Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2023

Age Update 51.191.103.43 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The Cut interview

@DigitialNomad: A person says a lot of things and people say a lot of things about them, you said. One doesn't compare him/herself to Nelson Mandela, a hero who spent many years of his life in prison. If any other member of the royal family including Catherine, Princess of Wales had said something like that they would be butchered in the media and people would have made sure that it found its way to her article. Not interested in adding, this page needs to be cut in half or by the time Meghan is 90 years old, this page will have 500k words. That is WP:CRYSTAL. Meghan, like any of us could drop dead this very instant. And the page will be constantly trimmed if she reaches an advanced age. So we cannot remove information based on your speculative assumptions about what is going to happen. That being said, if you want the part on The Cut interview to be trimmed down, it is entirely possible. Keivan.f^Talk 20:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

But she didn’t compare herself to Mandela, the article says that someone else did it. Also, it sounds like you are editorializing, by presenting evidence of people who were there and couldn’t have possible told her that. Like, you have no idea, you are just putting different pieces together. What are you trying to say by claiming she compared herself to Mandela when she didn’t, even according to your article? Like what is the point of that entire section? And if this was added to Kate Middletons page I would oppose it. It just doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. DigitialNomad (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

She compared her wedding to Mandela's release from prison, saying that people rejoiced in the streets in the same way. Twist it as much as you want, her words are there. And I'm not editorializing anything. She made the claim that she was told this by a cast member. The cast came out and said it never happened. It's as simple as that. And it's not me putting different pieces together because that would be WP:OR. It's the secondary sources who followed up on the story, none of which are tabloids. Keivan.f^Talk 20:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

see below the exact quote from the Cut article. Can you explain to me how she is comparing herself to Mandela? She is talking about someone else. Again, why this particular story? What made you pick this one? Did you read the article and then decided that you didn’t like that someone said that to her, so you looked for articles that tried to say that she was lying about someone telling her that? This cold all be easy, the entire thing doesn’t belong here.

” A cast member from South Africa pulled her aside. “He looked at me, and he’s just like light. He said, ‘I just need you to know: When you married into this family, we rejoiced in the streets the same we did when Mandela was freed from prison.’ ” DigitialNomad (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

She made this 'claim' about a South African cast member, and the two South African members of the cast and crew came out and said none of them told her anything like this, which means that 1) she either made it up, 2) or she misremembered the whole thing. And Mandela's grandson criticized her for reciting this incident without any regard to whether it was even true or not. Keivan.f^Talk 20:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

No. She remembered something from awhile ago, and the other person did not remember it. Both can be true, at the same time.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The South African 'cast member' was not there. He could not even remember even if he tried to since he was not physically there. And the article states that it was the "cast member", not the composer, or anybody else. So no, at best, she misremembered. Keivan.f^Talk 23:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Cast member in a theater is anyone who works there, how do you know there wasn’t a runner, a asst costume designer or production asst who is South African? You seem really upset over this and offended. Is this personal to you?

https://www.zippia.com/cast-member-jobs/ DigitialNomad (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not make assumptions about my mood. And, again, she did not face criticism because she was necessarily misremembering or lying. She also faced criticism for recounting it. That is what Mandela's son criticized her for. And this whole argument is unnecessary. The paragraph has been removed; the language has been neutralized. There's no need to keep rehashing this. Keivan.f^Talk 14:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I have now moved that piece out of the section that discusses her court cases because it was misplaced. The section on "Public image and style" already mentioned The Cut interview so its aftermath could also be added there. I cut out some of the unnecessary quotes as well. Keivan.f^Talk 20:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

celebrities are on cover stories regularly. How often will we add it to their wiki? I really don’t understand what is going on here. It’s so confusing. DigitialNomad (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Celebrities and royalty are not the same thing. Especially the British royal family that traditionally serve as state figures. Keivan.f^Talk 20:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would support removal of the Mandela comment and the ensuing "controversy". It's a media storm in a teacup with no lasting significance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Fair enough. I will not go against the majority. Keivan.f^Talk 21:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't have to remove something just because I don't think it's relevant. I'm just providing a third opinion. We can seek wider input if you disagree. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the right way would be hold an RfC on this one. Or notify people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Keivan.f^Talk 21:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I do have to ask though. Is that the general stance we should take on unsubstantiated claims of this nature that call into question the subject's credibility? Yes, it was a cover story, and she has not perjured herself in court, but that doesn't alter the fact that it does not look good. So, should we omit similar passages from other pages? Keivan.f^Talk 21:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The way I approach article writing is to ask questions like "does a reader looking up Meghan want to know every silly thing she said that was picked up by the papers?" and "will anyone remember this story in five, ten, or twenty years?". Yes, there are reliable sources, but those sources are journalists who don't ask themselves such question; they ask themselves what will sell papers or fill column inches. The papers are the same width every morning; the rolling news channels still run 24 hours a day, regardless of whether there's any real news or not. So in quiet times, they print whatever they can make a story out of. So yes, I generally exclude media storms that didn't have a lasting effect. If it had some effect on UK-South Africa relations, as one example, then I would probably include it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Those are valid points. I'll see what replies I get from the Wikiproject participants (I'm setting up the discussion now), and if they are all in line with your view then we can simply discard this part. Best. Keivan.f^Talk 21:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. And remember that it doesn’t matter if something makes someone look good or not as you mentioned above. I’m not asking you to add good things, I wish I could show examples of positive things that don’t belong on the page too. But it’s harder, because I don’t see many stories on Meghan’s page that go “this and that talking head said Meghan is being bullied” “this person said we should all have compassion wigh Meghan” or even a few polls that reflect the complete opposite outcome to the once posted here, I would never add it to the page, because i don’t think it belongs on Wikipedia. It’s not my job to advertise articles with polls on here. Especially since it’s not an elected official or even a working member of the royal family etc. if I saw that, on here, I’d ask for it to be removed too. The biggest issue is that there is too much. DigitialNomad (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course. I always try to listen to what the community consensus is. That is why I react when an editor single handedly tries to remove information. In other words, it's nothing personal against you. Nevertheless, your edits resulted in lengthy discussions which is good. The community will now decide whether The Cut interview is worthy of inclusion or not, and hopefully a blueprint will emerge for future reference. Keivan.f^Talk 22:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Alan, Digital Nomad, HJ that it should be removed. Cibrian209 (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Your only contributions thus far have been to articles on Meghan and her kids. Which calls into question your objectivity. Keivan.f^Talk 15:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Keivan,

Yes. My account is quite new, leaving room for further contributions towards my own areas of expertise and interests. That's usually how it starts.

My comments towards the subject at hand however are quite neutral whereas your observations about my contributions, again are not.

Going back to the vote, no I do not believe it should be added.

My opinion would remain the same of the other pages of BLP. Hoever, it ident,event by skimming the edits and talk ,pages that conversation around what's appropriate for this page seems to be unique in this r and the same conversation is not had to this extent on otherseard. Cibrian209 (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why the formatting is the way it is, but I hope the stance is clear. Cibrian209 (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Mitchell and DigitalNomad, it should be excluded as unencyclopedic. And because the article is bloated, we should trim more. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Three users argued here that the content was not undue but the language needed to change. That is against three users here you advocated for its complete removal. That is hardly a consensus. Nevertheless, I removed the whole paragraph and reduced it to one sentence with a neutral language that doesn't make it seem we are accusing the subject of anything. Keivan.f^Talk 14:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Who argued that? Sorry I didn’t see that. All I see on the page is that the exact same things is still there and it’s simply not encyclopedic. Basically, you are trying to convey that Meghan said same thing, and someone else was upset that she recounted something someone said to her? Why does this belong on Wikipedia. Below is what you have still included. Can you explain again why you think this belongs here? So anytime Meghan says something, if someone doesn’t like it, it goes on Wikipedia?

“

”the cover story for the 2022 Fall Fashion issue of The Cut. In the interview, Meghan recalled being told at the premiere of The Lion King in London by a South African cast member that following her marriage to Harry, people in South Africa "rejoiced in the streets the same we did when Mandela was freed from prison". Meghan was criticized by Mandela's grandson Mandla Mandela for the comments. John Kani, the only South African cast member of The Lion King, stated that he did not recall meeting Meghan,and Lebo M., the film's South African composer who was at the London premiere, revealed that he could not remember discussing Mandela with her. DigitialNomad (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

So anytime Meghan says something, if someone doesn’t like it, it goes on Wikipedia? No, only if reliable sources report on it AND the community decides it's worthy of inclusion.

Who argued that? Sorry I didn’t see that. Then let me help you. User:Iazyges stated: I think in general, and especially in her case, such should be included. However sympathetic I might be to her for other matters, Wikipedia should not run interference and hide actions that she knowingly chose. User:Cibrian209 stated I don't have a problem with a brief mention of the incident either. I think it's reasonable after reading the rationale. User:DeCausa stated: There's nothing wrong with a brief mention of the incident (first question) but the lengthy 'he said/she said' is unencyclopedic.

Your comment is misleading. This part is not even in the article anymore: Meghan was criticized by Mandela's grandson Mandla Mandela for the comments. John Kani, the only South African cast member of The Lion King, stated that he did not recall meeting Meghan,and Lebo M., the film's South African composer who was at the London premiere, revealed that he could not remember discussing Mandela with her. Keivan.f^Talk 15:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

there is so much more that is encyclopedic. Both any page related to Harry and Meghan’s pages is basically just an update on whatever the British press deemes news worthy. It’s detailed and explains every concept in great detail, you don’t even need to purchase biographical or read the news about them. Their pages are enough. Is there some comprehensive audit that can be done on the pages. I’ve reached my limit with these pages, too many are content with treating their pages differently. DigitialNomad (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That is so untrue, as if only British sources have been cited in any of those articles. And what is your problem with the British press anyway? I thought you were against tabloids; Or are broadsheet newspapers now unacceptable as well? Setting the issue of credibility aside, because it's essentially a non-issue, we come to the issue of page length. The length of this page is fine compared to some other people her age, and the page has to be detailed. These are high-profile people. Have you ever taken look at other pages such as Taylor Swift since you seem to be comparing different pages to each other constantly? Keivan.f^Talk 15:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Taylor swifts page is filled with things she has done, half of the pages you are primary moderator on, are filled with things other people have done or said about that person. DigitialNomad (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a moderator. I'm a contributor. And I do contribute to all pages on Wikipedia. I have never contributed in a significant way to the article on Taylor Swift. And yes, biographies do cover in detail people's activities. If you have a problem with how all articles are being written in general you should discuss it with community at large. But don't make it sound that it's only Meghan's page that covers her life events in detail. That is simply not true. And I firmly believe that no one would support reducing this page or any other bio page to a couple of paragraphs that provide no insight or details about the person in question. Keivan.f^Talk 15:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistency

So the ridiculous allegations made on mostly Twitter about her having used a surrogate should stay because they make her look like the victim she is not but anything that makes her paid bot service Christopher Bouzy look bad has to go? 174.115.15.87 (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There is more inconsistency now; Samantha Markle's case was not entirely dismissed with prejudice and she has 14 days to amend her complaint. 184.147.14.9 (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2023

Meghan Markle is not a Princess of the United Kingdom 2A02:C7C:9A96:9400:3128:2806:99F2:6932 (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I wish to revert to the updated complete title of Meghan Markle's title on the first line of the article.

According the the Royal website and source of her titles, the complete title is not just Duchess of Sussex. Meghan holds the titles The Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel. While the titles "Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel" maybe be in the article further down the page, so is "The Duchess of Sussex".

It is not redundant for either case considering these are her complete titles. I am not creating a new paragraph about the same thing just adding to a title already listed. Is there a reason other than that not to have the titles listed after her Duchess of Sussex title? It seem to be only a formatting disagreement? Giest24 (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

We don't put subsidiary titles in the first sentence of any other nobility article, presumably because less relevant details are avoided as mandated by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#First sentence. Why do you think Meghan's titles should be given special treatment? What makes them special enough for her article to be inconsistent? Celia Homeford (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think her titles should be given special treatment actually, not at all, it is just the way titles are usually written. For example by decree of Queen Elizabeth said under the official announcement of titles on the Royal website Harry is to be addressed:"Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex." So technically her first name is not included so she would be just "The Duchess of Sussex" now especially since the HRH has been set aside. Her rank is only bestowed to her through her husband's titles. So her complete written title is just "The Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel" when it is in written form, not "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex" she does not hold the titles in her own right. The name Meghan should be eliminated if it is being cited in the written form. It is a technicality I know but by no means are the other titles written as subsidiary it is all 1 title really so I suppose it could be written "The Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton and Baroness Kilkeel" or just "The Duchess of Sussex" for brevity. For example "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall" is now addressed as "Her Majesty The Queen" not "Camellia, Queen consort". So if the issue is for brevity sake as you referred to in "Manual of style/Lead section#Fist sentence" Perhaps Her wikipage title should be shortened to "The Duchess of Sussex" instead of "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex". In which case I think putting the complete titles underneath her name makes more sense than ever it really isn't that long it is only 6 words. If people are putting incorrect forms of address for members of nobility on wiki then no wonder people are trying to correct it becuase it would indeed be incorrect for people who are married into the Royal Family to assume a title that is not theirs in their own right and thus trying to improve the wiki page. Giest24 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)