Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

opening sentence

Surtsicna

Whatdo you disagree about ? that she is has become much more noteable since her engagement? of if you accept this, that the reason for her increased noteability should not feature in the opening paragraph? How would you like the article to begin as and when the marriage has taken place? Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that Meghan Markle is notable as someone's fiancée. Wikipedia has had an article about her since 2007. That's 9 years before she even met her current fiancé, before she even married her first husband. She has been considered notable as an actor by Wikipedia standards for at least 10 years, and I very much doubt that in the past 6 days she became just as notable as a prince's fiancée. The marriage will not take place for at least half a year (if ever, for all we know). When appropriate, we will probably define her as a former American actress and member of the British royal family or something like that. Grace Kelly might be seen as a precedent. Surtsicna (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the page view statistics on the day the engagement was announced. I think very few people in Britain had heard of her before she became involved with Harry, now she is on the front page of every newspaper. You accept that there are degrees of noteability. As a British citizen and part time dweller in Great Britain if I had to quantify matters I would estimate that she is at least 10,000 times more noteable amongst the 60 million odd people who live here than she was before her involvement with Prince Harry. She may have been a noteable woman in her own right but she has become vastly more noteable through whom she has become involved with. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Markle is not British. This Wikipedia is not British nor written exclusively or primarily for British people. Markle so far is nothing but an American actor (and Wikipedia, for what it's worth, is owned by an American organization). That said, I do not see why it matters so much how many people in the UK had heard of her. Certainly it has no bearing on who she is. The page view statistics for Prince Harry also spiked on the day the engagement was announced, yet I would not say that he became more notable through his involvement with her. Would you? Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Engish wikipedia should be for all speakers of English. The article should reflect the different reasons for noteability in different countries. If there are five times as many Americans as Britons but she is ten times as noteable amongst Britons the article should refelect that. Google 'Meghan Markel' news and you will see why she is noteable. Being engaged is a formal step and she now has a formal status in Great Britain and has started to undertake royal duties. I'm not for one moment suggesting that anything from her previous life be removed from the article, it will in fact be very helpful for british readers, but if it doesn't reflect her changed status it is going to seem strange to many readers, including, I would imagine, in the USA. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not news reports. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Of course the most recent, breaking news about a celebrity will top Google news. But that is only the last 6 days out of a decade or more of independent notability. One could argue the exact same thing about Harry. Why should we not define him as the fiancé of the American actor Meghan Markle? We can argue about how formal a betrothal is (it's certainly not grounded in law) but she definitely has no formal status in the UK. Where do you get the info about royal duties? The Duchess of Cambridge was not given any work that soon, so I'm a bit skeptical. Anyway, I am completely in favor of Wikipedia reflecting her changed status once it's actually changed - and that won't be at least until May. Surtsicna (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the opening of the Grace Kelly article is just right "Grace Patricia Kelly (November 12, 1929 – September 14, 1982) was an American actress who became Princess of Monaco after marrying Prince Rainier III, in April 1956." It would seem that the only difference with Suratscina is when is 'appropriate'. I'd say now, what do you think Suratscina? Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say now, because Markle has not become anything by marrying anyone yet. Why rush these things? Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

She has become someone's fiancee by becoming engaged. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

And she previously became someone's wife by becoming married. Yet neither of that conferred a royal role or changed her occupation. Surtsicna (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, this engagement has conferred a royal role and led to a change of occupation. Suggest you read some UK newspapers. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC) Suratiscina re your previous statement above this is from the Guardian, a UK newspaper known for its feminist credentials. "Little more than two weeks after arriving in the UK, Meghan Markle has dived straight into her new role as Prince Harry’s fiancee with an introduction to that royal staple, the walkabout." . Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Who is the 'we' in 'we will probably define her'?

The "we" refers to Wikipedia community. Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you refer to them in the third person. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Why? I'm part of it. So are you. Surtsicna (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Using 'we' sounds like you are part of a group of editors who hold sway over this page and I am not part of it. Anyway I shouldn't have got into that because it distracts from the more important question above. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI, in January people will again see her acting in Suits for the rest of the season [1] maybe more people around the world will now try to watch her as an actress -- at any rate, she is not married yet, and although it seems like a sure thing, and we all I am sure, wish them the best, as encyclopedists we should not CRYSTAL it as fiat accompli. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a moot point as to whether she is still an actress. If an actor has died I'd expect to refer to them in the past even if some recently recorded work was still to be premiered. She is engaged to be married regardless of whether the marriage takes place.Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't be silly -- she has not died, and no engagement is not death, at least to most people, and she is still being professionally paid as an actress. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I was expressing myself briefly in response to your previous remarks, maybe too briefly for my meaning to get across.Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I like the Grace Kelly approach, mentioning that she was an actress and her connection to royalty, in the opening sentence. Months ago I added that Markle was one of the most searched for women on Google in 2016 which coincided with her relationship with Harry becoming public. While I can see why that would have been removed (we can't put everything written about Markle in the article, I do think it is indicative of how her fame has changed. She was a successful actress before her relationship with Harry, but her relationship with him has brought her a different kind of fame. I think it's informative to mention her relationship in the opening sentence. Knope7 (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

But how do we mention her relationship without redefining her in a rather demeaning way? We have a section further down where users claim that mentioning Markle's paternal ancestry before the maternal is sexist, and here we are discussing whether to redefine an accomplished actor as an actor-and-fiancé. Once (and if) she actually marries Harry, we will easily define her through both her acting and royal role. But if they never marry, would we still describe her as an American actor and former fiancé of Prince Harry? We should bear in mind that notability is not temporary. Surtsicna (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

For now, I think, having Harry in the lead section is quite enough. Mentioning him in the lead paragraph could be sensible too, I guess. But lead sentence - that seems like an overkill. Surtsicna (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Make the first sentence short and mention her engagement in the second, that way it will show up readily in google searches.Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Surtsicna wrote 'But how do we mention her relationship without redefining her in a rather demeaning way?'. We should be reporting objectively, not worry about whether we are refining her in what might appear to some editors a 'rather demeaning' way. Sorry this suggests a hidden feminist agenda. By all means debate about whether you put female before male, or actor/actress, but her notability just has to reflect the world as it is not as anyone would like it to be. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Why would anyone hide a feminist agenda? Sorry, I'm European. :/ Surtsicna (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

References

NPOV surely means editors should strive not to have any agenda when editing an article. IMO anyone admitting to having an agenda in editing hasn't even grasped this basic principle. The article reflects its North American origins, but the centre of gravity of interest in the subject may have shifted rather. Of course the current balance of the article might also suit European feminists :-) Try Denis Thatcher, Prince Bernhard and Guy Ritchie for some comparisons. Having said all this it's not worth spending too much time on this as everyone knows who she is. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Knope7 I'll certainly support you and others who want to change the opening sentence. As it stands it is in my view just plain silly and doesn't reflect the realities of this world. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Who admitted to having an agenda? Your last two comments are riddled with a rather irrational suspicion, to the point of being incoherent. Surtsicna (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You appear to think there is nothing wrong with having an agenda and appear to me to have one with comments like "No, it is up to you to discuss this. This version has been stable for years, and you changed it yesterday, suddenly redefining a woman who was very much notable for many years before meeting her fiancé." I will change the lead again. She may have be notable for many years but through her own choice has become far more notable and has been redefined. I trust other editors who agree with me will support this edit, otherwise we should put this to a vote. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you did not implement bold edits that have been reverted before, per WP:BRD. Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I have implemented the consensus we reached above. Surtsicna (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You have certainly through your edit proposed a compromise that I accept, for the time being at least Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A bit of reflection and 'the time being' lasted about three hours. It's better because at least her engagement shows up on a google search now. But using the articles for President Trump and Sophie Countess of Wessex as examples the opening should read along the lines 'Merghan Markel is the fiancee of Prince Henry of Wales with whom she undertakes Royal duties. Prior to her engagement she was...' If the notability in the current role is greater than that in the previous role then the current role should be mentioned first, as in two articles mentioned: The converse may be true in the case of many retired sportspersons. She has definitely retired from all her previous activities, there are abundant references to support this. To my knowledge it is unprecedented that anyone should undertake royal duties whilst engaged to be married to a full member of the Royal family but that is the case here, and the article should reflect this There is no point in my amending the lead if its going to be reverted and there is a majority against it, but this is consistent with other articles. On the day she became engaged everything changed and the structure of the article should reflect this, when she is married the changes may be relatively minor. All her previous life has to remain in the article, and new sections will document her life as a royal, and the body of the article should be chronological. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

That suggestion is drastic and uhelpful. All your arguments here have been based on the assumption that Markle is more notable now (in the past 7 days) as Harry's fiancée than she had been as an actor, model and activist (in the past 10 years). I would appreciate if you could justify this assumption and provide evidence supporting it. The evidence you mentioned so far (Googling news) suggests just as much that Harry is more notable now (as Markle's fiancé) than before; obviously the references in the past 7 days concentrate on their recent engagement and future together. But Wikipedia does not define people by their future endeavors. If the example of Donald Trump suggests anything, it is that the compromise reached here is the way to go. See here how we defined him after he was elected, but before he was inaugurated. His situation then (president-elect), not now, can be compared to Markle's present situation (engaged, not married). For what it's worth, Markle accompanying Harry while only engaged is not unprecedented; Middleton did the same. Surtsicna (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It's reasonable to assume that on a worldwide scale Markle is far more famous than she was before she met and became engaged to Harry. To ask for a wiki reference on that would be like asking for one that the Sun shines in the sky. If there is some subtle difference between fame and notability I don't know it, please enlighten me. Few in Europe would have heard of her before, now everyone knows. The extract you give me from Trump is an edit on one particular day, I looked at another which had President elect in the first sentence. There is a difference, Trump had to give up his other interests before inauguration. Markle gave up hers on engagement. I've read that Markle is unique in going on royal engagements,, but whether unprecedented or not doesn't matter, it is her new role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nine-and-fifty swans (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

or to put it another way, do you accept that if she had previously had only a humble job and was not notable enough for a wiki article that following her engagement she would be noteable enough for a wiki article? If yes the engagement must have conferred notability on her.Therefore she must be more notable now than before. The proper question is whether the additional notability from the engagement is more than that she enjoyed before, ie is she twice as notable now. Well I should think she is several times as famous but I'm not sure there is some notability index. Here is a ref that she has quit acting

which I presume is later than any of your saying she is still acting. And here is another, apparently with footage saying she has given up acting Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not "on one particular day" but the result of a consensus achieved following a long discussion, as can be seen here. There is no difference there. Even though Trump gave up his other interests before inauguration, as you say, those other interests were still defining him between the election and the inauguration. This suggests that Markle's occupation should still define her between the engagement and the marriage.
Allow me to quote JFG from Talk:Donald Trump: "You are correct that Trump has been quasi non-stop "politicking" since he launched his campaign, however that still amounts to 18 months of his 70-year life. Not the dominant thing for his overall biography page. As an encyclopedia, we should not overly focus on current circumstances, no matter how overwhelming they sound." (emphasis mine)
The fiancée-of-Prince-Harry thing amounts to 7 days of Markle's 35-year-long life, the last 10 of which she has had a biography on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump didn't give up his other interests on election, Markle has effectively given up hers upon engagement. And the first sentence of the article on Trump focuses very much on present circumstances, even if the rest of the lead and the article as a whole do not do so to the same extent. Trump doubtless had his own article before he was elected president so is a perfect example of someone whose notability increased and whose article was adapted accordingly. However Markle's life may have changed more on engagement than Trump's did on election. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

In your previous comment you said: "Trump had to give up his other interests before inauguration." Now you are saying he did not? First you brought up the article about Trump as an example of how to treat this case, then after being shown that the Trump precedent favors the current solution, you suggest that they should not be compared because "Markle's life may have changed more on engagement than Trump's did on election"? Not only are you making a lot of unsubstantiated claims, one after another, but you are also drastically changing your own views and opinions from one comment to the next. Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

No contradiction at all, Trump did not have to give up his other interests upon election, he had to give them up before inauguration. No contradiction whatever, it is difficult to discuss if you don't read what I write. Trump as it stands is a pretty good model for Meghan Markle now, especially that she has made more of the transition upon engagement than he did on election.Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No, Trump as it stands is not a good model because Trump is now a head of state while Markle is not yet member of a royal family, and "fiancée of Prince Harry" is not her occupation or her main claim to notability throughout her life. That Markle "has made more of the transition upon engagement than he did on election" is your original research and opinion, nothing more. Surtsicna (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Every editor has to interpret facts. We have to decide what is her main claim to notability. To say that I am indulging in OR when I make an interpretation is just fatuous. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC) I agree the first sentences should reflect her transition state and that some lessons may be learnt from the Trump article as it was when he was President Elect as well as the current article. If she is billed a currently an actress it should also be said that she has announced her retirement. I used 'currently' (which I wouldn't do if I were in the pay of Kensington Palace) in the hope that it will satisfy you on the issues of the relativity brevity of her new status and that engagement doesn't always lead to marriage. (I wouldn't dare to describe anyone as 'currently married to...' though) It feels right to use it this morning but I may change my mind though. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Actually 'currently engaged' is okay because engagment is not meant to be permanent, ie lifelong. It gives the lead a transitional feel, which is something we appear to agree on. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No the opening isn't perfect and I'd prefer an alternative to 'British Royal family' but we need to defined Harry. The engagement needs to be stated directly, not in passing, due weight as now been given to her other previous activities. Please explain all changes here. All this 'becoming a member of the family' seems formal and redundant,it was maybe applicable a generation ago, de facto she is already a member of the family. I am every surprised nobody else seems to want to edit the opening on such a widely-read article. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing will ever be perfect but the lead paragraph is certainly better without blatant misspellings, poor orthography and simply bad wording. It is becoming apparent that you are simply opposed to everything I suggest, even if you initially agree to it. It is becoming rather disruptive. Formality is what royal families are about, especially the British one. She may be seen as a member of the family by Harry, but there is surely a reason why she is not listed at Template:British Royal Family or at the official website, for that matter. Being a member of the British royal family, as defined in that article, does not mean just being invited to a Sunday lunch. Surtsicna (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually I like many of your suggestions and you have accepted some of mine. I think it should be mentioned that she has started to carry out royal engagements This source says she has already carried out two 'Harry and Markle visited Nottingham where they are carrying out two separate engagements.' And you shouldn't be deemphasising the engagement, I've actually restored all the things she did previously so it should be balanced. I'm trying to make the lead, accurate, concise and comprehensive, I'm sure you'll be able to make it read smoothly. It's worth it because so many people are looking an the article. I'm up to my limit for reverts for today. And if you weren't so much into saying I am into OR, misreading what I say and claiming there is nothing wrong with having an agenda maybe things would go a bit smoother.Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If you read the article linked in the opening British Royal Family you find this 'The British royal family comprises the monarch of the United Kingdom and her close relations. There is no strict legal or formal definition of who is or is not a member of the British royal family and, apart from Queen Elizabeth II herself, different lists include different people. Those who at the time are entitled to the style His or Her Royal Highness (HRH), and any styled His or Her Majesty (HM), are normally considered members, including those so styled before the beginning of the current monarch's reign. By this criterion, a list of the current royal family will usually include the monarch, the children and male-line grandchildren of the monarch and previous monarchs, the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, and all their current or widowed spouses.' It could be extended that by this criterion Meghan Markle will not become a member of the British Royal Family. Because it is blurred, and because in the public mind I suspect (oh gosh you are going to call that OR again) she is already seen as a part of the family I think we just should mention them in the lead at all. You haven't claimed to be British, I am British and hence may have a particular feel for these things. Of course she is now a world-wide phenomenon so Britons shouldn't have a monopoly on this at all, but they may have some insight. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, you are reading it wrong, it seems. According to that, she will be a member of the royal family ("... the current royal family will usually include ... male-line grandchildren of the monarch ... and all their current or widowed spouses"). I agree that we should mention her participation in the royal duties if we are not to mention her becoming a member of the royal family (as recently removed). Those two basically mean the same thing and put her engagement into context, i.e. outline why her (former) occupations are mentioned alongside something that at first seems to pertain only to her private life. Surtsicna (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Why so restless? We finally agree to a version of the lead paragraph that appears to satisfy both of us: mentioning the engagement early on but not too early, mentioning the British royal family but not in the awkward and poorly capitalized "Prince Harry of the British Royal Family" manner, mentioning her new role (royal duties) and mentioning her retirement. Most of these were your ideas, and it took us very long to reach this compromise. Then you simply reverted to your original version, the one which I had disagreed with from the start. I am puzzled. Surtsicna (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought about it some more, I think problems came because of trying to cram too much into the opening sentences. My latest suggestion had her two claims to notability in the opening sentence and then the qualifications came at the end of the lead, fitting in xchronological order with the rest. Anyway some other alterations came into lead I can't see from where as they weren't specified in edit summary. I'm not going to risk being warned for edit-warring so won't revert further for now.Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, we never know who is watching, silent but carefully counting. Anyway, could you please help me check the citations? I have found that many of them do not say what the article claims they say, which is unacceptable to say the least. We should also ensure that there are no more than two citations per sentence (see here). The text is becoming impossible to edit due to an overflow of reference mark-up. Surtsicna (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not as dedicated as you, I generally tend to become involved in editing when something is blatantly innacurate or seems unbalanced. I am afriad I can't check all citations, but I did check those for the genealogy claim three out of four of which said 'may' and then you then removed them and are putting forward another set of newspaper references where the geneaology claim is not prominent. At the moment if I see something without a citation that I don't think that important I remove it and the citation and it's up to the person who wants it in to come back with a citation. But we should continue that discussion under the new section which I opened. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

She has two main reasons for notability, as actress and fiancee to Prince Harry. They should be stated clearly and directly. 'Following her engagement' downplays the second reason and seems to assume the reader already knows it. Why downplay the second? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nine-and-fifty swans (talk • contribs) 11:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

____

References

Ancestry (again)

@Nine-and-fifty swans: Make your point clear. What do you mean? Are you questioning the credibility of the New England Historic Genealogical Society? Keivan.f^Talk 14:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Just about every journalist who reported this wrote 'may be descended' so I question its credibility to the same extent as these journalists do, All I see is a line of descent with no supporting evidence whatever. I am a bit sceptical about how anyone can be so confident about a genealogy going that far back amongst people who are not royal or even noble. If one person makes a claim and ten journalists sound a note of scepticism then the scepticism should appear in our article. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who put in 'according to' it wasn't me and it wasn't there last might. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

As of now, journalists have written hundreds of articles about her ancestry, and have made her a relative of many noble families, including the Bowes family which turned out to be false. Sources like Guardian, Telegraph, etc, are reliable, but when writing a section about ancestry, other sources like NEHGS could be considered more credible because, as long as I know, journalists have only been repeating what genealogical references have already said. As you already know, one of the sources that is used for Markle's ancestry is NEHGS which seems to be credible. I don't know how they could go back generations to find out who Markle's ancestors were, but her case is no different than other British royals, including Kate and Sophie, whose ancestry and background has been published by numerous authors and genealogical societies. Should we question them all? Keivan.f^Talk 14:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether the Guardian or Telegraph are more reliable than the NEHGS but of how they and other newspapers report the NEHGS's statement. It's not the credibility of Xs research against Y's but how Y reports X. They do so with a note of caution and so should we. And yes I am sceptical about many claims of ancestry, quite apart from someone's legal father not being their natural father, I'm sceptical about documentation. But I'm open to being convinced and have contacted the NEGHS to ask if they can release supporting evidence for this claim, it would certainly be of interest in Britain. Anyway are you agreeable to find a way that thecaution of the journalists reporting this claim can be added into the text, yesterday I wrote 'it is claimed that' but it was struck out and three newspaper references saying 'amy be descended' were removed. Today I find the words 'n claimed that' or similar which I agree are cumbersome but expressed the reservation. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Try this both for a note of sceppticism in the headline and some sceptical readers' comments I think the article may have more credibility if we don't report the claim as fact. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

What note of skepticism in the headline? And since when are readers' comments RS? This is getting out of control. If there is a genealogist disputing NEHGS, we should consider him/her. Otherwise it's a source like any other in this article. And if there is really a reason to doubt the claim, we should remove it altogether per WP:BLP; it's just not worth it. Surtsicna (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

____

References

African American categories

I know that Markle is currently in Category:American people of African descent, but is there any reason that she's not in any African American categories, like Mariah Carey, Alicia Keys and others are? Carey and Keys are also biracial/multiracial. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality it should depend on whether reliable sources describe them as such. Personally, in the case of living people, I think it should be based solely on the person's own choice. She chooses to be mixed race not African American. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

One can choose how they identify, but we usually don't use "race"/ethnicity categories like that. I don't see that she denies her African ancestry. She's not choosing to be mixed "race"; she is mixed "race." But as made clear in the African Americans article, African Americans are a deeply mixed group. I was simply wondering why she is not included in the African American categories when she is already in the "American people of African descent" category. Perhaps editors feel that "American people of African descent" is enough to cover her African heritage (and are trying to keep in mind that she is biracial), but African American categories can be helpful categorization on Wikipedia even when one is already covered by an "African descent" category. I don't feel strongly about this issue; I simply wanted to ask about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Question on WP:ENGVAR/WP:TIES issue

Since Ms. Markle was a notable actress before ever meeting Prince Harry, this article has been primarily written in American English, per WP:TIES. After all, she is an American, and has primarily acted in American television and film. But once she marries Prince Harry and becaomes part of the royal family, would that be enough justification to switch this article to British English? I ask because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also crosses my mind because this seems to be in a unique situation: Markle is an actress like Grace Kelly (currently written in American English) was, not primarily a socialite like Wallis Simpson (currently written in British English) was? Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This has cross my mind too, before they were even engaged. I think the best thing to do for nor is to just wait. As well as spelling their is the smaller issue of date order, but again we can wait and see what happened. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This article existed long before she became involved with Prince Harry, when she was only American, so the article was written in American English. Thus, it should be written in American English. Unlike Wallace Simpson, who was not widely known prior to her involvement with the King, Markle was a widely known celebrity first. The original non-stub version of the article uses American, so US English is the way to go. "Wallace" should probably be in British English, while Princess Grace should be in American English, because Monaco is not part of Britain, and Grace Kelly was a widely known celebrity as an American before ever becoming a princess. Grace Kelly would never have a good reason for being written in British English.

I will note that WP:TIES is being violated in may articles on Wikipedia, like International Space Station where Britain banned human space funding during its construction and had little to do with the station until recently, but the article is for some reason written in British English. The station was built out of mostly U.S. components with mostly U.S. monies, using mostly U.S. and Russian launches, operated by mostly American and Russian astronauts, so that's an oddball (Russian topics do not automatically get written in British English)

-- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support British English now in this case. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• I would also support the use of British English in this case. Although I'm aware that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it's likely to be the case that her relationship with the Royal Family is more relevant internationally, and will be in the future, as opposed to her established career as an American actress. J.M.Ike (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Is she retired or not

According to the lead, Markle is an actress who has announced her retirement from acting. Is she not, therefore, a retired actress? Firebrace (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

She's not retired yet..so I've fixed that. She's "transitioning out" and is unlikely to act more or something like that Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry

Several editors continue ignoring clear Wikipedia precedent on royal-associated individuals. There is a section on "Ancestry". It includes well-attested secondary source information on the individual's ancestry. These editors do not engage in discussion on the Talk page. Further removals will result in a request for edit arbitration, which will result in the section remaining. Satyadasa (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please do not threat and shout, and try to place your comments where they belong. Firstly, the "clear Wikipedia precedent" is no policy or guideline. It means jack shit. I may as well claim clear Wikipedia precedent on biographical articles in general. Secondly, there has been an extensive discussion by "these editors" and others. Thirdly, the "well-attested secondary source information" you mention is in many cases not attested at all, i.e. the sources cited there do not confirm it. You are welcome to take part in the discussion, but inclusion of unverified claims into a BLP is not up to any debate. Surtsicna (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That is most certainly not a threat. It's a prediction that it will be restored. I noticed that you have reverted again, based on a still unresolved RfC. I had only been checking this existing discussion on Ancestry and didn't think there was another. Satyadasa (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hussey link Despite the fact that there are multiple secondary sources on the Hussey link, every single one goes back to the research of one Australian amateur historian whose conclusion has been disputed on soc.genealogy.medieval: His answer to the people who have done the primary source research? "True until proven wrong." This is not how genealogy works. Wikipedia should not be like the tabloid media who treat genealogy as an accessory to celebrity gossip. Multiple sources doesn't necessarily mean reliability... GIGO

Source for the dispute: look for posts from D. Spencer Hines quoting Paul Reed, the primary source researcher, versus reed.michael@edumail.vic.gov.edu, the one who is quoted by the DailyMail, etc. Satyadasa (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Paul Reed versus reed - brothers - or one and the same, methink101.189.160.184 (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Um... no. The Reeds are on opposing sides of the argument.

Also, my edits showing both sides of the debate were deleted in favour of Mr. Michael Reed's undocumented assertion picked up by the Telegraph. Fair two-sided treatment of "royal descent", both with documented secondary sources, has been removed. Two-sided is more than it deserves, frankly, but the numbers of secondary sources reporting the claim with no records are currently greater, so it must be mentioned.

In addition, Reed's assertion that the Bachiler chair at the Metropolitan Museum of Art belonged to Capt. Hussey and has Hussey's arms has been added. Even if it has the arms, the chair would not be solid evidence of the Dorking Husseys descent from Lord Hussey or the Bowes line. Even if we assume it is Hussey arms and Capt. Hussey is a descendant of that line, there is no proof the line is to Baron Hussey himself. It could be a brother's line or earlier. I will be restoring the edits when possible Satyadasa (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Sbernadette keeps reverting, claiming that journalists copying Michael Reed's argument are researchers (and the only ones who matter). I keep restoring a balanced view. There needs to be a decision on this. Satyadasa (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Satyadasa As you suggested, I have added as many of the books and articles that have been around for decades RE Markle And Hussey connections. It is all very interesting. Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for doing it differently this time User:Sbernadette. You did not delete the other side. Now we can discuss this more civilly.

Your first source (The Plantagenet Connection, 1995), says on page 32 "This genealogy is considered proven up to the 11th generation. There is a weak connection between John Hussey who married Marie Wood and his father, George Hussey, wife unknown. According to the primary records in the Lincolnshire Pedigrees (a primary document of land and court records), George did have a son named John. This genealogy assumes that it is the same John who married Marie Wood, but there is no concrete evidence that he is the same man. This is where Paul C. Reed's research comes in.

Reed says "Turning to the Lincolnshire family, I checked the will of John Hussey, gentleman, who is given in the visitation pedigree [that's the one cited in 1995) as having had a brother named George who had a son named John. John Hussey, who had served as a Member of Parliament, left a very long and detailed will, dated 14 August 1583. He died without issue. Nearly half of the first page of his will was devoted to bequests to the poor. He mentioned [many people]... The wording of the will makes it clear that if John had had a brother with surviving issue that he certainly would have been mentioned, even if given a small legacy to keep him from disputing the terms of the will. I must conclude from this that John's brother George and his nephew and namesake John predeceased him without surviving issue.

This means that Paul Reed has nearly disproven the connection that your source already said was weak.

Your second source, the Kentucky Historical Society, does not seem to actually say that. If you search "The Husseys, who came from England via Holland with Governor Winthrop on March 9, 1632, were descended from Lord Hussey," you come up with WikiVisually's claim that the KHS Register says that. The claim that it was retrieved 22 November 2017 is false. As you can see, the link is to a book without full text available. Google Books does however allow a full text search. The term "Hussey" appears twice, once in the index, and once to a reference to Capt. Christopher. There is no reference to Baron Hussey of Sleaford. If you want, I'll go get the original at the NYPL. It doesn't say what the copy-paste genealogists say about it.

Citing what the journalists say or what Geni.com says is overkill, with all due respect. Given the wording, they are clearly referencing the sources that I just debunked above. Satyadasa (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for finding the Hawaii Husseys page. That's the first good evidence I've seen. The connection of the Husseys of Sleaford through the Stydorfs to Dorking could make it possible. Still not proven! I took the liberty to clean up the section, while still keeping all of your arguments. Someone else would go in and edit it--if it continued to look like "genealogists arguing about primary source documents". Wikipedia is strictly about secondary sources. Together we have chosen good ones on both sides. I also changed the Nixon reference to another Plantagenet Connection publication from that same document. Thanks! Satyadasa (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi - Thanks for your hard work. I have added as a ref. - the 1962 book from the Kentucky Historical Society. Page 55 has a quote which indicates the society's acknowledgment of the Lord Hussey lineage and Captain Hussey's parentage as Mary Wood and John Hussey of Dorking. Another editor - User talk:Celia Homeford - has shortened your last edit saying that some of our sources were not allowed. I think the article works well and hope that you are happy; the article shows both sides. Finally - should we put a "paternal descent" in the opening line - so that it is clear that the first paragraph is to do with her father? Cheerio and thanksSrbernadette (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you as well. I think eventually the Ancestry section will require subsections. Right now I think it's OK. As the article currently stands, it only talks about 1/32 of her mother's side and 1/2048 of her father's ancestry. A more complete view will require more published sources. My own research, for instance, is not yet published, so I can't cite it. Satyadasa (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi - There is confirmation of both Markle's descent from King Edward III and her cousinship with Prince Harry. I have confirmed that she descends from Capt. Hussey and said that there is evidence of her descent form Lord Hussey. This is all well documented by the NEGHS - no need for any confusion. Great! Srbernadette (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I was excited about the confirmed royal descent from a reputable genealogist and went to the page to add it myself, and saw that you already had. Great!

Unfortunately, you also removed the doubts about the still unconfirmed (and probably forever unconfirmed) royal descent. You cannot be serious! One true royal descent doesn't make the false one also true. Satyadasa (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - I did not mean to remove any doubts RE Hussey line. I think that subsequent editors to this page, e.g. - User talk:Celia Homeford - will refer to the Hussey line briefly i.e. - as "albeit unconfirmed". I might try to do that myself. Cheers and thanks again for keeping me in the loop!Srbernadette (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"Alleged" is too weak. The descent is "unlikely." There is no reason to condense. I am reverting, and then I am also removing references to the self-published source and the tabloid. Satyadasa (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The reason for my reversion is two-fold. First, in service of the neutrality tag above the section. Please note "proper context". Second, because once the two of us have stopped paying attention to this page, others will come by. They will be more likely to undo our work (and just replace it with the Telegraph/Michael Reed research) if the sources are not fully summarized. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source that cites the relevant secondary sources. Also, in the future, let's edit with one goal at a time--i.e. link removal being separate from wording. I made that mistake too. Satyadasa (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

OK - but I really think that editors like User:Celia Homeford will scrap the "debate" aspect. Shouldn't we just have the term "highly unlikely" - with the ref from the NEGS when introducing the Hussey bit - it should only be 2 or so lines - not all the Leggitt stuff. By the way, Celia Homeford states that it is not Leggitt that queeries the Hussey descendancy - it is the magazine's editor, Kenneth Finton. Cheers - all interesting.Srbernadette (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right that the Plantagenet Connection / Leggitt / Finton sentence is not needed. I removed it. I have seen no evidence that User:Celia Homeford opposes the structure of the paragraph. Besides, Celia does not decide. Wikipedia policies and Wikipedia precedents decide, and both need to be cited here on the talk page. Celia needs to speak for herself and defend edits with policy and precedent, as we are doing. There are countless Wikipedia articles where the Ancestry section is rather lengthy on matters that are subject to debate. See Charlotte_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Satyadasa (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC

Agree with you! I think you will like the current precise version which gives both "sides" RE the Hussey issue. Other editors are also happy with the length. Thanks again Srbernadette (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)::

One editor has removed the ancestry section altogether. This is appalling we think. The editor will NOT acknowledge that Markle's own family are aware of her descent from Captain Christopher Hussey (died 1686). Let alone her descent from British aristocracy and King Edward III - all published in major USA and UK newspapers and TV networks. Let's try to change the mind of this editor!Srbernadette (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ancestors of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 2

16. George B. Markle (1864-1923) 8. Isaac Thomas Markle (1891-1972) 17. Mary Jane Mangle (1867-) 4. Gordon Arnold Markle (1918-1979) 18. 9. Ruth Ann Arnold (1892-1963) 19. 2. Thomas Wayne Markle (1944-) 20. 10. Frederick George Sanders (1873-1944) 21. 5. Doris Mary Rita Sanders (1921-) 22. George David Merrill (1861-1924) 11. Gertrude May Merrill (1887-1938) 23. Mary Bird (1862-1925) 1. Rachel Meghan Markle 24. Jeremiah Ragland (1885-) 12. Steven R. Ragland (1903-1963) 25. Claudie Ritchie (1885-1939) 6. Alvin Azell Ragland (1929-2011) 26. James Cunagan Russell (1885-) 13. Lois Russell (1914-) 27. Virginia Lee 3. Doria L. Ragland (1956-) 28. 14. 29. 7. Jeanette Arnold (1929-2000) 30. 15. 31.

Icairns 2 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone able to find a reliable third-party source to confirm or deny that Jeremiah Ragland (or his parents) worked at Stately Oaks please?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Markle's uncle appears to have revealed her maternal grandmother's name--only a Daily Mail citation at this point. I added her to the (not ready to publish) pedigree chart. 158.222.230.40 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you have some responsibility to explain your revert, but at the very least there is no need to include the category "American Protestants" twice. PatGallacher (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have (rather WP:BOLDly) removed this entire section. It's largely trivial nonsense. A person's 16th cousins are not notable by encyclopedic standards, even if a few genealogists do the work to claim that it is the case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I concur. There is a lot of borderline OR, non-RS, and non-notable stuff in there. Interesting? To some. Encyclopedic? Not really. - Eron^Talk 06:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It is standard practice to include proven descents in articles about people associated with current royals. It is absolutely encyclopedic. Check out the search term 1911 Britannica "descendant of". Google search results — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyadasa (talk • contribs) 10:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Proven. There still seems to be a fair bit of speculation. And to be frank, highlighting that Markle is a 17th cousin of Harry? Given the math, half of North America and the UK can probably make the same claim. How is that encyclopedic? - Eron^Talk 05:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I actually added the connection with proven descents to half of North America in a sentence regarding the Gary Boyd Roberts NEHGS research. It got reverted, as other editors were only interested In the "royal" descent. In reality it should be called something more like "records leading to documented medieval ancestors." That's all that "proven" ever means in genealogy, and it applies to the link via Skipper. As far as any genealogy being encyclopedic, the precedent here on Wikipedia is clear. Satyadasa (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the fact that conjugal fidelity was rarely strictly observed in past centuries, especially among the rich and powerful, being of "royal descent" has little significance. If you go back far enough in history, you will most likely find a king or a queen in the ancestry of most people. Not being of royal ancestry could very well be exceptional.

This is 100% true. "Could very well be" does not go far enough. It can be shown mathematically that everyone is of royal descent. See research about MRCA and the identical ancestors point. However, it is standard practice in Wikipedia to include proven royal descents (and famous cousins) in pages about people marrying current royals. "Proven" here does not mean genetic. That is a modern conceit that has made its way into genealogy (like the racist concept of "being 1/2^n something). Genealogy is based on legal parentage, a concept derived from pre-modern concepts of kinship where assumed fatherhood and informal adoption did not affect kin ties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyadasa (talk • contribs) 10:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Descent from Edward III

Surtscina, I can't see how a single source stating that she is descended from Edward the Third can be accepted as unqualified fact when several newspapers are stating it 'may' be true. By all means the claim should be reported, but you surely can't report every claim by a scholar or academic as though it is universally accepted unless you have evidence for widespread acceptance. Using newspaper headlines as sources seems a bit dodgy to me. they have to be backed up by the body of the article. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

But where are the ones stating that it may be true? They were not cited in the article. None of those cited placed a doubt on Skipper's descent from Edward III. And isn't New England Historic Genealogical Society more reliable than newspapers anyway? Journalists are hardly in a position to accept or refute genealogists when it comes to genealogy. Surtsicna (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The three newspaper sources originally given also said 'may'. What grounds have they for saying 'may'? Journalists may be in a position to know that claims such as these may be challenged. My instinct is that of the journalists. The three newspapers previiously cited were broadhseets with a good reputation, express is a tabloid.Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is what the citations that followed the sentence before I deleted the excess said:[2][3][4]

A U.S. researcher who specializes in finding the American descendants of British monarchs said Thursday that Markle is a direct descendant of England's King Edward III, who ruled from 1327 until 1377.

He says Markle's royal lineage comes through the Rev. William Skipper, who arrived in New England in 1639. He's an ancestor of Markle's father.

They were all a copy of one article. They did not say "may". They did not express any doubt. And I maintain that, in any case, we report what genealogists say regarding genealogy, not what journalists say regarding genealogy (likewise what historians say regarding history, biologists regarding biology, etc). Surtsicna (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

They should count only as one source, what's the point in giving them three times over. Without going bak to the previous three articles these may have been three separate journalists saying 'may'. If a historian comes up with a new claim, it is reported as a claim. I really hate to get involved in quoting wiki policies, because most of them seem common sense but this comes from reliable sources

>Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree. Scholarship WP:SCHOLARSHIP Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: <

I'm a bit sceptcal about genealogy outside noble families going that far back, but seems that some journalists share it. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Given that its generally accepted that most of the UK population is descended from EIII its all but certain there is a decent to MM its just a case of finding it. As to non noble records they are not so hard as you might suppose. Church records are pretty good and after all you only need to find a decent to a noble line to track back to a king. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Gary Boyd Roberts confirmed MM's descent from Edward III in November 2107. This was widely reported in The Washington Post, The New York Times etc 203.132.68.1 (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The word "confirmed" implies that it was a question of great importance, when it really was not. Adam Rutherford confirmed that literally every Briton is descended from Edward III. Rutherford also confirmed that literally every European is descended from Charlemagne. So what? Not everything that's out there should be in an encyclopedia. Surtsicna (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Rutherford's is a mathematical model. By the way, you are doing exactly what you warn against in citing what journalists say about what genealogists say. Rutherford's statement is based on mathematical models done by earlier people--a mix of geneticists and mathematicians--and have nought to do with the traditional, paper-trail genealogy that is cited in articles about genealogy. Genetic and genealogical ancestors often correlate, but they are not the same thing. Satyadasa (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2017

Incorrect IMDB info on her appearance on General Hospital. I have the episodes and have confirmed these dates are correct, please update:

2001 General Hospital Jill 2 episodes (aired 23 & 30 November 2001) Curlyqgrl (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Curlyggrl:  Not done. We need a reliable source to make this change. CityOfSilver 18:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)