Talk:Spare (memoir)

Non-fiction?

Should we put it in the non-fiction category, effectively asserting that it is such in Wiki's voice, but in contravention of WP:CATVER and WP:POV as that opinion is not discussed or supported anywhere in the article, or just leave it to readers to draw their own conclusion? I think the memoirs category is all we should use to categorise it. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

sure New hordak from 2018 (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@New hordak from 2018, can you explain why you say that, and specifically how that could be said to comply with WP:CATVER and WP:POV please. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The genre of nonfiction features works presented by their authors as based in facts and real life. The lack verification of the claims made by authors in their works does not preclude those works from being classified in the genre of nonfiction. The amount of nonfiction works with questionable veracity is innumerable. Exceptions may be made in cases of works accepted to be literary forgery. Plenty of authors have written fake memoirs. In such cases, the "[Year] books" category and Category:Literary forgeries would suffice. But none of this is relevant to Prince Harry's memoir, which has been presented by Harry as fact and has not been accepted to be forgery (regardless of how scandalous it may be). Οἶδα (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

"The genre of nonfiction features works presented by their authors as based in facts and real life. The lack verification of the claims made by authors in their works does not preclude those works from being classified in the genre of nonfiction." It is similar to the genre of documentaries in film. The authors typically present bullshit and tall tales as factual accounts, and the viewers have to determine if there is any resemblance to reality. Dimadick (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Too much room given to Taliban response

Currently, the feedback from the Taliban in regards to the part of people he killed in Afghanistan (Afghanistan comments) is expected and some of it even reasonable, but there's not really any need to mention that many different responses in this article. It currently as it sits has five different comments from five different Taliban commanders/officials. It's better to just give a general description of their comments with maybe one example. 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:BD87:175D:2C5C:1B7B (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it is appropriate to include the response from Afghanistan, but it is currently repetitive. Also the emphasis on quotations from the authorities in contrast to noting the popular response (protests etc) seems unbalanced. Maybe that because the news us unbalanced currently because perhaps quotations are easier for journalists to write about (just quoting) than protests (nuanced) but I hope in the subsequent days this can be balanced better. CT55555(talk) 02:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

crap 185.24.77.197 (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I support to have them kept because these comments shows Harry is speaking irresponsibly New hordak from 2018 (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@New hordak from 2018 Just to be clear, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a persuasive work. It is supposed to make an effort to be encyclopedic. So our objective is not to try to advance any particular narrative, but rather write with fact-based neutrality. SecretName101 (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Synopsis length

Synopsis seems excessively long by Wikipedia precedent. I don't recognise the fact that there are secondary sources for each item as justifying the level of detail, and absence of sub-headings here. Comments please. Psywave (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. A synopsis is, I think by definition, intended to be a short summary. CT55555(talk) 21:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit of a WP:NOTNEWS problem. I think if this article were created in 6 months time it would be written more conventionally. At the moment, the news media is full of every little tidbit so every little tidbit ends up here. Not really sure what the solution is - probably some judicious editing when things calm down in a few months' time. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I suspect there is some motivation to be as thorough as possible in an attempt to damage sales of the book, but of course I have no evidence for this. I see we have some headings and a bit of structure now at least, so let's see how it goes. Thanks again. Psywave (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Keivan.f is responsible for adding 89.5% of the content to the article. Perhaps they could comment and also reflect on the need to get the content length optimal. CT55555(talk) 18:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

An attempt to damage sales of the book? The synopsis section on Wikipedia can hardly influence the book sales when there are multiple outlets giving minute coverage of its details online. For the moment I'm trying to get in as much info as I can before narrowing it down. Keivan.f^Talk 18:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll let others reply about the sales/damage thing, I think some assumption of good faith is merited about that.

But to the main point, @Keivan.f there does seem to be consensus that you are bloating the article, would you consider not adding so much, or working in your sandbox until the length is normal? Or any other way of not adding so much to the article? I write that noting that over 10,000 people a day are reading it in this suboptimal state. CT55555(talk) 19:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Would it not be better to narrow down as you go. It's going to be a major piece of work to edit it down. I was going to comment on this edit, which I just noticed, separately - but it is relevant to this thread. I know it was reported in the Mirror, but is it really noteworthy as a "veracity" issue that he says he got an Xbox on his 13th birthday when it came out 2 years later? Seems over the top for this article (and under that heading). DeCausa (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do about the narrowing down bit today because I think I have added pretty much everything that I thought had to be covered. I'll make it more condensed, remove some lengthy quotes and take out some excessive details. It is pretty much what I did with articles such as Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. It's better to have everything written out so that you can know which bits you want to take out. And since the book has been in the news for days, it was necessary to keep the article updated, thus why I decided to put information out here directly. Keivan.f^Talk 19:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to edit it down. I appreciate this collaborative approach. CT55555(talk) 19:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The synopsis is good. I just have one suggestion. Maybe put points in order according to how it is in the book. The book is structured in three parts. I think the synopsis should reflect the structure of the book itself more than the media commentary. The article is about the book and shouldn’t be a mere rehash of what is being said about it. Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Veracity of claims

I see plot length is discussed above. IMO, the Veracity of claims section has a strong-ish hint of WP:FANCRUFT/everything and the kitchensink. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. For a book that has been advertised as "his truth", it is important point out how close his claims are to the objective truth. And it is entirely sourced and backed by secondary sources that have reported on the matter so WP:FANCRUFT does not necessarily apply IMO. Keivan.f^Talk 17:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This length of this section is justified, based on the record sales, and the number of reliable outlets spilling ink over the matter of veracity. -- Zanimum (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Keivan.f, how important is this:

"While discussing details about his 13th birthday which occurred in September 1997, Harry states in the book that his mother had got him an Xbox as a birthday present, which was handed to him by his aunt Lady Sarah McCorquodale. Critics pointed out that the video game console was first announced in March 2000 and not released until 2001. Some have suggested that Harry's recollection may have been mistaking the Nintendo 64 or PlayStation for the later-released Xbox."

Sources are WP:DAILYMIRROR and WP:PAGESIX. IMO, per WP:PROPORTION we can do fine without it.

References

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: There is no need for either the Mirror or Page Six. Both Sky News and the Times have it covered neither of which are tabloids. The sources can be easily replaced. Keivan.f^Talk 15:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, The Times [1] does mention Xbox-gate. Still a WP:PROPORTION fail to include in this article, as I see it. Among other items. Even if The Times mention something, it doesn't follow it has to be on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I usually take WP:PROPORTION into consideration when it comes to including details. But, we need to remember that this is an autobiography or memoir that is meant to give a truthful account of events according to the subject. As a book reader I personally do not like reading passages full of errors, yet I would have ignored this mistake if it were an isolated incident. But as we see with the media coverage and what the secondary sources have been reporting on, this is but one of many errors and I think it's better to keep it for the sake of accuracy. I replaced the source though, and trimmed it down so that it is not as lengthy as before. Keivan.f^Talk 16:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Such a section doesn't need to include every item the media noted, that is not summary style. So far I seem to be the only editor who think the section is bloated though, we'll see what happens. Were it me, I'd chop the entire TK Maxx/Air New Zealand paragraph. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

One note about the coverage of the XBOX thing though, is that in the book on page 27 the line that follows is "That's the story, anyway. It's appeared in many accounts of my life, as gospel, and I have no idea if it's true." Outside of social media posts, though, I haven't found many articles that include this information.

Wouldn't it be appropiate to weave this in for encylopedic purposes? Gabagoolandcannoli (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång. The whole thing is bloated and the Xbox story is ridiculous to include and even more ridiculous under the heading "veracity". Keivan.f I thought you were going to edit this down? Is see precious little evidence of that. Sky and the Times may have made a passing reference to it but the fact that it's clearly tabloid fodder (Page 6?!) should give eveyone a clue as to its status. DeCausa (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa I said I would edit down the synopsis, which I have done by removing one quote or part after another (check the revision history and the edits from Jan 10). And there's no need for hostility when I clearly have been taking community advice into consideration. Which is why, per the consensus established here today, I removed the Xbox bit and the TK Maxx and Air New Zealand stories. Keivan.f^Talk 16:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this section needs to be edited down, remember to go for a tertiary summary not tabloid and not news-of-the-day. It's a memoir, not a gospel. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It's already edited down. The Xbox bit was removed. The whole paragraph on TK Maxx and Air New Zealand was removed as well, because some critics pointed out ways in which Harry's claims could be justified. The rest of the errors, however, cannot be justified, such as details about him not remembering where he was when his great-grandmother died, or that he is a descendant of Henry VI. Yes, it is not gospel, but a memoir is supposed to be an accurate account of one's life and it's the job of the editor to double check material that is going to make it into the final draft. Keivan.f^Talk 20:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

A memoir may be supposed to be that, but I think it's also expected to be the story (or the parts of it) as the memoree wants to tell it. MOS:FILMHIST comes to my mind, it doesn't really fit here and yet it does, a little. "cannot be justified" sounds like a personal judgement.

The paragraph based on the Telegraph article [2] is 418 words, with a lot of details and quotes. The source is of course 3260 words (per wordcounter.net) so the paragraph is much less than that. Still, the Telegraph has a sort of summary: "Throughout Spare, Harry peddles unsubstantiated theories that the media had an agenda against him and Meghan - and that royal aides colluded in this by leaking and placing negative stories about them. He also accuses both the press and the palace of trying to pit them against other royals in a bid to elevate the public image of those further up the pecking order. Yet among those who witnessed, first hand, the rise and fall of Harry and Meghan, it is fair to say that another of the late monarch’s monikers applies: “Recollections may vary.”" I think the "Veracity of claims" section can move more in that direction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:FANCRUFT very much comes to mind. The rest of the errors, however, cannot be justified, such as details about him not remembering where he was when his great-grandmother died, or that he is a descendant of Henry VI. It's not just that "cannot be justified" is an WP:ORish judgment - there's a huge encyclopedic "who cares?" The principle should be that there can be some examples to illustrate the "veracity issue" - and they should be the big ones to reflect WP:DUE - but this article shouldn't be here to catalogue a large swathe of them. Outside of that, the article is still bloated. DeCausa (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Its fair comment that Harry peddles theories that the media has an agenda, but I am not so convinced these are unsubstantiated. Thats a judgement by the Telegraph. The whole book seeks to make a case substantiating this claim, even if much of the evidence is in the form of his personal testimony. He doesnt make a court case overall for this thesis, but his own personal evidence. Believe or disbelieve as you choose, but it is an eye witness account. You might say, a whistle blower's account, which has been received as such accounts often are with concerted attempts to discredit them. Sandpiper (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Per source given, dropping the Henry VI thing is fine too IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Just removed the bit about Henry VI per the explanation provided by the source.

In response to the WP:FANCRUFT concern, I'm afraid to mention that it has no basis, and the content of the page is certainly not WP:OR as every single statement is attributed to a secondary source related to the subject. In fact, there are dozens of secondary sources that have covered every aspect of the book in detail and they have the potential to be included on this page, unless the community opposes their addition based on valid reasons. So statements such as the article is still bloated are not helpful and more specificity is needed. In response to the question "who cares?", well, I guess all the readers of the book care. You don't find such issues with Barack Obama's memoir A Promised Land, and even though a memoir is meant to be an account of events based on how the author remembers them, it has to be based on objective truth. And this is certainly not my observation, but the observation of many reviewers who gave the book mixed or negative reviews. Keivan.f^Talk 02:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Surely a memoir has to be based upon subjective truth and not objective truth. Because it is the narrative of the subject who experienced it. We might hope a biography seeks objective truth, but a memoir rather has to be the events as the writer experienced them?Sandpiper (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Having looked at the 'VOC' section, it seems to suffer somewhat from a syndrome of not seeing the wood for the trees. I have only read some of the book, so judgement reserved, but Harry comes in heavy on his theme of being the discarded spare. That is a primary claim of the first 80 pages anyway. A subordinate claim is that the press are bastards. I'm not sure I see any consideration of whether or not he has established his claim to having been sidelined, rather a concentration on individual facts which may be partially or wholly inaccurate. Similarly, did he establish or not the rutheless behaviour of the press towards him and his family? Looks to me like these central themes have been drowned by consideration of minute details.Sandpiper (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

There are instances where the issue of the press and his relationship with his family have been touched upon. For example, his claim that his stepmother leaked stories to the media falls under the major themes of the book; in other words, I was spare so they were treating me badly and the press was ruthless. But, other people have an entirely different recollection of the event. Other claims such as the whole Meghan vs Kate wedding drama can be traced back to the Oprah interview so that is also notable. The other two or three paragraphs simply give a taste of what the errors in the book are. There are in fact many, and some were removed after a discussion on this page, but the ones that contradict his own or his wife's past statements have been kept. The bit about the Koh-i-Noor diamond can be removed IMO. Keivan.f^Talk 18:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about whats in (havnt got to that yet anyway), but what seems to be missing. Having moved on some more pages in my reading, he is still returning repeatedly to his grand theme it was all the press' fault. Sandpiper (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång. One takes it for granted that autobiographical material is untrustworthy. There is no special need for a Wikipedia article about the book to repeat every complaint that the author got something wrong. This makes our article look more like an errata sheet than like an encyclopedia article. WP:NOTFORUM is also relevant. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Catherine or Kate

Does Harry refer to his sister in law as Catherine or Kate in the book? I get that Harry's sister in law wants to be referred as Catherine but the book is Harry's point of view. What I mean is that I think that whatever name Harry called his sister in law in the book should be the name used in this article. (78.19.54.69 (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC))

I read that Charles is "Pa" in this book. I think Cathrine, her "WP-name" is probably the way to go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, Charles is "Pa", Diana is "Mummy", William is "Willy", Catherine is "Kate", Meghan is "Meg", Elizabeth II is "Granny", Philip is "Grandpa", the Queen Mother is "Gan-Gan", and Princess Margaret is "Aunt Margo" in the book. It's better to go with the names these individuals are using in the public sphere as that would be less confusing to the general reader. Keivan.f^Talk 17:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised he didn't refer to her as Waity since he exclusively referred to his brother who protected him for so long as a penis and loves to discuss his penis every chance he gets. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The book is rather light on brotherly love. On what do you base the claim his brother protected him? Only read the first 80 pages, but it pretty much starts with Harry reporting his brother ordered him to pretend he didnt know him, as soon as Harry started at Eton. I have seen other accounts the brothers were closer prior to Diana's death, but this book really doesnt cover that. I'd be very hard pressed to write an account of my own life that young, so maybe no surprise. Sandpiper (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Controversie

Harry afferma di dover salvare i figli di William al loro destino che a detta suo sarebbe il suo stesso. In risposta a queste sue affermazioni il fratello William lo avrebbe già intimato di non entrare in merito. 151.34.174.37 (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

That was a statement he made in The Telegraph interview, not in the book itself; which is why it's included under "Background and writing". Keivan.f^Talk 17:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Criticism"

This is a book article, the "Criticism" section needs to focus on literary criticism, not on whatever feelings anyone has about the author. Also, it says in the first sentence, there is "mixed" to "positive" reviews, so the section currently has balance issues (some of which could also probably be addressed by focusing on literary issues and nixing personality issues). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It received positive reviews for its language and voice. There are already reviews that discuss that aspect. Regarding its content, however, I did not see much praise in any reviews. Most were critical of the fact that he was over sharing. Keivan.f^Talk 20:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Biased tone

This article is full of negative vignettes about the book. It does not display an impartial style and deserves to be reviewed for objectivity. A reader can’t help but realize the skirt of the greatest house in Europe has been raised when discussions about perceived jealousies, kitchen calumnies and popularity are treated as serious events. No matter what side one takes, the absurdity of Monarchy bleeds through. 2603:8000:3F00:1A42:3CB8:85A2:9AF6:48D5 (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe because the book itself is full of 'negative vignettes'? If you write a horrid hateful book be prepared to get the same reviews back. 174.115.15.87 (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I just posted a comment regarding tone and I came across this reply. If you cannot write an unbiased article because you are emotionally involved in the subject, then write about something else or quit because you are inefficient.

Wiki is known, even if not promoted, by being an unbiased source of information. There are a lot of more gruesome and difficult subjects here that fortunately get an all around facts-based perspective. Readers don't care for the editors' opinions or beliefs; they want to read an accurate summary on the topic of their choosing.

This is so disappointing -and embarrassing- to be so ride or die to the point where the integrity of this website has to come into question due to groupie behavior. SeleneMarie (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate synopsis:

Just been reading some of the book so I thought to seek out some reviews of how it has been received. Reading through here I found some inconsistencies between the section called synopsis and the actual content of the book. It might be fair enough to write about whether or not something in the book is accurate provided sources are available for that. However significant elements obviously are NOT a synopsis of the book but a corruption of what it actually says. So, either it needs changing to be an accurate synopsis of the book as written, or to critically discuss the content (but there is another section for that). Based on comparing what I have read so far of the book with whats described, I expect there will be more errors and I will add them here as I come across them. Comments welcome, but this will need revising. The problem seems to be that the synopsis has been based on early reports of what the book will contain, not on what it actually does.

Drug Use, "He recalls being so high on cannabis that he started whispering to a fox, "

I came across the line, 'He recalls being so high on cannabis that he started whispering to a fox'. Thats really not what the book describes. What it describes is that he and some others had been smoking cannabis and he looked out of a window from which he could see security police, and described how they didnt make him feel safe but a prisoner. He then saw a fox crossing the yard, which stopped and stared at him. From his window he whispered to the fox. 'hello mate, how's it going?'. He then describes he felt more kinship with the fox than the other boys at Eton. (p.67-68). Anyway, the decription in the text here suggests he was totally off his head and halucinating, whereas what he describes might have been seen and done by anyone in his position without any recourse to drugs whatsoever. It is therefore a lie to imply here it was the result of said drugs. The text exaggerates what he described.

With regard to "who he saw as a sign from another realm", in the book Harry compares this to another experience when in africa, when a leopard had walked through their camp (and mentions this again later p.94). There was no question of drug taking on that occasion, but he felt the same about the animal, that it might have been a sign. Whatever you make of it, that wasnt because of drug use. He reacted in a not off your head from drugs way similarly to before. Later when in afghanistan (p.151) he again refers to the 'red fox' which is being used as a call sign, and again likens himself to that fox from Eton. Its clever writing traduced by the synopsis here.Sandpiper (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

With regards to Rebekah Brooks publishing stories about his drugs use, the book described he was visited by an aid from the palace who came to ask him questions about a story Brooks had advised the palace she intended to publish detailing his drug use. Chronologically in the book harry has already stated he had used cannabis with school friends at school. However he told the aid that the details contained in the newspaper piece were wholly invented, and there is nothing he states up to that point in the book which suggests otherwise. While he had used cannabis, it seems the editor knew nothing about that but instead presented a selection of incidents which Harry stated were wholly made up. He reports that a photograph of him visiting a drug rehabilitation unit as part of his charitable work was used as proof he had joined a drug rehabilitation course. That he was accused of using drugs at highgrove in a basement room used by himself and mates, whereas he wholly denied using drugs on the premises. Further, as part of the theme of the book as the 'spare', he continues how a decision was made by his father's PR advisor essentially not to contest the allegations. He suggests that it was considered a better image for his father (who at that time was still tarnished by his separation from Diana, her death, and his new partner replacing Diana), if he was 'presented to the world as the harried single dad coping with a drug addled child'.(p.70-71) So this whole incident contributed to his alienation from his family.

The wiki article suggests the editor 'gathered evidence', whereas Harry alleges she invented a story. He does not however name her, except by anagram as Rehabber Kooks.

To add to the above so as to make a note, cocaine gets a mention on page 76. Its strictly correct to say Harry admits to taking cocaine. The problem though is that he represents this rather differently to the bare quotation. Which again isnt to argue who is right or wrong, but as a synopsis of the book, what is written in the wiki article suggests he was a regular user, which he does not say. Rather he says he was offered some by friends and tried it a few more times. However he presents this as a lesson learned when press start sniffing around the event and it threatens to become a news story in the middle of the Queen's jubilee. judgement reserved on what else turns up later. Sandpiper (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Virginity

Re his lost virginty. I havn't read the rest of the book so dont know if this is further mentioned anywhere else, though I heard Harry interviewed saying it was just a passing mention. The article says it was a (in quotes) "humiliating episode". This implies this is a direct quotation from the book, but this phrase does not appear on p.70 of the book where it is described. He refers to 'an inglorious episode with an older woman'. He brings it up because when the palace aid approached him about a newspaper story about to be published, this was what he thought might have been meant. Sandpiper (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Charles' Remarriage

Article says: "Harry mentions that both he and his brother had agreed on welcoming Charles's lover Camilla Parker Bowles into their family on the condition that their father did not marry her." Well yes thats kinda what the book says at one point, but it inaccurately describes the whole, which portrays changing views over time. What it actually says is (when it is first proposed charles and Camilla publicly acknowledeg their relationship), "We thought he should be happy. yes, camilla had played a pivotal role in the unravelling of our parent's marriage, and yes, that meant she had played a part in our mother's disappearance, but we understood she had been trapped like everyone else in the riptide of events. We didn't blame her, and in fact we would gladly forgive her if she could make Pa happy. We could see that, like us, he wasn't."..goes on about Charles' own problems with his parents growing up, until ..."The only thing we asked in return was that he not marry her. You don't need to remarry we pleaded. A wedding would cause controversy. It would incite the press. It would make the whole country, the whole world, talk about mummy, compare mummy and Camilla, and nobody wanted that. Least of all camilla". (p.40.) So the book shows a rather more nuanced opposition to a marriage than wiki implies it says.

Then later on after further time (years) had elapsed p.99, "Despite Willy and I urging him not to, Pa was going ahead. We pumped his hand, wished him well, no hard feelings. We recognized he was finally going to be with the woman he loved, the woman he'd always loved, the woman fate might've intended for him in the first place. Whatever bitterness or sorrow we felt over the closing of another loop in Mummy's story, we understood that it was beside the point. Also we sympathised with Pa and Camilla as a couple. They had taken star crossed to new levels". Harry then goes on about multiple obstacles they had faced. So its false to imply they actually opposed the marriage at the time it took place. Sandpiper (talk)

Harry continues talking about the marriage where he describes attending the service," Standing near the altar I mostly kept my head bowed, eyes on the floor, just as I had at mummy's funeral, but I did sneak several peeks at the groom and the bride and each time i thought: Good for you. Though, also, Goodbye. I knew without question that this marriage would take Pa away from us." (p.99) "...one of the things I wanted most, still, was for my father to be happy. In a funy way I even wanted Camilla to be happy." p.100Sandpiper (talk)

Article says, "Harry confesses that his father found happiness after marrying Camilla,". What the heck sort of language is that? Confesses? Like it was a crime he committed to have thought otherwise? What the book really describes is a kid growing up who comes to understand more of the relationships between adults as he experiences love himself, and comes to understand his father needs a companion in life. Moreover, perhaps, that his father had just as many problems trying to find one as he is experiencing, and so understands how things could so easily get screwed up. I didnt read the early pages looking for references to this, but realy he doesnt seem to think of Camilla as an enemy at all, more someone else swept up in the monarchical saga like himself. Have to go back and look for what he says first about her. Sandpiper (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Another example, section on Diana's death says, "Harry claims..." " Harry also claims...". To use the word 'claims' is for us to assert that there is doubt about the veracity of what he wrote. That should not be in this section, which is supposed to summarise what he said neutrally. There is a separate section for veracity.Sandpiper (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that what the article is reflecting is the attempt by the media, when the book came out, to sensationalize its "revelations". I think, at core, the problem is that the synopsis is far too long and far too detailed. DeCausa (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hard to say how long it ought to be until I get to the end of the actual book. However I agree whats here is a collection of headlines rather than a concerted attempt to describe the book concisely. It lacks balance. I imagine the sources it was originally drawn from were intended to be anything but balanced.Sandpiper (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting point. Per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE "balance" for us means reflecting the coverage in [WP:RS]] not our own interpretation of a balanced presentation of a WP:PRIMARY source i.e. the book. DeCausa (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I remind you this section of the article is entitle 'synopsis'. It isnt supposed to contain any analysis or interpretation of the actual book, simply a narrative description of the primary source itself which can be readily verified by accessing that primary source. He said she saids about the meaning or accuracy aren't supposed to be in here. Rather, it is supposed to accurately summarise the primary source itself. See as you say, WP:Primary. The big problem seems to be that of necesity it wasnt created from the primary source but from many secondary and indeed tertiary sources and has therefore incorporated their biases. Now the primary source itself is available to ascertain the accuracy of those other sources. This sort of process of precis is exactly how all of wikipedia is written, taking a source of any description and expressing its meaning in different words so that it is not copyright and then posting it. My general impression from reading the book thus far is that what is here currently is something of a travesty as far as precis goes.

I note above that some have called for a shorter synopsis section. The problem with this obviously is that most of this whole article discusses details from the book taken out of context and not expressed as part of the themes woven through it. Couldnt say to what extent the structure and artistry of the book is from Hary and what from his ghost writer, but its a cleverly written book. Now thats my opinion, the problem here is to unweave those threads and explain them simply. Sandpiper (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I listened to the audio book and then used secondary sources to gather information for the synopsis as a way to figure out which pieces of information were actually noteworthy. That's why some quotes may not contain the exact words used in the book, so I'm glad you have brought some of them up. In terms of layout, I tried to group related points together. Now that is different from the book's layout, which if I remember correctly had three main parts (have to go back and check). Anyway, I have made some necessary changes to the "Synopsis" section, by removing verbs such as "Confesses", which you rightly raised concerns about. I'll try to keep up with the comments here, but please, go ahead and make any changes you feel might be necessary in terms of improving the article. Keivan.f^Talk 19:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This explains why the synopsis is not a synopsis. A synopsis is not supposed to require secondary sources; the book being summarized is itself the implied source. A synopsis is not supposed to repeat all the juicy vignettes, such as the experimentation with drugs or the loss of virginity; it is supposed to summarize. But I see that you were gravely handicapped by having only the audiobook available. I will try to trim things down. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Public opinion

This subsection discusses only public opinion before publication of the book. This is not directly relevant, unless it can be explicitly contrasted with public opinion after publication. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Release and Reception

The "Release" section lists lots of interviews and other incidents, in an unselective way, without much in the way of summary. This was the best that could be done in January, but by now, we should be able to shorten the section considerably.

Likewise for the "Reception" section. Like the "Veracity of claims" section, it makes the article look more like an errata sheet than like an encyclopedia article. Again, I suppose that that's because it was written as events were unfolding, and not reviewed afterwards. The relevant policy is WP:NOTNEWS. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Tone

Whoever wrote this article is staunchly against anything and everything positive related to Prince Harry. The tone feels so combative, as if this article's purpose was to clarify whatever was said in the book

The article's author(s) will not be able to see it, as they did so from their point of view. Someone else must edit this in a more objective manner. English is not my first language and the vibes are off the wall. I kept thinking of the word "contrincante" as I read; it feels as if Harry's contrincante wrote this.

Horrible. SeleneMarie (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)