Jump to content

Talk:Pippa Middleton/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Ancestry

Do we really need an ancestry section as far as I can see it is not relevant to her notability, cant see any more than just a link to Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge in see also is needed and we can delete the ancestry section. MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I have replaced the ancestry section - Middleton is a well known columnist/celebrity who has an interesting ancestry - with links to very well known prime ministers. Readers should NOT have to go to the page of her sister - Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. - for this information. 125.168.85.156 (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Do note that notability applies to article topics, not to the selection of content for an article. Something that is relevant to the topic and encyclopedic may be included even if it is not separately notable, and is not particularly relevant to the reason that the subject is notable. That does not mean such information must be included of course, merely that it may be. DES (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the issue is one of undue weight. Very few biographical articles have such sections, of course. StAnselm (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
As I removed it once before with no objections my original position still stands that her ancestry has nothing to with her notability or the reason she has a page, out of tens of thousands of biographical articles only a small few have ancestry sections where it is directly relevant and I cant see Miss Middleton being an exception and the link to her family article is sufficient. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The ancestry section on this page is just as important as the ancestry section on the Mark Shand page- both Mark Shand (Duchess of Cornwall's brother) and Pippa are the siblings of future Queens of England. That is why Mark Shand has a FULL ancestry section and it is why the Pippa Middleton ancestry edition has always been required on this person's page. Therefore, I have returned the ancestry section on the Pippa Middleton page.Srbernadette (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see the ancestry section is not relevant to Mark Shand either but that is nothing to do with this page. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We need to have consistency here - all of the siblings of kings and queens of England and the UK of have their ancestry included on their pages. This is why Pippa Middleton has hers on her page too. Please research all of the siblings of the kings and queens of England and the UK. We hope that has cleared up the confusion for you.Srbernadette (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know Pippa Middleton is not a sibling of a king or queen, you need to read what others have said that her ancestry is not relevant or encyclopedic and this is not a geneological website. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal life

I have removed the "Personal life" section which is just tabloid stuff and not particularly encyclopedic, it is also sourced from the Daily Mail which is not particularly regarded as a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

My removal was reverted as a better source was found, please note that it is still not encyclopedic or relevant, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Arse

"At the wedding, Middleton's white figure-hugging dress, which, like the bride's, was created by Sarah Burton of Alexander McQueen, was highly praised in the media."

Let's not be quite so coy. It wasn't the dress itself, was it? CulturalSnow (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I would actually say that she is mostly (if not solely) known for her bum. Surely this needs to be mentioned. Iago212 10:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

crystalballing

Saying that Pippa Middleton will one day be the Lady Glenaffric is Crystal Balling. It requires her to first marry the heir and then for the heir to become Laird Glenaffric. Until that occurs, this is not appropriate to include in the article, because it hasn't happened yet. Please remove it. There is no excuse for it. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a reason for it: all of the verifiable citations state that she is the future Lady Glenaffric - which is obviously newsworthy. The article on Prince Charles states that he is the Heir Apparent to the throne. Charles may in fact NOT become the next King; however, the fact remains that he is - at this point - the future King of the UK and is recorded as such.122.105.164.74 (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Its crystalballing. It is a not a certainty. Charles is the hier apparent, but it is by no means certain that he will be the future king. The former is stated in his article, the latter righly not.-122.62.62.173 (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Charles is the heir apparent - meaning the following - "An heir apparent or heiress apparent is a person who is first in line of succession and cannot be displaced from inheriting by the birth of another person". Middleton's fiancé is the heir apparent to the lairdship of Glen Affric. Thus Pippa is the future Lady Glen Affric - which the refs. all clearly state. The refs. do NOT say that she IS currently Lady Glen Affric, and rightly so. Similarly, according to Wikipedia, in the future, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall "will legally become queen consort, in accordance with English common law,[208] if Prince Charles becomes king". [209][210] 101.182.219.133 (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

She just married James Matthews, is there any info on what her last name is now?

Is it still Middleton or is it now Matthews? 2.102.184.254 (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, no confirmation if she has changed her name yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie960 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

All citations - including the UK Times and the UK Daily Telegraph - report that she remains the future Lady Glen Affric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.37.169 (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Glen Affric

David Biddulph edited on June 2nd, a concise introduction that must be retained; he refers to Pippa's impending title in an appropriate manner. Reinstating this editor's version should be acceptable to all.2001:8003:4ECD:F300:D92E:8A05:CEB9:FC74 (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Not really apart from being bad English it is far to much speculation for the lead and posibly misleading as written. MilborneOne (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Lead is suitably short and correct. No need for any wedding photos. Well researched article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4E8F:6D00:9C65:FA06:BE08:8F80 (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Lead should refer to Middleton's husband's impending title (and thus her own) - not the husband's secondary occupation. The edit by David Biddulph on June 2nd 2017 remains. 101.189.97.127 (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
My edit of 2 June was merely correcting the latter part of the sentence which implied that the inheritance was certain. I expressed no opinion regarding the earlier part of the sentence. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pippa Middleton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Matthews' father.

I've removed this information again. It's twice removed from the article subject - it's not about Pippa Middleton, it's not even about the bloke she's married, but it's about the bloke she's marrieds father. This is too tenuous for an article about Pippa Middleton. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm.

Matthews senior has been charged with rape in France and is under investigation; a second accusation has also been made in the UK which, according to press reports, is also being investigated.

This entry includes information about James Matthews; it also includes information about David Matthews, including his name and the title that will pass to James Matthews (and Pippa Middleton) at some point. That information, as you haven't removed it, is presumably not "too tenuous" for the page. As Matthews senior has been charged in France and is under investigation in the UK, and is mentioned in this article, adding information about the charge in France and the investigation in the UK seems far from "tenuous".

Perhaps other editors would care to offer an opinion on whether the edit is "too tenuous" as is, or if the charge and investigation merits its own section on the page, or if a separate article on Matthews senior should be created.

You have not claimed BLP exemption for your reversions (as noted in the edit summary after un-doing one of your reversions, I have checked BLP and am satisfied the edit is bona fide).

I suggest we wait for the opinion of other editors, and/or open a Request for Comments on the edit; meanwhile, please refrain from making a third reversion to the page.

As you can see, I have also added a BLP Noticeboard template to also help with resolution.


82.30.20.170 (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This should definitely stay out until there is consensus to include it - 82.30.20.170, you have been warned about edit warring. Actually, it seems like a fairly clear-cut BLP issue: David Matthews is not a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. StAnselm (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with mentioning who the father is, but for a distinctly non-notable person that's all it should be - especially in an article that is about somebody else. If you can't find anywhere else to put the information that means that it doesn't go anywhere at all. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
’’’include’’’ rape by pippa’s father in law is relevant. And this is the best place to put it. I suspect only government stooges would ask for this info to be censored 101.183.21.131 (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:NPA, even by implication are not welcome here - although I am actually curious as to why you think "government stooges" would with to suppress such information. You have to explain why you think an article on Pippa Middleton is the relevant place to put an accusation of rape for a completely different person, who is by Wikiepdia's criteria non-notable.
Incidentally, I think you meant bold, not ’’’bold’’’, but that's by the by. 17:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Zero relevance to the subject so I cant see any reason why a father-in-law would even get a mention if not wiki-notable (that is has an article). MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Obviously not relevant for inclusion in this article. BabelStone (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pippa_Middleton/Archive_3&oldid=1254170394"