Settlement and Succession of the Crown Act, or that's what that family does, as the BBC seems to say. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Weight loss guru? Pizza delivery driver? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Alma mater in infobox royal

Meghan's alma mater has been included in her infobox, whereas other royals' have not in their's. Is there a special reason why? Sampajanna (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure there is a why, but I think for most of the article's history it used the infobox normally used for an actress or a person, and now nests that box within the infobox (filmography is probably also not in royalty infoboxes). Perhaps the question should be why royalty boxes alone, don't include it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, in the past royals were not educated at college or university but the new generation has received formal education, so I guess there would not be a problem for adding others’ alma mater either. Keivan.f^Talk 23:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The instructions at Template:Infobox person are to use the parameter "if relevant". I don't see the relevance for non-academics. DrKay (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Two things: (1) Meghan is an actress as well as a royal, so per Nicole Kidman or anyone else, it seems useful and consistent to include her Alma Mater. (2) Prince Charles lists his school and his university, so it's not like we don't do this for royals. I think keep it in.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• I posted above because of the mass-bombing today of royalty articles to include this information[5]. For the last 20 years, Charles's infobox has not listed either his school or his university. It has only done so for the last few hours. DrKay (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm. I hope, I did not cause that. But even if not in those, I also agree it is relevant to this person's life, even if one views it as, 'only' relevant to pre-royal career. (As for royalty, some have military in infoboxes, and some don't, so it's not like they all have to be exactly the same.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Education plays an important role in people’s lives whether you are royal or not. For example, Meghan is not an academic and neither is Emma Watson but we list their alma mater in their infoboxes anyway. Not to mention that it is listed in the infobox for America’s first families, all of whom are not necessarily academics. I think if we are to give value to military career or sports achievements (such as in the articles about Anne, Princess Royal and Olav V of Norway), I think we should also extend the same degree of value to formal education. It simply shows that the new generation of royals have become adapted to the new system of formal education which I think is a good thing, compared to being homeschooled. Keivan.f^Talk 14:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Baby name allegations

Concerns have been raised on my talk page by User:DigitialNomad about a specific paragraph in the "Privacy and the media" section, which deals with rumors spread by a palace source that Meghan and Harry's daughter was named Lilibet without the Queen's permission. I think the main issue here is that unlike the bullying allegations where we know it was Jason Knauf who filed a complaint against Meghan, in this case we actually don't know who this palace source is, and this anonymously sourced narrative could be false if the person who came up with it does not wish to reveal his or her name (or their names). In any case, I thought it would be better to have the community decide whether this piece of information is worthy enough to be kept in either Meghan or Harry's articles. Looking forward to the feedback. (tagging users who might be interested @Bettydaisies:, @Surtsicna:, @Sampajanna:, @Celia Homeford:, @No Swan So Fine:, @Abbyjjjj96:, etc.) Keivan.f^Talk 20:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey! I didn’t consider it worthy of inclusion until their was a significantly covered response from their legal team - since much of the section covers their litigation and relationship with the media, I thought it appropriate, but feel free to discuss and deliberate.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. If they had formally started legal proceedings against the BBC then it should have been included without argument, but since a user brought the argument forward about it not being an official legal issue then I though it would be better to get consensus about its inclusion or exclusion. Keivan.f^Talk 02:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's OK personally. There is a counter-balancing statement from the duke and duchess. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Sampajanna (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

According to the royal correspondent at the BBC, the source was responding to reports that the couple had spoken with the Queen before naming the child.[6] Anyway it's been given sufficient coverage to be included. That allows us to cover it fairly. TFD (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we will soon need a separate Sussexes' privacy and the media article. Surtsicna (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: True. But are you opposing the decision to include it or do you think it should stay as it is? Keivan.f^Talk 15:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not have an opinion. I would only ask that, if it does stay, we keep it as concise as possible. Surtsicna (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like unenecylcopedic unknown source gossip (See WP:BLP) and a very large part of the issue here is the facts are not really about the subject of this article -- it's vaguely 'the couple', but the central subject is Harry, who says he wanted the name, he is the one who says he spoke to the queen, and if Harry did speak to the queen, the unknown palace gossip either had no way of knowing and just made it up (does this unknown person listen in on the queen?) or something worse. At any rate, if we put this anywhere (and that anywhere should not be here, Harry's article maybe), at least 1) it has to say what Harry says; and 2) if I recall correctly, the BBC later updated the story with what Harry says, so it's not true the BBC did nothing. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

BBC did not appear to update the original article, and the original paragraph did include the verbatim statement from the couple's lawyers.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

They had to update the article because the lawyer's statement was in response to the original BBC report.[7] Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Ooh okay, my mistake, the article does include the statement while keeping the original report, but Newsweek is a deprecated source per WP:RSP , so we're going to have to find a difference reference for that.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No we don't. The gossip is already basically irrelevant, here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I've already explained why I thought it relevant - it being so-called "gossip" is irrelevant when the section documents the couple's relationship with the press, and their legal representatives did issue widely and substantially reported warnings to the BBC.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

You wrote up the gossip. And then you don't say what Harry says to the contrary. You did not focus on defamation. Had you focused on defamation allegations, it would have begun: the couple accused the BBC of libel concerning an anonymous report on conversations with the queen about his daughter's name. Harry says he spoke to the queen about his daughter's name and the queen was supportive.[8] But it's still a story about Harry, who is not the subject of this article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

As previous users have stressed, Wikipedia must remain neutral. This means giving equal weight to the report and to the legal response. We can't frame it one way or another. Per WP:RSP], BBC is considered a reliable source. I agree that the matter is incredibly trivial, but not tabloid gossip. Framing it as such implies that the BBC did commit defamation, which has not yet been proven in legal court. It describes the events in chronological order while, again, including the couple's exact statement in quotation marks as the section deals with their relationship with the media. The report you linked never once states that it was solely Harry who objected to the BBC's anonymous claims (i.e "Harry and Meghan accused the BBC of libel", rather than simply Harry.) --Bettydaisies (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It is you who are framing it. What you wrote is not neutral, you highlighted, stressed and emphasized the gossip and completely left out Harry's version. Nor did you write chronologically. Chronologically begins with Harry's conversation with the queen, which is the entire basis for subsequent controversy -- what did he do with the queen. That had to happen before the BBC, chronologically. Moreover, you argue its only relevance, here, is the charge of libel (and you wedge it tacked on because they talk about them as a couple) but you seek to bury the libel claim in the middle and in the most opaque way possible (a legal term is not person's version) and you do this after you give credence to the accused libeler (and you again don't say what Harry's version is only the accused libeler's version, and you give the accused libeler's version the focus).

(And no, gossip is not a legal term, and it does not mean defamation -- yet, it's clearly gossip, when an anonymous conveys they are in on the contents of conversations between grandson and grandmother - that's textbook gossip. Also, you keep stressing BBC, when much of the recent coverage of the BBC has been about its journalistically bad royal coverage -- even in British journalism the 'two source rule' is considered ethical journalism [9] -- one anonymous, is not two.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The original text: "In June 2021, Jonny Dymond of the BBC reported, quoting "a good palace source", that the couple had not sought the permission of the Queen before naming their daughter with her personal family nickname.[195][196] Lawyers for the couple subsequently accused the BBC of defamation and sent letters out to various media organizations saying the report was "false and defamatory, and the allegations should not be repeated."[197][198] The BBC had "no immediate response" to the allegations, while Buckingham Palace did not comment."

I do not understand how this highlights, stresses, or emphasizes any portion over the other. In terms of "burying it in the middle": again, equal weight is needed to avoid looking accusatory toward both sides. Again, regardless of being gossip, it has been widely reported as part of the couple's relationship with the media. Regardless of recent journalistic coverage, WP:CONSENSUS has determined it to be a reliable source. In the light of Meghan and Harry's legal response, does this mean it's 100% accurate? We don't know, because nothing has been proved in court, so both statements must be given equal weight.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

You don't give equal weight. You give the anonymous gossip, the focus, and their version in full, and by taking it out of chronology. (Let me say it again, chronologically begins with Harry's conversation with the queen, which is the entire basis for subsequent controversy -- what did he do with the queen.) You blatantly don't give Harry his version (and by extension Meghan, since you want to stress the couple, as your hook for making this at all relevant, here), which is that he (the husband/father) spoke to the queen (his grandmother), etc., which had to chronologically happen before the BBC. His version is not legal words. The BBC is not a third party news organization here, it is accused and thus an interested party. (And somehow you gloss over journalistic ethics.) Finally, you argue the only relevance is the libel allegation, if so, the libel allegation has to be the first sentence, otherwise it begins with the irrelevant, and emphasizing the irrelevant over the relevant is the definition of not neutral, it is giving undue weight. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

−

I've attempted to explain my reasoning as civilly as possible see no need to continue this unconstructive escalation. Let me give a sample of revised (prospective) text I think might work for you: "In June 2021, the couple's legal team accused the BBC of defamation after journalist Jonny Dymond of the BBC reported, quoting "a good palace source", that the couple had not sought the permission of the Queen before naming their daughter with her personal nickname. [src] Representatives for the Duke and Duchess subsequently sent letters to various media organizations saying the report was "false and defamatory, and the allegations should not be repeated." [src] Following the notice, BBC updated their story to include the legal complaint in the original article, while Buckingham Palace did not comment. [src]"--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, why are you leaving out Harry's (the couple's version)? Their version is Harry spoke to the queen about it and the queen was supportive. You give the anonymous source version but not the couple's. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Using anonymous sources is fairly common in journalism. We expect that journalists are sufficiently aware with the persons involved that they can determine if the information is credible. While journalists do not always live up to professional standards, we accept high quality news sources as reliable. In this case we assume that the comment is credible but unconfirmed.

I don't think the chronology begins with Harry's conversation with the Queen, since whether or not he mentioned the proposed name is in dispute. The sequence is claim (no discussion took place), counterclaim (it did), palace reply (no comment.)

There is no BLP issue here. The story has been widely reported in quality mainstream media and the subjects have been able to respond.

TFD (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree. Credible vs unconfirmed are two very different definitions, and including the full sequence allows for the coverage of any BLP issues.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the original text that stresses or puts emphasis on the allegations. Instead it's simply following the sequence of events with the allegations brought forward by the source and the response by Meghan and Harry. I also think the consensus is towards restoring the paragraph at this point. Keivan.f^Talk 21:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Why would you not give Harry's (the couple's) version that he spoke to the queen about it? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

We should. But since his version came out after the BBC version, the BBC version should be first. If in time we get a tape recording of the conversation, then we might put it first. TFD (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought you said above the anonymous is responding -- what would the anonymous response be to, other than Harry spoke to the Queen.

On another point, the palace had already made a public statement on "Lilibet Diana!" expressing nothing but delight. [10] Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not necessarily correct to give the two points of view equal weight, because that seems like a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Most other sources are reporting that the couple did consult the Queen, and the story that they didn't had been refuted. It seems like this all has little to do with Meghan anyway, and the coverage at Harry's article, if any, should not be presented in a way that gives credence to a fringe theory.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen any major, reliable sources reporting that the couple consulted the queen without mentioning the BBC report after it was published. Again, BBC is considered a reliable journalistic source by Wikipedia, a "fringe theory" is a bit of a stretch - credible vs unconfirmed are two very different definitions. Wikipedia should avoid framing either side with a WP:POV.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

For one, the BBC says that the anonymous source was after reports of Harry's conversation. (Also, by the way, the BBC article does not say "good" about the palace source, the only time it uses "good" is Harry saying "really good" about his relationship with the queen.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

"I haven't seen any major, reliable sources reporting that the couple consulted the queen without mentioning the BBC report after [the article] was published". Please see the sources given on the original text ().

I didn't say anonymous was responding. That was the first mention. The report by the BBC is more credible than what the prince said, although we of course don't know the truth. So we report each side. TFD (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

References

This whole thread is a major issue and Meghan’s page have been overtaken by royalists and people with an agenda. I’ve already sent a long side by side to Jimmy about this and he is going through it. Meghan’s page is completely different from the other royals. As someone who’ve studied the megxit hate group online I see a lot of similarities in the underhanded way one of the editors is constantly trying to sneak in information that would’ve never made it on any other royals page. Should we go back in time and add every media flare up every member of the royal family experienced? Should we add everytime Prince Charles said one thing while a palace sources with their own agenda briefed the something contradicting the Prince? The most egregious part of her page is the part about bullying, the media have already update her story and claimed William is behind it… there is a major story out there right now with sources as credible as the stories you’ve chosen to add Meghan’s page, the story is that William called Meghan all types of slurs and the staff did the same, while they claim she was actually the bully. The only fair thing to do is to add this to Williams page as well, either anonymous sources are credible or not. The Kate made Meghan cry story should be in Kates page as well. Meghan claimed Kate made her cry, while anonymous sources claimed Meghan made Kate cry…. Again, if you think anonymous sources are anything more than disinformation disseminators then you should include these stories in every royal members page who the “sources” are claiming to speak for. The Lilibet story should be on the Queens page as well, since the argument for including it on Meghan’s page is that the anonymous sources is credible and speaks for the Queen. Then put that on the queens page, that and anonymous sources who claimed to speak for her said she disapproves of her great granddaughter being named after her nickname. @alanscottwalker I see that you are trying to make sense of the page and push back, but I’m afraid you are underestimating the editor who is using the same language and tricks to undermine Meghan as the Megxit hate group. And I understand that the editors will defend eachother, just like people do in any other profession. But, it won’t change the fact that a person with an agenda has been allowed to infiltrate the page. I believe the only option is to escalate this to Jimbo Wales and he’s said he’ll get back to me when he’s done looking at it. Sorry for any typos, I’m on my phone and on the run. DigitialNomad (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s a hefty thing to accuse an entire class of editors of having an agenda. We all make our arguments and additions according to Wikipedia practice and discussion. I haven’t seen any reliable sources repeat the information your describe.Have you tried bringing up your suggestions for the article on the talk page before? I hope Wales can solve any issue you may be having. Bettydaisies (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Everything I mentioned is in all the major publications. I’d suggest you go and add that stuff to respective royals page. Maybe you can add every major media flare up every royal experienced in the last decade or two, stories where “royal sources” “palace sources” brief against them? There are hundreds of those scandals for you to pick from. DigitialNomad (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m not accusing entire class of editors, only you Betty. Your entire history suggest you single out Meghan and relentlessly push the megxit hate group narrative. You are relentless in your pursuit to include Royal propaganda delivered through tabloid gossip and UK media at large for her, but kit for any of the other royals. Even when the topic includes the other royals. You are relentless in questions about Meghan’s name, her status (royal or celebrity). What you are trying to do is part of the megxit hate group agenda and it’s unbelievable you’ve been able to turn her page into an embarrassment in terms of Wikipedia standards. DigitialNomad (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Once again, this dispute is not about the report. It’s about Meghan’s relationship with the media - it wouldn’t be significant to include unless they took legal action, which they did. Bettydaisies (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Watch your WP:CIVIL. None of the information I’ve included has ever gone against consensus or not been reliably sourced. I make an effort to always work with other editors. I don't have any "agenda" for/against the subject of this article or any article I edit, since it would automatically render my edits unconstructive per WP:NPOV. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia standards before making accusations based on your own WP:ADVOCACY. What you're accusing me of is a WP:PA, which is unacceptable behavior. Take a step back and think if this is really the way you want to go about proposing pages and discussing content.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No one has an agenda here. Accusing other people of things that they haven’t done is not constructive. Please put your arguments forward with reliable sources. We cannot simply take your words for it. Also, it doesn’t seem to me that Meghan and Harry think the issue of their baby’s name is not notable; otherwise they wouldn’t have fired back at BBC with threats of legal action. Also, as I said earlier, nothing in the original phrase suggested that the allegations were accurate. They simply stated how they were brought forward and how the couple responded to them. I guess everyone should take a look at pages on Sarah, Duchess of York and Sophie, Countess of Wessex. These and other similar pages are filled with major scandals that have occurred over time. I guess that means “anti-monarchists” have edited these pages to promote their agenda then, based on your logic. Keivan.f^Talk 04:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I see a weak consensus here for restoring the deleted info (not enough in my opinion), though the result may change in the upcoming days. However, I also noticed that the BBC still hasn’t removed the original article, meaning that they are backing it. I guess another reasonable course of action here would be to wait for Meghan and Harry’s next step. If they sue BBC for this report, then the issue automatically becomes notable and can be included in both their articles. At this point I guess we have to agree that an anonymous source cannot be trusted with an important issue like this. Because if we were to take every outsider’s word for truth, then Robert Lacey’s claim that William called Meghan “that bloody woman” should be taken into consideration as well (though I should add that Lacey also claims the staff were scared of Meghan because she was a "narcissist and sociopath" and a bully; so there are accusations against both sides). The issue involving Meghan bullying the staff should stay, because there’s an ongoing investigation against her and we know that it was Jason Knauf who made the complaint. So it’s not a faceless entity making a claim on behalf of someone in this case. It is actually a person who has accused her of bullying (he could be lying or telling the truth, but it’s still noteworthy regardless). Keivan.f^Talk 05:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If it is "monarchist" , this gossip mongering melodrama is rather idiotic. Putting out an official royal statement of delight, and then have an anonymous gossip seemingly intent on contradicting it, can only increase the impression that the royal family and the palace are silly and sad, if not worse, where even the birth of an innocent member is cause for alienation (but faux celebration) -- if the palace's continuous public fight is about popularity among family members, it won't matter who 'wins' today, the family loses in the long run, and the palace looks ever more tawdry.[11]

But it is still irrelevant in this article, as the only substantive role this article subject played is apparently to agree with her husband about the names of his family and what he did. The asserted relevance though is not that, it's asserted relevance is that the lawyers represent the couple, but then the proposed emphasis is not on the lawyer's claim but to showcase up front what an anonymous said, all with not saying what Harry says happened.

As for the background chronology, it is: Harry spoke to the queen; the palace officially responded with delight using the name twice and with emphasis; The Times and others reported there was talk with the queen before the naming; the BBC spoke to an anonymous 1, who told them Harry spoke to the queen; all before you get to the Palace anonymous 2, which the BBC says was in later response to provide contradiction.

The whole thing simply does not belong here, in this article as so attenuated to the subject, but if it's anywhere, it has to explicitly give Harry's version, or it can't even have a pretense of being neutral. (Note also, the BLP interest and damage runs to a few week old baby, as much as anyone.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Giving Harry's version would be as just "gossipy" as giving BBC's version (which I disagree the original text did). Only one of those things is a Wikipedia-endorsed reliable source. I've yet to receive a response to the prospective version above. Weak consensus merits further discussion at the very least. TFD makes excellent points.--Bettydaisies (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Bettydaisies, I did respond to your second blatantly unneutral proposal as insufficient because it does not give Harry's version, and I did that days ago. Moreover, it certainly does not address the irrelevance.

Your confusion about the BBC, makes little sense, the anonymous is a source (the BBC is relating a source) and what does the BBC, among others also relate, a named person, Harry's version, which you unaccountably excise -- according to your argument because the BBC relates his version, it is Harry's version that is Wikipedia endorsed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, it would be better if you actually rephrased the paragraph in the way you like so we can see what you mean by "including Harry’s version". I know there are two anonymous sources involved here, as well as Harry, but I think a legal representative of “the couple” responded to the BBC’s article. In any case, I’d be glad if you could put what you have in mind to words. We can then include it perhaps in Harry’s article if everyone agrees on it. Keivan.f^Talk 21:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I did that days ago, " . . .it would have begun: the couple accused the BBC of libel concerning an anonymous report on conversations with the queen about his daughter's name. Harry says he spoke to the queen about his daughter's name and the queen was supportive.[source the times] But it's still a story about Harry, who is not the subject of this article" Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Harry didn’t say it, joint legal representatives for both the couple said it. It doesn’t even mention what the BBC report says - the very thing it accuses, important to mention - only that it was anonymous. It also omits the subsequent letters to media publications. --Bettydaisies (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As Betty said, the couple’s representative responded to the claims so I guess it concerns them both. Personally, I think it doesn’t matter how you phrase it. But if you want to put the emphasis on their response first we can start with “Despite Harry stating that he had spoken to the Queen about his daughter's name and securing her support, a few days after the birth of the couple’s daughter in June 2021 anonymous palace sources reported to the BBC that Harry and Meghan had not sought the permission of the Queen before naming their daughter with her personal family nickname. Lawyers for the couple subsequently accused the BBC of defamation and sent letters out to various media organizations saying the report was false and defamatory, and the allegations should not be repeated." Keivan.f^Talk 23:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

All that is unneeded, and it puts it in false light because as the other "despite" is the official, public queen and palace response, delight at the birth of "Lilibet!" And there is no need for us to go into the depths of the putative libel. (Also, I think you meant, an anonymous palace source told the BBC). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Harry did say 'it' but fine, 'the couple's lawyers accused the BBC . . . . as for repeating the putative libel, its more than enough information. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Until it's been proven in a court of law - the couple has yet to press actual charges - it's not libel, it's reporting from a notable source. You can't mention their response without mentioning the specifics of the report itself.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Bettydaisies, I did not say it's libel. I said, it's putative libel, which is an accusation. (Your the one, who has argued extensively that the only thing that makes it relevant is that an accusation has been leveled) "Notable" is policy about whether to have a Wikipedia article, it's not a policy on content within an article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

What you’re basically saying is that because the palace released a statement congratulating the couple on the birth of their daughter, the allegations should not be included as they have come from an anonymous source. Yet a credible source has reported on it, and the couple felt the need to respond to it instead of ignoring it as they thought it was “defamatory” (a source is either credible or not credible; it cannot be both at the same time and the BBC is considered a credible source as far as I know). The one last alternative would be to write “Despite the palace congratulating the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the brith of their daughter Lilibet in June 2021, a few days later anonymous palace sources told the BBC that Harry and Meghan had not sought the permission of the Queen before naming their daughter with her personal family nickname. Lawyers for the couple subsequently accused the BBC of defamation and sent letters out to various media organizations saying the report was false and defamatory, and the allegations should not be repeated as Harry had spoken to the Queen before announcing their daughter's name and secured her support." Unless everyone is agreeing that they should press charges against the BBC for it to be notable enough for inclusion. Otherwise, this is the wording that covers what everyone wants to see on the page (the palace congratulating, Harry saying he talked to his grandma, BBC reporting on the claims by anonymous sources, and the couple responding to the claims). Keivan.f^Talk 01:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, Harry's claim that he discussed the child's name with the Queen occured after the claim that he did not was published. Do you have any information to the contrary? TFD (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Right. That appears to be the case. In that scenario the palace congratulating the couple should come first, followed by what the anonymous source said and the couple’s response. That’s the correct chronological order. I adjusted my comment accordingly. Keivan.f^Talk 05:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Keivanf: I am not "basically saying is that because the palace released a statement congratulating the couple on the birth of their daughter, the allegations should not be included . . ."

I am saying, . . . anonymous palace source concerning conversations with the queen about his daughter's name. Harry says he spoke to the queen, [about it and what he understood] ... . is more than sufficient.

Even in Harry's article, if at all, I am definitely not for more on the putative libel, but if more is included, then there are going to be additional things that need to be added, like what the queen's official public statement is. (It might of course be useful were the queen to say what she remembers of the conversation since as far as is known, she was the only other one in it, but it seems most unlikely the queen will go beyond her official, public statement of delight concerning "Lilibet!".) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The Queen’s statement is what I wrote in the beginning. She simply congratulated the couple, and so did Charles and the Cambridges. Nothing extraordinary in those announcements as far as I remember. The issue here is not what the official statements were, but what the nature of the conversation between Harry and the Queen was. It might as well be another episode of “recollections may vary”, and since the Queen follows the stiff upper lip rule she will not respond to any claims directly, but the palace sources can brief the press on her behalf without getting her involved. That is why the BBC (a credible source) is still not removing that article, despite being threatened to do so. Now why would the palace act against a member of the Queen’s family? This is unprecedented, and even if it’s libel it’s still something that hasn’t happened to other members and is notable in that regard. We’ll see what the couple will do with regards to this matter, but if they don’t press charges, that somehow shows that there might be some truth in what the BBC is reporting. Keivan.f^Talk 23:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's "putative" - it has yet to be confirmed in a court of law or denied by the palace. We, as the public, have no idea what actually happened because of conflicting reports from the BBC and Prince Harry, both without evidence. Which is why they should be given equal weight. Neither of those reports can be considered absolute truth and represented without a counterpoint. Neither of those reports are provable in themselves outside a court of law, but one is considered a reputable source by this website. I thought we've already covered that the couple's lawyers released this statement, not solely Harry's.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the adjusted version on Harry's article, because the majority of users agreed that the issue mostly concerned him rather than Meghan. If a consensus is reached for restoring it on this page, then the same paragraph can be added to Meghan's article. Keivan.f^Talk 18:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

From what I can muster out of the paragraphs, it looks like most editors agreed with its inclusion, if anything.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The palace congratulated the couple is irrelevant. A reputable source said that the couple who self-identify as royals, did not consult the Queen before naming the child after her. That's noteworthy and should be mentioned. Per fairness, we should then mentions the couple's reply and the palace's refusal to comment. If readers want to believe the Prince over the BBC report, they are free to do so, but we should not point them to that conclusion. TFD (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@TFD and Bettydaisies: Well since the person involved in the conversation was Harry, no one could possibly argue for omitting that paragraph from his page. So I thought the reasonable course of action would be to restore it in his article first. But if you believe the consensus here is towards including it in Meghan's page as well, we can definitely do that too. Keivan.f^Talk 00:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@TDF @Keivan.f TDF just wrote a comment where he said “the couple who self identify as Royals” if you don’t see that this person is holding utter contempt for the couple, to the point that he lies about them self identifying. What does that even mean? If you don’t understand the implications of your completely off the mark response to the person and your choice of ignoring the obvious open hostility, then you should hand this page over to someone else. You might be allowing people to abuse the subjects. If that person can’t even contain themselves in a discussion what other underhanded things are they pushing for that you are unable to see? Do you understand the longterm implications of treating Meghan’s page like a “live” update of gossip stories? You’re participating and facilitating royal propaganda! DigitialNomad (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

"Stepping back" or "stepping down"?

Here we have down, down and down? But yes, we also have "not walking away".... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

"Meghan and Harry ... announced ..." is what is key in our article text. Shall we add " ... but media has repeatedly used "stepped down."? I would be against that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

Please remove the title and any references to, and connections to, the British Monarchy. Meghan and Harry had their titles taken. 2603:9000:CD05:9F0F:4C10:A999:FB3D:A025 (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the cited reliable sources (here and in other articles), Meghan and Harry still retain their titles. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Procter & Gamble info

Hi just FYI I watched the video of the soap commercial thing she did as a kid and she clearly states that she is 12 years old, not 11 (even though she stated she was 11 in the UN speech for whatever reason... maybe just an innocent mistake?). So that should be corrected from 11 to 12 for accuracy because Hillary Clinton was only First Lady in 1993 not 1992 so she could not have possibly written a letter to her in 1992 if she had been 11 but only in 1993. It also says she was 11 on the royal website which makes no sense to me... unless it's all just misrememberance. If she was 11, she could not possibly have written to Hillary Clinton. She also said in her speech that the advertisement changed in one month from when she wrote the letter of complaint, which is extremely unlikely because advertisements take a long time to be produced, but here it says it was changed after 3 months...

Technically, she could have been 11 in 1993 as well, since she was born in August 1981. If the letter had been written before August 4, 1993, that would make her an 11-year-old girl at the time. Keivan.f^Talk 19:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Met Prince Harry in May

Also, it was well reported at the time that she met Harry at an Invictus Games function in Toronto that Cory was a chef at, hence why she met him while she was still dating Cory. It's fine to have the lie that they started dating in June 2016 (as it says on Harry's page) but it looks quite comical that Cory's page says May, Harry's says June and hers says July. Which month is it?

Meeting and dating are not the same thing. They officially started dating in July. She and Cory broke up in May. The date on Harry's page has been corrected. Keivan.f^Talk 19:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Fashion lines through Jessica Mulroney

Also, since this is basically her fan page with little to no care for the truth, I would like to point out that her fashion 'lines' of 9 clothing items in total were created through Jessica Mulroney and not because of her tiny following on her blog.

Any sources for this claim? Also, fan pages do not include information about allegations of bullying and harassment, which this page does (as should any neutral page). Unnecessary criticism is not welcomed, and neither is unnecessary praising. Keivan.f^Talk 19:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Single parentage

Megan was brought up largely by her single father, and then at some point handed over to her single mother. This needs clarifying and dating. Valetude (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Valetude : Citation required, please. Sampajanna (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is her occupation even stated?

She's not an actress anymore as she herself said she was giving it up to be part of the royal family and other members have authored articles and books but aren't listed as authors. I would keep the years active and works sections but remove the occupation section in the side tab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.240.92 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

An interesting point. In the very first sentence we say she is a former actress. The Infobox (that's Wikipedia's name for that "side tab") implies she is currently an actress. I agree that's wrong. My view is that it should be removed from there. I'll await the thoughts of others. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

In 2003, Markle earned her bachelor's degree with a double major in theater and international studies from Northwestern's School of Communication. She is also an actress by profession. Sampajanna (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I would at least add 'philanthropist' if keeping the section so that it's at least mostly current. 173.35.240.92 (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@173.35.240.92 A philanthropist is a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes. You may care to also look at the Wikipedia Philanthropy article. Sampajanna (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether we have a different approach to the living or the former in this infobox stuff, but see Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, etc, where the practice seems to be to just list 'actress', even though they retired or are no longer an active actress. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

She is no longer a working member of the royal family. Duchess is not in her case an office. It's not clear when someone ceases to be an actor, so we should follow the most usual description in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

In line with what @Alanscottwalker mentioned, retired/"former" actress Cameron Diaz is still listed as such in her infobox. Meghan's acting is relevant to her notability (its also what qualified her for an article in the first place), which the lead is supposed to establish. We would need reliable sources describing her occupation as a 'philanthropist' in order to add the the occupation. But in terms of her listing as author up against the norm on other similar articles, it might not be significant enough for inclusion and could require further discussion.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I remember discussing philanthropist in another article. (I will try an remember and link the discussion.) We should only call people philanthropists if that is their major activity and therefore establishes or contributes to their notability. The same applies in calling people criminals. Most people give to charity AND break the law at some point. What is important is what makes them notable. Markle is notable for being an actress and marrying the Queen's grandson. TFD (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

PHILANTHROPIST : I see that Melinda French Gates is described as a philanthropist. However, in 2000 she and her then-husband Bill Gates co-founded the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the world's largest private charitable organization as of 2015. Also, Melinda and Bill have been awarded the US Presidential Medal of Freedom and the French Legion of Honour. Admittedly, last year Markle and British hubby Harry founded Archewell, an ostensibly nonprofit charitable foundation which also has a business division focusing on media production. It would seem that the description of Archewell's services needs to be clearly defined by early 2022. Otherwise, the March 2021 Oprah with Meghan and Harry interview tended to give the impression that since they stopped being working members of the British royal family, they are cash-strapped. Furthermore, it has been widely reported since 2020 that they have a hefty $9.5 million mortgage on their Montecito mansion. Seeing as philanthropy usually involves generous donations of money to good causes, it could be a stretch at this early stage to refer to Meghan as a philanthropist.Sampajanna (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Markle has recent (2020) voiceover or narration work, which is a form of acting;
2. Further, she is notable for her acting career, which is the most important part of this discussion and necessary criterion for including her biography as noteworthy on Wikipedia;
3. Having multi-million dollars worth of debt, such as a mortgage on a large home in a very expensive location, does not preclude one nor is it relevant to consider whether someone is labeled a philanthropist;
4. Along those same lines, using one's celebrity and connections to raise money for charities does not make one a philanthropist, but rather more like an activist, spokesperson, or humanitarian;
5. Meghan and Harry are certainly entrepreneurs/businesspeople, given Meghan's previous blog and fashion productions, Harry's creation of The Invictus Games and the mental health project, Heads Together, with his brother and sister-in-law;
6. Their recent ventures in business, charitable or otherwise, demonstrate their skills and interests in this area;
7. I recommend keeping actress, possibly adding activist (see Marlo_Thomas), humanitarian, (see Jerry Lewis) and/or businesswoman (see Kim Kardashian) to her occupation.

– T. Superhero (@/#) 05:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I think adding businesswoman to her article and businessman to that of her husband would make sense, because they are officially making money through their deals. On the other hand, I guess adding activist and/or humanitarian is not necessary. Members of the royal family (even former members such as Sarah, Duchess of York) are always involved in humanitarian efforts; but that’s not necessarily their occupation. Keivan.f^Talk 06:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Flawless? Even when squatting for Ellen?

After her disgraceful antics on Ellen the other day, very well reported as disgraceful, a look at this article certainly makes it seem unbalanced as if this woman never has done anything wrong or even controversial. How long will we keep this bias in place? What more disgraceful shenanigans are needed? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Well, to be honest, I didn’t find it entirely appropriate either. But it is very objective in terms of how it can be analyzed. I guess if we cover both negative and positive reports, then it can be added to the privacy and the media section. Keivan.f^Talk 12:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

We can probably wait till it's more well known as grounds for divorce. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Could we have our Prince back, please? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021

Change “member of the the British Royal Family” to “ Former member of the British Royal Family” 98.254.59.94 (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

98.254.59.94 : Although Meghan does not officially represent the monarchy, she is still a private member of the BRF. What also needs to be considered is that Harry is 6th in line to the throne, and their two children are 7th and 8th. Sampajanna (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As far as I can see she's still a member. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Fake role names

For The League she played 'Meghan' (i.e. herself) not 'Amanda' and for A Lot Like Love she's listed as 'Hot Girl' not this invented 'Christina Marks' name... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.240.92 (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the names until a citation can be provided. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

What we call her

Question answered
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article should be consistent in how we refer to the subject. Since the article is called "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex," not Meghan Markle, we should refer to her throughout the article as Meghan, not Markle. An article in CNN, which uses our naming of her, does this.[12] TFD (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC) According to MOS:SURNAME, people are generally referred to by their last name, unless they are royalty, or in some cases, nobility. Using a surname in a biography until the chronological point of marriage is consistent with the articles of other married-in royals, including Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Sophie, Countess of Wessex, Grace Kelly, Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland, Charlene, Princess of Monaco, etc. I remember we've discussed this previously [[13]]. This also falls in line with the notability already established under her maiden name before her marriage, therefore it's more prudent to use "Markle" while referring to her in the sections detailing her previous career.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I see that now. TFD (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

@Alanscottwalker: I reverted your edit, but I didn't fully add all the info that was on the removed paragraph. As you said, the poll results were removed and so was the part on gas-guzzling SUVs. The remaining part which is on their regular use of private jets has been a long-standing part of the article, and is a valid point of criticism for Meghan who is a climate change prevention advocator (similar to legal trophy hunting criticism included in Prince William's article). Keivan.f^Talk 22:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP the uninformed opinion of someone talking to a tabloid is a violation. Moreover, the source is misrepresented and undue. "Some" is a misrepresentation. It's a single named woman talking to a tabloid, who did not have the facts. (It's also not about any regular use, it is a single trip last month so can't be long-standing). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@kevian.f there is plenty of criticism of William being a climate change advocate while owning a helicopter and flying private more than all royal members except for Charles and Camilla. Also, recent report 2015-2020 show that Harry and Meghan take half as many private plane rides as William and Kate. Also, Meghan has never spoken on climate change. You can not find any advocacy of hers about climate change. However both William and Kate took a climate change focused trip to Pakistan in 2019 and did an interview about how important this advocacy is to them. William also hosts the Earthshot, which is a climate change initiative larger than anything Harry has engaged in. Do you not understand that the British media have an invisible contract with the royal family? Although, there is still plenty on William climate change advocacy and hypocrisy out there. Why do you think they go after the couple who don’t own a helicopter and travel half as much on private planes? Do you understand that’s the story here? Instead you are allowing the Wikipedia to be used as a mouthpiece for the Uk media and in extension the royal family. The media over here are a protection racket. Please see link to article that analyzed the Royal family’s own travel report and came to the conclusion that Harry and Meghan use half as much private planes as william and Kate and even less than Charles and Camilla. This report was reported by a lot of papers. Also can you show me anywhere meghan has spoken about climate change? It’s really concerning that you are falling for smoke and mirrors. No wonder her Wikipedia has turned into a gossip page. See article below and scroll down to the travel index. https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/royal-family-flights-private-jet-b1827279.html?amp DigitialNomad (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

If the linked article's information is deemed encyclopedic enough, it belongs on overall pages describing the workings and wealth of the British royal family, if anything, since it is a commentary on the royal family as a whole rather than individual members (with the possible exception of Charles, whose trips are highlighted more than once). But that particular source you mentioned does not mention any points about climate change, or any royals' work in environmentalism being compared to their travel costs.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess it would be better for us to jump out of the "conspiracy theory" mode, and focus on the articles individually rather than brining up the alleged dark propaganda pushed by the palace, William and Kate or Harry and Meghan against one another, cause this is pure speculation and nonsense. Criticizing Meghan is not equal to praising the royal family or vice versa! She's a member of that family herself; she's literally married into it. So it's pretty much pointless to bring William and Kate up on this page at every turn. And, yes, I don't trust tabloids but when something gets reported on in a reliable source, it automatically would have the potential for being added to an article on a subject, whether that coverage is positive or negative. That means neutrality. In any case, criticism about the monarchy should go on Monarchy of the United Kingdom and any criticism directed at the royal family belongs on British royal family (which includes Harry and Meghan too, whether you like it or not). I haven't been able to find negative coverage about William's Earthshot Prize in reliable sources. But, you made a valid point about the removal of the piece on gas guzzling SUVs from Meghan and Harry's page, and it was done by Alanscottwalker since he established that it was tabloid gossip. The piece on their latest private jet trip was also removed, because it was carbon offset and they cannot be criticized for that. The matter is settled for now. Keivan.f^Talk 21:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it should also be noted that private jet use seems to be in proportion to royal rank, with for example Prince Philip and the Queen having taken 100% of their trips by private jet, followed by Prince Charles and Camilla, then the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Princess Anne is the only one who would not follow that pattern but she is also Princess Royal... Is it smoke and mirrors or is it just rank determining the level of security required...? Also, the main difference is that the rest are still working royals AND that article doesn't include all of the personal trips that Meghan and Harry took by private jet... 173.35.240.92 (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is gonna be a restatement but since this topic was discussed in two different sections, I decided to leave the response in both places. The issue with the private jets is already covered to some extent, as in mid 2019 the two of them took 4 trips on a private jet in 11 days, which was not justifiable as they were on holidays and not carrying out royal duties. The private jet trip from New York to Los Angeles, however, was carbon offset, so they cannot be criticized for that. We have to wait and see what the nature of their next trips is going to be. Keivan.f^Talk 20:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Public Image section

The last parts of Public Image entries are completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The sources and framing of the events is absolutely ridiculous and it makes one wonder how it made it to publish. Things like, social media users reacted to the retouching, they were criticized for using an SUV during theirnNYC tour? Really? The citation is ridiculous. That’s the story? Not that they meet with the NYC Mayor and NY Governor? Gossip and social media buzz doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. They were also praised and cheered on. Prince William and Kate Middleton get criticized for anything they do, the headlines around the word were filled with “hypocrisy” claims in relation to their Earthshot. Reputable mainstream papers criticizes everything a out then, the helicopter rides, the wealthy lifestyle, preaching too much etc. Yet, the same editors who edit William and Kate’s page never mention those articles. Everyone knows some mainstream tabloids have a campaign agains Megahn, yet, you are quick to approve random add random clickbait stories too here page, are you trying to somehow make it true? Why are you adding clickbait opinion pieces to here wiki? What does it have to do with her? Why only one her page? Why? Where is the addition of “Kate was criticized for hypocrisy?” Again, what is going on with the editors in charge of Meghan markles page? How can the below get approved? Why isn’t it on her husband page too? Are you constructing a narrative or are you building an online encyclopedia?

The below is Unacceptable and inappropriate for Wikipedia. It’s silly and reads like a gossip blog. Leave this woman alone, stop using word semantics to express your own bias and feelings.

“In 2018, Time magazine selected Meghan as one of the “100 Most Influential People in the World[189] and placed her on its shortlist for Person of the Year.[190] Her name appeared again on the listicle in 2021 and she and her husband were featured on one of the magazine's seven worldwide covers,[191] though the couple's stance and the alleged retouching of their portraits were criticized by social media users and some public figures.[192] In 2019, the magazine named Meghan and Harry among the 25 Most Influential People on the Internet.[193] She was also chosen as one of the 25 most influential women in the United Kingdom by British Vogue magazine in 2018, 2019 and 2021.[194][195][196] Her influence was also recognized in both the 2019 and 2020 editions of Powerlist, the 100 most influential Britons of African and Afro-Caribbean descent.[197]

After the Duke and Duchess's trip to New York in 2021, they were criticized by some media commentators for boarding a private jet to their home in California, as the event had also aimed to raise awareness about issues such as climate change.[198] It was later reported that their trip with the private jet was fully paid carbon offset.[199] The couple has also been criticized for their regular use of gas-guzzling SUVs.[200]” DigitialNomad (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It's literally called 'Public image' aka how the public views their image lol your post is ridiculous and Kate and William don't have anything negative on their page because they are completely uncontroversial unlike this duo except for when Anna Pasternak and people connected to her write nonsense about them or when Giles Coren sends a fake tweet that people of that camp then spin into something that doesn't exist in reality... The difference is the general public consistently views them positively. The same cannot be said for these two (e.g. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/09/03/public-opinion-continues-fall-harry-and-meghan). 173.35.240.92 (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, let me clarify a few things. I think you should get your facts straight DigitialNomad. All of the criticism on this page can be found on Harry's page as well, so to answer your question "Why isn’t it on her husband page too?" It is there. You just haven't bothered to check carefully. Their meetings with the NYC Mayor and NY Governor are also covered in the appropriate sections. With regards to Kate, I think you should stop comparing her article to this one if you're trying to make a point, because these are two separate individuals. FYI, Kate is not involved with the Earthshot Prize. It is not her initiative, it is her husband's. And the couple were pictured two days ago at Heathrow Airport taking a commercial flight (1), so you can't call them hypocrites as they do what they preach. In fact I haven't been able to find a reliable source that has criticized them with regards to their environmental activism, unlike Harry and Meghan unfortunately. However, that doesn't mean that their pages are free of criticism. Examples include their train tour of Britain last year, when they were criticized for breaching COVID restriction rules and William's comments on trophy hunting (the latter of which I added recently). Also, as a reminder, a section on "Public image" is not meant to praise the individual or even criticize them unnecessarily. It should be a reflection of what the public thinks about them, whether it be positive or negative. Check similar sections on Charles, Prince of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales to see how they include both positive and negative aspects. Keivan.f^Talk 16:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with reverting absolutely every ounce of criticism... there's criticism on William's page for partying while he was supposed to be attending an event. This couple received criticism for similarly going to Lion King premiere to pitch to the CEO of Disney for voiceover work instead of attending a military event that was on the same night. I think it's censorship to not include any of the negative because this Digitial(sic) Nomad person complained. Also, speaking of censorship, what about the criticism that on multiple occasions Prince Harry has advocated for censorship? I agree with not including the YouGov poll in the article because it's not on anyone's pages but if there's a general consensus in the media about other things like the use of gas-guzzling SUVs or attending a movie premiere instead of carrying out military duties, those should not be ignored for fear of appearing to 'favouritize' the other British royal family members. There is plenty of mention of the criticisms that Prince Charles has received over his life on his page as well. There needs to be balance for this to be accurate and actually representative of reality long-term. 173.35.240.92 (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think you made a valid argument when you compared William skipping Commonwealth Day's service to Harry not attending the memorial concert for veterans, both for entertainment purposes. I have added the bit about Harry to his article. I would also like to point out that the issue with the private jets is already covered to some extent, as in mid 2019 the two of them took 4 trips on a private jet in 11 days, which was not justifiable as they were on holidays and not carrying out royal duties. The private jet trip from New York to Los Angeles, however, was carbon offset, so they cannot be criticized for that. Keivan.f^Talk 20:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I really am not trying to be difficult I just am just forever striving to be an arbiter of the truth. It's funny, what I've noticed is that all the accusations coming from the Sussex camp seem to actually be a reflection of their own behaviour over time... like the 'coordinated hate campaign' on Twitter even though in 2019 I believe not only were journalists reporting on Meghan being doxxed and threatened (e.g. Camilla Tominey) but there was also found to be a Sussex 'hive' of bot accounts (https://www.macleans.ca/royalty/meghan-markles-twitter-bot-network-the-whole-thing-is-a-bit-insane/)... just find it interesting is all. And they literally have a 'Sussex Squad' of followers that posts vile things about other members of the family who they even allegedly reached out to (https://www.ccn.com/nasty-meghan-markle-fans-bully-sasha-exeter-and-its-getting-ugly/) so not sure how that's not a coordinated hate group. 173.35.240.92 (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, we just covered a new report that said Meghan was being attacked on the social media by bots. It totally makes sense to also cover information regarding attacks that have been carried out by trolls in her name (note I'm not saying it was done with her knowledge). Keivan.f^Talk 23:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Reversal of my edit

I( do not understand why my edit regarding Meghan's application for British citizenship was reversed. The reason given is: "tangential. No mention of Meghan at source".

Obviously there was no mention of Meghan at the source, because the reference I gave was to the UK government's requirements for British citizenship for ALL those applying as spouses of British citizens! In my opinion, the Wikipedia article as originally posted gave incomplete, misleading information about the immigration rules, implying that they are unusually strict and might therefore have caused the Duchess of Sussex to abandon her application for this reason. Only the limit of 90 days outside the UK was mentioned, whereas the more crucial requirement is actually that one reside in the UK and has the intent to reside there. So really, either both should have been stated, or neither. And better still, in my view, was to provide the actual rules, so that readers could see for themselves what the problem (s) might have been.

In Meghan's case, her apparently permanent departure from the country is likely to have been a far greater impediment to her application than the 90 day requirement. Thus I added the more precise information and a link to the official government page. In my view, this link was rather more authoritative than the existing link to a Marie-Claire magazine article! However, not wishing to undo another contributor's work, I simply edited the details to be more precise and added the official link.

In fact, as far as I know, there has been no official confirmation of Meghan's current citizenship status. Given the couple's move abroad, I think it likely that Meghan had little wish to pursue dual American/British citizenship, anyway, though her children will, of course, be entitled to it. But that, of course is merely an opinion, and irrelevant to the article in question. :-)

Nonetheless, I wish to state that I do not agree with your decision to reverse my careful edit and with your stated justification of it. MrsJJHH (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

____ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsJJHH (talk • contribs) 07:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

To put it in a nutshell, we cannot handpick a number of different sources to draw our own conclusions from it or point towards a fact that has not been stated in the given source material. This would be WP:OR, and based on the page's history I can tell you chose sources that did not exclusively discuss Meghan. If you wish to add any of that info again, you should find sources that talk about Meghan's situation explicitly, not the process of acquiring citizenship in general. Keivan.f^Talk 22:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Keivan.f for taking the trouble to offer your careful explanation of another user's possible reason for immediately reverting my edit. I appreciated it. (I note that the same determined user, who did not respond then made yet another edit claiming that my attempt at a revision was "ungrammatical and poorly sourced", just AFTER I had myself hastily corrected the syntax error I had made in my attempt at a revision. :-) ) But I support the user's final, bare-bones amendment to the misleading information I'd noticed in the original Wikipedia article. I admit that I had not realized that references had to relate to the specific subject of an article, and not to an official government source clarifying the situation in which the subject finds him/herself. I find it surprising, but I am grateful to you for explaining this point. And naturally, I'll bear it in mind when attempting further wikipedia contributions and corrections. Thank you again for your response. MrsJJHH (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It was obviously ungrammatical. Sentences end with a period, not a comma. DrKay (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'd class that as a typo, rather than "ungrammatical". But at least you've tried to explain and if it made you happy to use the term... :-)

MrsJJHH (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

PS I apologize to everyone for not signing my earlier comment. I am always happy to stand by what I say, but I posted before remembering to sign. I realized it immediately, but for some reason at the time I couldn't actually see the comment again and thought that the internet gods had taken umbrage and I'd succeeded in deleting, rather than posting, it! MrsJJHH (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Duchess of Sussex

She is not the Duchess of Sussex and harry is not the Duke of Sussex that title removed from them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:5C5:205:CC24:9655:7522:D36 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken. DrKay (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for your proposed change. Britmax (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Archiving

@Alanscottwalker: Didn't know that we were allowed to abruptly archive discussions without providing any explanations. Let me ask then: what was the reason behind this edit? WP:BLP? Even if it was so, you should have provided an explanation. Keivan.f^Talk 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Factually incorrect information shown

Your introduction page shows incorrect data for the Prince. His actual Christian name is Henry not Harry. If you are going to publish facts perhaps show his correct name and in brackets alongside show the word Harry as he is colloquially known. This would be the correct way to acknowledge the Prince and his given name, anything less is misleading. 2A00:23C7:438A:2700:C82A:9A46:1176:BB99 (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Further career and investments

I noticed that there was no mention of The Bench being number 1 on the New York Times Bestseller list, for the children's picture books category . Nor, that it reach number 3 on Amazon's USA bestsellers list and was number 1 in the Children's Emotions books category . I think those details should be added under the Further career and investments section. Purplebrown43 (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If there's consensus with adding that information, I posted above. I can update the article, or another editor.Purplebrown43 (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The NYT best sellers list achievement has been included now. The rest can be read on The Bench (book). Keivan.f^Talk 08:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2022

For my university project, I would like to request editing this page to provide more details on certain events that occurred, such as the handwritten letter to Procter and Gamble and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's relationship with the British media in the past, and to also elaborate on the New York Times opinion piece Markle wrote detailing her pregnancy loss. Thmr17 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Be bold. You do not require permission to edit an article. The relative guidelines are: "be bold when updating the encyclopedia" ... "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it." ... "Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted." Dimadick (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

All are already covered in the article. Note that the New York Times article cannot be copy-pasted here as it's copyrighted but there's a link to it under the "Authored articles" section. Keivan.f^Talk 18:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Twitter trolling

I would like to point out that the section titled "Twitter trolling" has been deemed unsuitable for inclusion by DigitialNomad despite having solid sources such as The Telegraph, The Washington Post and Forbes. It is also pretty neutral in its coverage in my personal opinion, as it discusses studies that point to both trolls that support her and the ones that attack her. In any case, the trolling has affected her mental wellbeing in her own words, and since we have similar sections on privacy and the media issues in articles such as Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Sophie, Countess of Wessex (which discuss issues such as Nazi costumes, 'dad dancing' and topless photos), I think a matter like this is not even that controversial to cause a problem and can be reported on. I would appreciate some comments and feedback from other users. Keivan.f^Talk 01:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think it poses an issue at all. It states the facts as reported from reliable, significant sources and is consistent with content regarding media included on similar articles. Frankly, I don’t see grounds for its exclusion. Bettydaisies (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree and don't have a problem with it being included. Sampajanna (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I just read that post from The Telegraph by Camilla Tominey, that was added to the Twitter trolling section. Which is sort of ironic because she has been accused of spending years trolling and harassing Ms. Markle. I think it should be removed, one of the authors is not reliable. As I glanced over her previous articles on Ms. Markle, I was shocked to see her refer to Archie as "Dum", accuse Meghan of not adding enough white people to her Vogue Cover, and of enslaving Prince Harry. And I looked into the consulting firm 89up, referenced in the article it's barely known and not a trusted news source. That firm can be hired to show any results commissioned by a client. Furthermore, I couldn't find any other highly ranked news source to back up Ms. Tominey's claims. Basically, if that article by Camilla Tominey is allowed to stay, why not add the numerous ones that use similar polling styles and private consulting firms, which show Ms. Markle as being the Most Respected Royals by Young people https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/celebrities/news/a36737454/meghan-harry-most-respected-royals/ or Meghan Markle the most Googled Person in the UK 2008 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46520958. As a frequent reader of Wikipedia, I want to ensure the materials being used as legitimate sources, are indeed what they claim. And this article by Ms. Tominey as well as the consulting firm used, are not at all reliable. Purplebrown43 (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on the removal of the Camilla Tominey article? If so, another editor can remove it or I can?Purplebrown43 (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of the section. Get consensus for the removal before removing the section. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay.Purplebrown43 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your interest in the article. In short, it is important that the article covers all aspects of a certain topic to ensure neutrality. Let me begin by saying that polls should not be given weight when writing sections on public image. YouGov polls rank Meghan as one of the least popular royals in Britain, yet those being polled may not be objective enough, so it’s better to exclude such things in general. With regards to Tominey, she writes for The Telegraph, which is a reputable newspaper. The fact that she is critical of Meghan doesn’t undermine her credibility. Whatever she writes for her opinion pieces is her business, but here she’s simply reporting on the data given by 89up. Similarly we have info from Bot Sentinel covered, which was reported on by some other sources. The latter is also an analytics service, which could potentially be hired as well, not to mention that their report was not fully scientific. So if you want to exclude one on the basis of questionable credibility, then the other one should be excluded as well. I’ll watch over this thread to see if any new comments by other users will be posted, and I’ll adjust the section accordingly. Keivan.f^Talk 09:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The botsentinel report should be removed too. It’s not peer reviewed, although a lot of media outlets decided to publish it. This is the also the reason the Camilla twitter report should be removed, the report Camilla quotes is not peer reviewed. No one has any access to verify or review 89up’s method or if they even spoke to anyone. It’s simply not Wikipedia material. Also, Kevians comparison to other family members having sections called “Nazi Costume” is not a good comparison, because the Nazi costume was something Harry did himself. A lot of the stuff that gets included on Meghan’s Wikipedia revolves around other peoples opinions or actions. and if a report is going to be included about twitter boys, the report must be peer reviewed and available for scrutiny. Otherwise anyone can commission any report and if you can get a journalist to write about it, it makes it to Meghan’s wiki. Not fair. We have a duty of care to not become a play by play biography of their lives. DigitialNomad (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for typos, I’m on the run in the city. DigitialNomad (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hospital where Meghan Markle was born

In the article it is indicated that Meghan/ Duchess Of Sussex was Born at “West Park Hospital” In canoga Park, California. The name of the hospital actually is West Hills Hospital. It has never been known as West Park Hospital. The neighborhood is it in is now known as West Hills. Although, in 1981 when she was born it may still have been known as Canoga Park. 2603:8000:9C01:833A:28DC:8774:30AD:6736 (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

No, there was a West Park Hospital in Canoga Park. A quick search of Google Books reveals it was listed in American Hospital Association data compiled in 1978 (second line of the printout). It also shows up in several Los Angeles Times articles. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Meghan Markle Wikipedia

As I was reading Meghan Markle’s Wikipedia, I couldn’t help but feel a bias towards the subject being discussed and find myself questioning the source of information being used. On subjects discussing the move to America, Markle’s education and her experiences in Hollywood.For example, when using an article in which Meghan was interviewed about her experiences in Hollywood, in no way markle just blame her lack of getting roles because of her biracial identity. The conversation was more nuance than just blaming it on one thing. I also believe using a sole source for information on events isn’t helpful and many sources should be used to source the subject. Thanks to anybody who reads this. 2602:304:AB4F:58E9:980B:B753:883:964B (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. That issue has already been dealt with and the piece of info was removed from the lead. All the other information is attributed to reliable sources which you can check at the end of the article. Cheers. Keivan.f^Talk 17:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2022

Under Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex's photograph, it states her maiden name Markle. Whereas in other working and non-working royals wikipedia pages, it states their full royal name. The name must be changed from Markle in 2018 to The Duchess of Sussex in 2018 Theeveralst (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The image is from before she became the Duchess of Sussex. Probably needs more discussion to change. DrKay (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Getting out of hand

This article is rapidly becoming too long to comfortably navigate. It is already as long as that about Elizabeth II, the woman who has been in the media spotlight 90 years longer than Meghan. We have to consider one of the two approaches here:

1. Creating sub-articles such as Privacy and media relations of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Charity work and advocacy of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, etc. See Pedro II of Brazil for an example of this approach.
2. Drastically condensing information, meaning summarization and avoiding details. See Elizabeth II for an example of this approach.

I favor option 2. Surtsicna (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this applies to similar royal articles too - in bytes, the articles for Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, and Diana, Princess of Wales, both supersede Elizabeth's as well. There are a bunch of drafts in progress for their fashion and style, which is the only branching I know of in development. I think if we can summarize 70 years of an entire reign adequately in her own article, it shouldn't be difficult to summarize other categories. There has been discussion of splitting the "Privacy and media" section of both Harry and Meghan's page into a separate article before, and given the notability on the subject, it makes some sense. But I do think other things can and should be summarized - sections detailing public life and charity work can often turn into lists of appearances and engagements, which isn't beneficial.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, as Bettydaisies mentioned, there are drafts in development on Meghan and other female royals' fashion and style so when those are complete, a huge chunk of info may end up being removed from this page as well as other pages. But, even if those drafts don't get finished, I still don't see any problems with this page's length. Yes, it's long, but so are the articles on Diana, Princess of Wales, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, etc. And I don't think we have a policy at place which says particular pages can only have a specific length. For example see the pages on Hillary Clinton or Taylor Swift, both of which are featured article. And there isn't necessarily a correlation between a subject's age and how long their page needs to be. There are many individuals who are younger than Elizabeth II but their articles are lengthier simply because they have been more controversial or news-making. Meghan and Harry's habit of filing multiple lawsuits is not really helping in this regard but we cannot ignore coverage by reliable sources and that is why I'm against removing sourced info. So, if more and more lawsuits pop up in the future, then we will either condense the info per Surtsicna's suggestion or make a separate article for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's media relations (similar to List of official overseas trips made by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, which covers their visits) Keivan.f^Talk 20:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

To my understanding, Taylor Swift has recently been undergoing edits to cut down on the article length as well. I've noticed that political articles are typically very long and very dense by nature, which isn't something that can be addressed without a massive undertaking. I think historical articles of a certain subject - for instance royals - should be consistent in formatting. It's a lot easier to judge the historic significance of events in Elizabeth's reign, simply because of how much time has passed, but the same is harder to ring true for people born much after her. I do still think information needs to be condensed for readability and weight, but I do think that in this specific incidence, their lawsuits do warrant a separate page.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Summarizing acting career in first sentence

I'd like to delete "former" before "actress". My understanding is that she's restarted her acting career when she stopped being a full-time active member of the royal family; since then she's done the voiceover role for Disney. Alternatively, it could be reworded to avoid either present or past tense, for example instead of "former actress", it could say "with an acting career including several roles in television and film, including a voice-only role in 2020". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I deleted "former". It was reverted by Keivan.f with edit summary "I don’t see a consensus on the talk page; not to mention that voicing a documentary would make her a voice actress, not an actress." Oops!! I just accidentally reverted Keivan.f's edit; I must have clicked a link by accident; but perhaps I'll leave that as is as I was considering perhaps reverting anyway. I apologize for using the rollback rather than a more usual edit summary for this type of revert. Anyway: Keivan.f apparently didn't see this section of the talk page. I don't see any objections here to deleting "former", and I don't see any attempt by Keivan.f to comment on my alternative proposal above or to come up with any other version that would address my concerns. How about "and an actress and voice actress"? The filmography section lists recent documentaries she's been in, besides the voice film. I'm not familiar with the phrase "voice actress". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know there is such thing as voice acting, and the people who practice it are known as voice actors or voice actresses. The only thing Meghan has narrated so far is Elephant and that doesn't make her a voice actress because she hasn't been doing it regularly. On the other hand, the two documentaries that she appeared in were Harry & Meghan: An African Journey and Queen of the World, the latter of which featured appearances by other members of the British royal family. Note that she appeared in these documentaries as herself; in other words she wasn't 'acting'. Many members of the royal family have appeared in various documentaries, made cameos on TV programs or done interviews (e.g. look at the filmography section on her husband's article) and that doesn't make any of them actors or TV personalities. Meghan hasn't worked as an actress in a professional capacity since 2017 and there's no indication at the moment that she intends to go back to her previous job. Keivan.f^Talk 23:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. You've provided good arguments, and I'm partially convinced. However, arguments can be made on the other side, too. In an earlier discussion here it looks to me that there is some support for not saying "former", including someone stating that voice acting is a form of acting. I read something in a newspaper within the last couple of years that gave me the impression that "former" was accurate while she was busy full-time doing royal duties, but that she intended to restart her acting career and was starting with the Disney voice work. I think we need to be really careful because this is a BLP. The best would be to find out what the reliable sources usually refer to her as during the current time period. In the absence of such evidence, I suggest we use neutral wording, because either current or former might turn out to be wrong. I suggest wording such as "who has performed as an actress in film and television roles". I feel that this wording leaves open the question of whether she's current or former and how long ago the acting was; it doesn't give the impression that she's deliberately retired, which "former" to me seems to imply. What do you wiki-editors think? (I apologize again for reverting. I think the revert occurred when I clicked with the intention of right-clicking on any Wikipedia link for the purpose of opening a new browser tab. I'll know not to do stuff like that in future.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Or how about "who is also notable for her career in acting"? I feel this leaves open whether it's a current or past career. "former" doesn't satisfy WP:V. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Or "whose accomplishments include her work as an actress"? I'll wait a while and if there are no replies I'll put in something like that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources state she retired from acting in 2017. Some also refer to her as a "former actress" explicitly. Actors who have ceased working professionally are also referred to as "retired" in the lead, i.e Cameron Diaz, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Kay Panabaker. Taylor Momsen is introduced as a former actress. Also, voice acting is distinct from narration. David Attenborough, for instance, isn't considered an actor.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and for the refs. I'm not disputing that she retired from acting in 2017 and could correctly be called a "former actress" during that time period. However, after she withdrew from full-time active royal-family duties, and when she began voice-acting work, the situation again changed. Most or all of your sources appear to have been written before she began the voice-acting work, even if they were "retrieved" more recently. I'm not sure one of them isn't parroting Wikipedia. You haven't established that most reliable sources refer to her as "former" after she began the voice acting work; and you haven't presented any reason not to put in neutral wording which doesn't claim that she's "former" and also doesn't claim that she's currently an actress -- wording such as I suggested above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Three of the major sources came from after Elephant, referring to her as a former actress. She has done no acting work since her retirement in 2017 - producing and voiceover narrating (as I've previously explained) are not acting. Additionally, a spokesperson for Meghan confirmed in September 2020 that she would not be returning to acting, satisfying WP:V.

(The preceding comment was by Bettydaisies approximately 2 days and 3 hours after my previous comment.) Thank you for telling me about the September 2020 information from a spokesperson, Bettydaisies! That changes the situation. I withdraw my opposition to the phrase "former actress" and now take a neutral position neither for nor against it. Sorry for the delay in responding. Thank you for participating in this discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Request to remove subheading "American Actress"

When you search Meghan, Duchess of Sussex on main search engines e.g. Google, the subheading "American Actress" shows up. This is inaccurate and should be removed as Meghan is no longer an actress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelwithus (talk • contribs)

We have no control over google, or other search engines. DrKay (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove Duchess of Sussex

Isn’t the title Duchess of Sussex removed from her already? And that she be called just, Megan Markle. 49.145.163.255 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

No, she retains the title "Duchess of Sussex". See Megxit#Main details (the circumstances probably could be explained better in this article). Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, is a Duchess and will always be one. She is still a member of the british royal family. The title, Duke and Duchess of Sussex have not been taken away from them. They only agreed to not use their HRH styles, which they still retain Theeveralst (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Theeveralst : Use of absolute terms or predictions, such as "and will always be one", are probably best avoided when presenting arguments. Sampajanna (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Any legitimate title can be removed by the government of the country that issued it. It can also be resigned by the person holding it. (By legitimate titles I do not mean those used merely as courtesy for and by people belonging to families which no longer have any governmental relationship to any country. I also do not mean titles like those given out by the current king of Sweden as head of his family, but without any government authorization.)--SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Well yes Meghan's title will only be removed in the case of an act of parliament being passed to remove Meghan of her Duchess title. But that is highly unlikely. Meghan is married to a British Prince, she is a member of the royal family. She holds, the Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness of Kilkeel titles. Theeveralst (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)