Jump to content

Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85Rose (talk | contribs) at 00:33, 5 March 2021 (→‎Dual degrees wrong.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Good articleMeghan, Duchess of Sussex has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 5, 2006Articles for deletionDeleted
August 3, 2018Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
January 17, 2019Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Where she grew up

According to numerous sources, Markle was born in Canoga Park[1], and spent parts of her childhood in Woodland Hills/the Valley[2], Central Los Angeles[3] and Hollywood.[4] Should these be included, or simplified to the collective "she was raised in Los Angeles", etc. Although it's important to note, as a native, these considered to be vastly different and widespread neighborhoods. —Community bettydaisies

References

  1. ^ "Meghan Markle and Prince Harry: a timeline of how their lives collided". The Times.
  2. ^ "Meghan Markle: I'm More Than An 'Other'". ELLE Magazine. Retrieved 12 November 2020.
  3. ^ "Harry and Meghan: New Hollywood Royalty?". KCRW: National Public Radio.
  4. ^ Derrick, Lisa. "MAPPING MEGHAN MARKLE'S LOS ANGELES LIFE BEFORE THE ROYAL WEDDING". LA Weekly. Retrieved 12 November 2020.

Speaking engagements

"In June 2020, they signed with the Harry Walker Agency, owned by media company Endeavor, to conduct speaking engagements on issues related to 'racial justice, gender equity, the environment and mental health'."

This part has been removed from the post-royal works section by a user, who hasn’t really made an argument as to why it shouldn’t be included. Nevertheless, I’m putting it up for discussion. Users and other visitors are welcome to leave their opinions here. If no challenges are made, then the sentence will be re-included in the body of the article. Keivan.fTalk 08:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f: Once again, it is very difficult to decipher what another editor is talking about when the content is placed in an unrelated topic on a talk page. To minimise future confusion, you may care to consider trying not to merge relevant and irrelevant information on talk or articles. Otherwise, good to see that you have now created an appropriate separate section (Speaking engagements) Sampajanna (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Profession

Hey @Sampajanna:, happy holidays! I wanted to quickly discuss the inclusion of her acting as an active profession in the lead-in. From what I know, she states that she retires from acting in 2017 here. The infobox also stated she concluded that career in 2017. In terms of Elephant, I don't know if it could really be considered acting, as documentary narration is typically non-fictional voiceover, in the line of, off the top of my head, David Attenborough, a non-actor, but it all depends on perspective.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bettydaisies: Very soon, 2017 will be four years ago. A lot has changed for Meghan Markle, especially since she stepped down from being a working member of the British royal family, and more undoubtedly will change. Taking a snapshot or doing a static analysis of the past, based on the stated intention of someone thirty-something prior to marriage, does not override the fact that her double major at university included theater and her usual occupation / profession is that of an actor. Consider if she was say an accountant, engineer or chef. They are all specialised fields. With respect to the infobox dates, her television acting (Suits) ended in 2017, but that is not the only form of acting. You mention David Attenborough (aged 94). Meghan is currently 39. She only married into the royal family two years ago, but has since moved back to Los Angeles. A better example could be Grace Kelly, Princess consort of Monaco. Have a look at how she is described. As for voice acting, it is the art of performing voice-overs to represent a character or provide information to an audience. Performers are called voice actors /actresses, voice artists or voice talent. The operative word is 'actor'. Sampajanna (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sampajanna:. Nope, 2017 is not four years ago. Today it is only two years ago, and tomorrow it turns three years ago. Happy New Year. Moriori (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Moriori: I don't know what time zone you are in, but 2020 minus 2017 normally equals 3. To simplify it further, 20 less 17 = 3. Therefore, 2021 minus 2017 would be 4. My comment above "Very soon, 2017 will be four years ago." was not misunderstood by @Bettydaisies: Happy editing.
@Sampajanna:. Ahem. I bought a new car in September and clearly it will be a year old next September. Next week I will be able to say I bought it last year, but but I won't be able to say it is a year ago since I bought it. OK, the last day of 2017 was New Years Eve 2017 so a year didn't pass until New Years Eve 2018. Similarly, it didn't become two years ago until two years passed, and that was on New Years Eve 2019. Today, 30 December where I live, it is still one day short of being three years since 2017. Tomorrow, New Years Eve, it will actually be exactly three years, 1095 days, since 2017. Moriori (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Moriori: Congratulations. It sounds like you've been through a lot with that possession. Stay safe Sampajanna (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly - four years ago, wow. Secondly, I think Grace Kelly's styling and profession on her article has more to do with the way deceased consorts are generally referred to as, but I see your point. I don't think was ever explicitly referred to as a voice-actor during the production of Elephant, but given the amount of media speculation since Megxit regarding the couple's venture into acting fields as well as their recent deals, I won't press too hard on this one. I might suggest in the future it could be changed to something like "she works in the entertainment industry and celebrity philanthropy" but again, it depends on how their anticipated production plans pan out.--Bettydaisies (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettydaisies: For your general interest, this site [1] outlines some common types of acting jobs. Included is Voiceover Artist. "Voiceover artists use their voice acting skills to portray a character or provide information to an audience. The job of a voiceover artist requires people to use their voices across a number of audio works, including for cartoons, video games, commercials and much more." With respect to Elephant (2020), please view these three sources.[2][3][4] Sampajanna (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grace Kelly says 'was'. She is not currently an actress. And, yes they were both actresses. Wikipedia should employ the idiom that is commonly used in society. It is not our purpose to force societal change by imposing idiomatic novelty. The words 'by profession'; are unnecessary verbiage. DrKay (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay: Thanks for your input as an administrator. Noting that you have not edited the lead yet, which idiom do you think is most appropriate in this particular case? Sampajanna (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mutiple members of the royal family have narrated. That doesn't make them all voice actors. If no sources describe Markle as a voice actor, then it shouldn't go in the article. DrKay (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay: Sampajanna changed the word “voice actor” to “narrator”, which I think is more appropriate. Although, if you still oppose its inclusion we can remove it and add a footnote instead. Also, you mentioned other members of the family narrating documentaries or series, but have they made money out of it, or was it just for some charity or organization? Because it appears that Meghan is actually making money out of it. Keivan.fTalk 18:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Small note: Elephant was done in exchange for a charity donation, I believe, though I don't know if it was released which sum or organisation was provided to.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettydaisies: Yes. I changed Keivan.f's "voice actor" to "narrator" to be consistent with the filmography and also to remove the "original research' tag by DrKay. I don't recall who originally put "actor" in the infobox. However, Keivan.f seems to be making various changes, even to his own edits, so perhaps it may reduce confusion and potential conflict if we just step back until the dust settles. Sampajanna (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettydaisies: Thanks for the clarification. It really helped a lot. @Sampajanna: And yes, I have to make changes, even to my own edits, when everyone just chimes in to randomly revert the edits made by others. And it seems that a consensus has already been reached regarding what the infobox and the lead sentence should look like, at least for now. I also checked her UN Women speech, and noticed that she was introduced there as an 'actress' so that doesn't need to change either. Keivan.fTalk 22:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Small suggestion - if, as previously stated by @DrKay:, "by profession" isn't a commonly used descriptor, perhaps the statement could be neutralized to "She as worked as an actress and celebrity philanthropist" or "She is a celebrity philanthropist who has worked as an actress", etc. I've tried to synthesize information from the biggest concerns within the discussion so far best as I can, so forgive me if I'm stepping on the wrong foot. If the issue is no longer at hand, then feel free disregard the idea for the sake of the page's stability. --Bettydaisies (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettydaisies: Yes, I agree with what you said. The phrase "by profession" is not commonly used. Another user also attempted to remove it and add "retired actress" instead, but I'm glad you reverted it, because "a retired actress and a celebrity philanthropist" makes it sound like as if she has also retired from doing charity work, which is not true. The alternative phrases that you suggested could be used, as well as "She is a celebrity philanthropist and a former actress." Keivan.fTalk 01:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettydaisies: As few words as possible could be best. Also, whatever goes in the lead should perhaps also be replicated in the infobox as 'occupation' Sampajanna (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both statements. Personally, I vote for either "She has worked as an actress and celebrity philanthropist." or "She is a celebrity philanthropist and former actress." Both imply the same thing, acknowledge her work, and appear to be the same length and I've recently edited both occupations into the infobox. Again, I think both of these variations are fine, but I'm willing to provide a more solid third opinion if needed. Is there consensus or dispute for either of these statements?--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bettydaisies reverted i) "former actress and a celebrity philanthropist" to ii) "actress by profession and a celebrity philanthropist" while this matter is under discussion. Keivan.f suggests iii) "a celebrity philanthropist and a former actress." What is the difference between the first and third descriptions ? Sampajanna (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sampajanna: I think I already explained that. If you put 'former' before the professions, it will make it appear as if she is a "former actress" and a "former philanthropist", whereas if you move "former actress" to the end of the sentence, it will be less confusing to the readers. Keivan.fTalk 02:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: A comma could resolve that. For example, 'a former actress, and a philanthropist'. Sampajanna (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If admins @Moriori: and @DrKay: are available for comment, their input would be welcome. I see that Bettydaisies has already changed the infobox occupation to include 'celebrity philanthropist' (Is that an occupation?) My meaning (above) was if Markle is referred to as a 'former actress' in the lead, then the same description go in the infobox as 'occupation'.Sampajanna (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettydaisies: Consider this - “Philanthropy is not a profession, and it should not become one. We should be rigorous. We should learn from our work. We should help our partners and be helped by them. But a wisdom-focused approach may produce better results than a science-based one.” [5]
User talk:Mloveless1999 is editing the lead while we talk. I have just undone his/her change and invited to this page and discussion. Sampajanna (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that philanthropy has been included as a profession in the infobox used on the page Sarah, Duchess of York. Whatever the outcome of this discussion is, I think it may affect similar pages as well. Keivan.fTalk 03:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that philanthropy should come from selfless contribution and community work instead of profession, I didn't know that the "occupation" section held the same merit as listing a career. For instance, actress Elizabeth Taylor's occupation is listed as humanitarian for her notable and invaluable contributions contributions to the field, but I do realize these two figures and situations have significant differences. I also agree with the above that the consensus established on this page may affect other public figures, specifically within the royal sphere.--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

I see no particular reason to call her a celebrity philanthropist at all. Promoting charities is part of being a member of the royal family and she wasn't known for her philanthropy before joining the family. I'd say she's an 'actress and member of the British royal family', or 'member of the British royal family and [former] actress'. I have no particular view on the use of the word 'former', as it seems right to me either way. DrKay (talk) 09:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting DrKay : I agree completely. Drop philanthropy. There is a separate page, Archewell, for Meghan and Harry's charitable foundation. On Markle's individual page, the following suffices 'actress and member of the British royal family' or vice versa, bearing in mind that they moved abroad to distance themselves from 'The Firm' (RF). Sampajanna (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone agrees on removing "celebrity philanthropist", then we should perhaps change the lead sentence as well as the infobox. I will then apply these changes to the article on the Duchess of York as well. Keivan.fTalk 22:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp is a Master Editor with over 14 years experience. He recently changed the lead from "She is an actress by profession and a celebrity philanthropist" to "She is an actress by profession" Bettydaisies undid it, probably because consensus is still pending. Focusing purely on "celebrity philanthropist", as mentioned above by Keivan.f, it would seem that Charlesjsharp is also in favour of removing "celebrity philanthropist". Please note that he also changed "Celebrity philanthropy" to "Philanthropy" as a section heading. This may also require consideration. In short, it appears that Charlesjsharp, DrKay, Keivan.f and Sampajanna agree with the removal of "celebrity philanthropist" from the Meghan Markle page. As a matter of courtesy, is Bettydaisies okay with this proposal? Sampajanna (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettydaisies: Okay? Sampajanna (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, apologies for the late response. Of course, I'm willing to comply with editor consensus. Happy New Year!--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: We have consensus to remove "celebrity philanthropist" and "by profession". So, when ready, please edit accordingly. Sampajanna (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Celebrity philanthropy remains in the body of the article (below). Any comments? Sampajanna (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sampajanna: Post-royal philanthropy, perhaps? Keivan.fTalk 00:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: This is an awkward scenario because she actually did the work (on the quiet) while still a senior royal, but it was released a few days after the Megxit date. Of course, credited as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. No problem dropping 'celebrity'from section heading. However, is it really philanthropy? As DrKay mentions (above), "Promoting charities is part of being a member of the royal family". The section (below) may need rewording. Sampajanna (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sampajanna: Actually, you're right. On a second thought it's not necessarily philanthropy. It can easily be moved to the section "Post-royal work". We can then retitle that section, if necessary. Keivan.fTalk 00:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: Ok. Please do. Sampajanna (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sampajanna: So I removed a section that was titled "Celebrity philanthropy" from her husband's article as well, but I left the info in the charity section. I was thinking that maybe the material that I moved to "Post-royal work" in Meghan's article should be moved to the charity section as well, as there's no need to necessarily break it up to pre and post-Megxit. Keivan.fTalk 02:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: All sorted now. Sampajanna (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t mean to intrude but in my opinion, I think it’s important to distinguish the couple’s work as working royals vs their independent endeavors, as the nature of their career is different and comes from different avenues of funding, conception, region, etc. (while philanthropy is their job as rf members, a good chunk of their work 2020 onwards is based in the continental United States, which can’t be constituted as royal in a republic.) This can also be done by creating a section separate from “public life” focusing on their post departure career (although this is a bit bold) or simply by labeling each time period by foundation. But I do think on this page sectioning her Suits-era charity work with their 2020 charity work is a bit confusing to the average reader.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, they are still involved with charities in the UK. He's not giving-up Invictus, for example, and in fact they are not giving up any of their patronages. (See eg, [2]) Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They definitely retain their patronages and other partnerships (holding patronage of a charity isn't an inherently royal act), but their status as members of the royal family doesn't mean that whatever work they do is automatically royal, which fundamentally differentiates their activities pre and post-Megxit. Like Sampajanna said, commercial endeavors and charitable interests done on behalf of Archewell and the couple themselves can't be constituted as "royal", not only because of statements released by Buckingham Palace about the independence of their post-royal work, but again, because they reside and work in a country outside of the RF's jurisdiction.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automatically what? At any rate, don't see the reason you go on and on about where they live -- going into and around the the UK has been severely disrupted over the past year, for all people. Most of the people in the royal family don't participate in the firm, even in the UK. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that their work pre and post-Megxit should be differentiated as they are different in nature. One sector is on behalf of the British royal family, and another is on the behalf of the couple is individuals and buisnesspeople/etc. They have a permanent base in California, as stated by their own team; the difference is that most RF members who don't participate in the institution itself don't take on business and charity work of this size and manner, especially outside the UK. The charity work performed by say, Princess Eugenie, could potentially be seen as part of her greater duty to the RF in the scheme of things, but due to a number of factors, including their area of work and statements from the Palace, the Sussexs' current endeavors hold separate and different measures of gravitas. --Bettydaisies (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Differentiated? Like most things in a life, differentiation comes with natural chronology. Also, it's hardly unheard of for people to live and work in more than one country. As for your ideas of "gravitas", that is rather irrelevant. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not unheard of, but again, according to reporting by notable sources over the past year, they're not working and living in more than one country. Despite any hypothetical trips to the UK, they have permanent base in California, where they, according to their team, intend to raise their family, and have ceased undertaking royal engagements and activities on behalf of the Queen. Their royal work is not bi-country. Again, sectioning should differentiate the natural chronology that came with their work with the royal family up until their work as independent individuals.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not quite. According to them and the Queen, they have plans to live and work in more than one country and they have a homes in more them one country and they have continued work in the UK (in this day and age, you don't have to be in a country to have work there). It's as if you imagine, he has plans to renounce his country. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are still members of the royal family, according to the Quene's statements - It's not about "renouncing" anything - it's about their work. They have moved and have a permanent base in the US and closed their BP office. They ceased duties on behalf of the Queen and the paperwork for Archewell was filed in the US and is based in Beverly Hills. There have been no announcements of any types of work or activities happening in any country but the United States. Again, this doesn't negate their status as royals when this was clearly spelled out in post-Megxit statements by the Queen, but this proposed sectioning refers to their work and its seperate nature.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again wrong. They have multiple organizational positions in the UK. And come now, you link to a Vogue article that talks about buying a home in California, which is in no way contrary to living and working in more than one country, indeed nothing you linked precludes living and working in more than one country. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They retain positions within the Queen's Commonwealth Trust (a charity they founded) and retain their private patronages (for which there has been little to no reporting of since March). The QCT's website states that it is entirely separate from the RF, and private patronage is, once again, not inherently royal. Their post-2020 home and work is definitively based in the United States with the sources I listed above. Their charitable interests are already separated by foundation. I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. If you read the Vogue article, it includes statements from their team, and Vogue is just one of the notable and reliable sources reporting on their post-Megxit career. I can link a dozen articles that reliably report that their work and home is now based in the United States. Megxit's own article states that the couple will spend "a majority of their time in the United States" and that all paperwork and subsequent activities have been based in California. --Bettydaisies (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is contrary to plans to live and work in more than one country. The "majority" you now argue, even were that true, that means not always. And as many who have done work in more than one country knows, you don't have to physically be in the country to do the work. Your fixations on where a "base" is irrelevant, it precludes nothing about working and moving between countries (unlike a pandemic which certainly precludes movement) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where they live and work is important to the article. By all intents and purposes, they live and work in the US. The "majority" was based on official Megxit-era statements, while the US-based activities since then reflect legitimate and notable sources. As you say, you don't have to live in the UK to work in the UK - that has not happened since March, in any capacity, and there are no indications that it might happen. Again, I'm curious to see what you're arguing for in the article.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, they do video meets since March. As for the article, I've already told you the chronology handles it, and not your odd fixations about "base" and muddled ideas about "royal", which is matter of his birth and her marriage and neither of those have changed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
QCT doesn’t do any work within the United Kingdom. I’m discussing their royal work, as in their work as royals, which almost certainly doesn’t constitute Archewell and partnerships with UCLA, Clevr Blends, whatever else.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bettydaisies: The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust (QCT) website states: [6]

Disclaimer: The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust (QCT) is an independent organisation. It offers a free and open forum where young people can share insights, expertise, advice and inspiration, and come together to discuss issues that matter to them. The content and discussions shared by QCT reflect these perspectives. While QCT may from time to time be supported in its work by members of the Royal Family, views expressed on the QCT website do not represent views of the Royal Family or the Royal Household.Sampajanna (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bettydaisies: I agree with what you are proposing- and you've been more than clear. Alanscottwalker appears to be acting in bad faith- mainly by ignoring salient facts in your responses, but also by twisting facts to try to make them appear that they're your opinions, and attempting to dismiss your very valid points with his rude and unacademic responses. Don't be discouraged. @DrKay: If you look at his Talk page, Alanscottwalker seems to have quite a history of this behavior, can anything be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:400:c580:b5a9:cd56:5233:e973 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay: Who posted the above unsigned comment? Sampajanna (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a signature. DrKay (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sampajanna (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity philanthropy (continued)

Meghan has certainly gone through some various phases since User:MattBinYYC wrote on 30 October 2006 Meghan Markle is a model, most famous for her role as a briefcase model on Deal or No Deal. What exactly is she most famous for 14-15 years later, Moriori ? The current lead states that she is an American member of the British royal family and a former actress. Her and her husband stepped down as senior royals nine months ago and, as Bettydaisies infers, they now live in a non-Commonwealth country. Hollywood, Netflix, etc., are different realms of reality to Buckingham Palace. I agree with Bettydaisies that it’s important to distinguish the couple’s work as working royals vs their independent endeavors as individuals. What they do as a couple post-royal should tend to fall more under the Archewell banner, if such is of a charitable / benevolent nature. Sampajanna (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that they are living in a non-Commonwealth country, but they are still associated with the royal family in everything that they do and certainly are not the first royals to leave the country in which their family members are ruling as monarchs. A perfect example would be Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland, who is a Swedish princess but has lived in the US and the UK. I think any general charity work that they do can go under the "Charity work" section. Anything that is associated with Archewell can go under the Archewell section or the associated article. Keivan.fTalk 20:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keivan.f Fine. This matter now appears to be resolved. Sampajanna (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic discussions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Keivan.f: The matter appears to be resolved. If there is anything else you want to add, please do so here in talk, not in the edit comments for the main article. Especially after being referred to talk more than once. For example, "Thanks for granting me the right to make assumptions and changes to an article to which I have contributed for years. I really appreciate it, my liege!!" (Keivan.f) .... Sampajanna (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should give the same piece of advice to you, who regularly leave messages in your edit summaries, some of which sounded somehow provoking, although I am not fully innocent either with that regard. And, as the problem has been resolved, the discussion is now officially over I guess. Keivan.fTalk 23:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: WP:OWNERSHIP No one "owns" content (including articles or any page at Wikipedia), "my liege!!"(Keivan.f) .... Sampajanna (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sampajanna: You never fail me to amaze me with your lectures! FYI, no one can order other users and tell them what to do + I never suggested that I own the page. Don't twist my words. Keivan.fTalk 00:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: You don't happen to be in lockdown for COVID-19, do you?
The following Wikipedia Poilcy WP:OWN is what you are complaining about ....

All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Also, a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say.

Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about—perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

@Sampajanna: I'm not complaining about anything. You are the one who keeps twisting my words for his own benefit. And apparently, you're the one in lockdown, or perhaps with a lot of time on his hands, because as far as I can see all you have been doing is dictating others about what they should do, yet disobeying what you have been preaching for. But let me make something clear. I'm absolutely tired and sick of this conversation as it's going in directions that it should not be going to. And just stop assuming that I'm not familiar with the policies. I have been here for a decade, long enough to know most of the stuff. Keivan.fTalk 01:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: What have you done with your last two edits? This matter has been under subtle non-urgent discussion for a few days over Christmas. Now, DrKay has placed an original research tag (above) on the article at 09:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
To add context to narrative, please at least scan through all of this 'Profession' talk section . Incidentally, you may care to also refer to the reference list below. Sampajanna (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sampajanna: He needs consensus for adding any tags or labels, and adding or removing one word doesn’t put the whole integrity of the article under question. Also, as DrKay mentioned above, the word “by profession” is pretty useless. Angelina Jolie is also an actress by profession. So was Grace Kelly; yet we don’t need extra words and phrases to describe a simple thing like this. The sentence just sounds awkward. Keivan.fTalk 17:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sampajanna and happy holidays. I noticed that with these two edits you tried to gender neutralize the word actress, by using the word actor instead, which is sometimes used to refer to female actors as well. I just wanted to mention that individuals such as Whoopi Goldberg and Helen Mirren have specifically asked to be called actors, rather than actresses. Is it the same with Meghan though? How does she refer to herself in her interviews when talking about her career? If she hasn't referred to herself as an "actor", then I suppose it's fine to use the term "actress" as well. Keivan.fTalk 07:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: The comment above is almost identical to the style of @Bettydaisies: Otherwise, the onus is upon you to conduct your own research if you are trying to put forward a convincing argument. Sampajanna (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sampajanna: For your information. That’s not how it works. The word actress had been there since years ago, and no one opposed its inclusion. Two users have already questioned your edits and since it’s you who changed it, you’re the one who should provide a reliable source to back up your claim and show that the term is preferred by Meghan, just as it was done by other users for some other actresses. Otherwise it will be reverted back to how it was. Keivan.fTalk 17:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: The two users you allude to are DrKay, who placed the 'original research' tag after you decided that Meghan Markle should be categorised as a 'voice actor' (male) in the infobox, and Bettydaisies, who did not have any problem with the description as it was in the lead (prior to you changing that to the feminine 'actress'). Just because an editor contributes to a talk, that does not mean any decisive vote has been count. But, hey. I sorted and removed the 'original research' tag by changing your voice 'actor' (male) description to 'narrator'. Feel free to change that to 'female-narrator' if you must. Please just try to be consistent and avoid original research. Sampajanna (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sampajanna: I added voice 'actor', because it had to be consistent with your unnecessary change of words from 'actress' to 'actor', for which you obviously neither sought consensus or provided a source. Not to mention that she hasn't been active as an actress (or actor, whatever the word is) since 2017. As Bettydaisies mentioned above, she also did the narrating job for charity, thus my assumption that it was for money was wrong. Likewise, your initial change of '2002-2017' to '2002-' was unnecessary. '2020-present' has to be removed, because she is not a working actor or narrator 'by profession'. Keivan.fTalk 21:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f: It is your prerogative to make as many assumptions as you like. Sampajanna (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://apac.edu.au/jobs-for-actors/
  2. ^ https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a30486892/meghan-markle-disney-voiceover-deal/
  3. ^ https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a31965232/prince-harry-meghan-markle-disney-voiceover-pitch/
  4. ^ https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2020032786982/prince-harry-disney-voiceover-request-meghan-markle-joke/#:~:text=The%20Duchess%20of%20Sussex%20has%20recorded%20a%20voiceover%20for%20a%20new%20Disney%2B%20documentary&text=Prince%20Harry%20made%20headlines%20around,wife%2C%20the%20Duchess%20of%20Sussex.
  5. ^ https://www.philanthropydaily.com/is-philanthropy-a-profession/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CPhilanthropy%20is%20not%20a%20profession,it%20should%20not%20become%20one.
  6. ^ https://www.queenscommonwealthtrust.org/about/

Requested move 6 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. Since the relist a week ago, there has been far more opposition and support for the proposal. The consensus is by no means unanimous but both sides have provided sources and rationales for each. Nevertheless, there now exists a rough consensus that the current title is her common name in reliable sources and that the current title is consistent with others. Going by the number and frequency of previous requested move discussions, I doubt a permanent solution with unanimous community support can be reached, however, I would recommend that a hypothetical re-nominator wait to see how Megxit pans out, although this is totally advisory. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle – Her WP:COMMONNAME is "Meghan Markle" based on reliable sources:Vanity Fair, People, ELLE, Newsweek , Vogue, CNN, Forbes, CNBC, NBC News, TIME, Variety, Travel + Leisure, Marie Claire, NPR, The Daily Beast. Ngrams show a favorability for her birth name. Her legal name on her passport is "Rachel Meghan Markle" because she is a U.S. citizen not a British national and the United States does not recognize titles of nobility. Showiecz (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. SITH (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Showiecz, This is a WP:BLP you must provide reliable sources for claims you make about a living person. Do you have any reliable sources for the claims about what this living person's passport says or any reliable source on present legal name, if not, these claims need to be removed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME and NAMECHANGES. Duchess of Sussex is COMMON, and in the encyclopedic register, and consistent with other articles, like the redirected article of Kate Middleton, and the least problematic, and thus preferred by policy, see, BBC, LA TIMES, NBC News, New York Times, Britannica. (Even the articles cited in the move request also commonly refer to her as duchess of Sussex, and at least one refers to another duchess as Kate Middleton). COMMONNAME recognizes that there maybe more than one COMMONNAME which happens often with name change. It's least problematic in that it is in the encyclopedic register and the name she goes by since her marriage, see reliable sources listed in Meghan, Duchess of Sussex#Authored articles, and also, [4]. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meghan prefers to not publicly be part of the British royal family. She is not a British citizen, and does not live in the United Kingdom. A change to the name that she is most commonly known as (Meghan Markle) could minimise any public confusion or perception as to who she prefers to be as a living breathing human being and her role in the world at large. Sampajanna (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that her father's last name, has anything to do with who she prefers to be, and it's directly contrary to her own present use, as a living breathing person, see her author evidence, linked above, both inside and outside the United Kingdom. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion regarding this !vote
@Alanscottwalker: There are appears to be a (?) missing in your rhetoric. Sampajanna (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sampajanna, Do you have any reliable source whatsoever, calling her by her father's last name has anything to do with "who she prefers to be"? Are you just claiming something about a living person for which there is no reliable source? Isn't your unsourced "living breathing human being and her role in the world at large" claim contradicted by her, when she does not presently call herself Markle, yet instead refers to herself as duchess of Sussex? Is she not a living woman who should be called with reference to how she calls herself? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: Please try to express yourself in simple terms. One question at a time. This is not a court of law. If it was, the admissibility of leading questions and the way such are framed could be thrown into doubt. Asking for a one word yes/no direct answer, then talking round in circles (with multiple tangential follow-up questions) to where the same could be equally asked of your original enquiry is by no means conciliatory or productive. This is, after all, a talk page discussion, not an interlocutory appeal. Incidentally, your user page seems to suggest that you may be a Wikipedia administrator. Is this correct? Sampajanna (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sampajanna:, there is nothing on Alanscottwalker's user page that suggests that this user is an administrator. There's a link to the administrator's noticeboard embedded within the {{Noticeboard links}} template, but that does not in any way indicate that the user is an administrator--it's just part of the noticeboard directory template. In any case, Alanscottwalker's user page is not relevant to this discussion. Please stick the conversation at hand. Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoi: Thank you for commenting on behalf of Alanscottwalker. Sampajanna (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sampajanna: Your query is not on the topic but the answer your last question to me is, 'no', one word but to expand, your assumption was not true as Aoi points out. Back to topic, you seemed to want question marks, I gave you question marks. I am not limiting you to yes or no, and please feel free to answer them one at a time or combine them and I'm open for discussion. This is a WP:BLP, please provide a reliable sources for your claim with respect to her name and "who she prefers to be as a living breathing human being"? Apparently, you claim to personally know what this living person prefers -- that needs reliable sources. I have provided reliable sources from her public authored articles as a living human being that she goes by duchess of Sussex, inside and outside Britain, and does not use Markle (her father's last name) -- not since her marriage. So, please go beyond yes or no, and discuss and with reliable sources. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: Normally when a question is asked without a question mark, such as you did originally (see quote below), it is rhetorical and does not require a response because it is a statement. "Do you have any evidence whatsoever that her father's last name, has anything to do with who she prefers to be, and it's directly contrary to her own present use, as a living breathing person, see her author evidence, linked above, both inside and outside the United Kingdom. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)" .... It is not rocket science that you are possibly expressing an opinion and not really prompting for an answer, however much you may believe to the contrary. "Do you have any evidence whatsoever that her father's last name, has anything to do with who she prefers to be". Mention of her father is not necessary in this case. There does not seem to be any record of her using her mother's maiden or current surname. Based on those circumstances, there is a high probability that Meghan used Markle as a surname (ignoring her brief first marriage) publicly for most of the time up until marrying Prince Harry (at age 36) in 2018, not quite three years ago. At age 38 in January 2020, Megxit occurred. One year later, there is no indication that Meghan wants to return to the British royal family. But, hey. The twelve month review is due next month in March 2021. Anything could happen then or beforehand, and this entire discussion could become totally redundant. Sampajanna (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sampajanna, Changes in how to refer to a person occur in life and are generally respected by common decency. You don't have to call it father's name, but a woman can still change what she got from her father. With Megxit, she is still part of the British Royal family as this Wikipedia article explicitly says right up front, and has not indicated she does not want to remain a part of the family under Megxit. What she has indicated all during and after Megxit, she still refers to herself -- never as Markle -- but as duchess of Sussex as that is what she has publicly published since Megxit, not Markle. So, why are you claiming her preference is contrary to how she presently refers to herself, do you have a reliable source on her name preference for Markle or not? If not, it's wrong for you to personally construe her preference and argue it here as hers. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: You brought up the father (see following quote)."Do you have any evidence whatsoever that her father's last name, has anything to do with who she prefers to be ... Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)" .... To reiterate, the twelve month Megxit review is due next month in March 2021. Anything could happen then or beforehand, and this entire discussion could become totally redundant. The Wikipedia bot notice / instructions at the top of this talk states "Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil." You may care to click here and read beyond the first sentence. Sampajanna (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sampajanna, Why are you repeatedly talking about the future, which is nowhere in article title policy (WP:AT)? Your quibble about calling it father's name, doesn't change my points or my questions, nor where the name came from. I know WP:AT well, the current title of this article Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has been found previously to accord with policy, all of it from the first sentence and beyond. Moreover, WP:BLP is referred to in article title policy and this is a BLP, and a BLP talk page, so your claims about what this living person prefers with respect to naming her need reliable sources, and nothing in WP:AT relieves you from that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: Hmmm."Why are you repeatedly talking about the future ... Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)" ... Please scroll up to Wikipedia bot message "A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within half an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions)." Sampajanna (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointing, you were talking about something off-Wikipedia in March 2021, not seven days, and respond with a blatant non-sequitur. Unless, you are going to comply with WP:BLP policy and provide the reliable source for what you claim is a living person's preference of name, there is no point in furthering this discussion. Please be aware that when you are dealing with the lives of real people on Wikipedia, significant care, and circumspection, is required and part of that care is not speculating about living people, and always providing reliable sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: Now that you have got all that off your chest, try re-reading my initial post very carefully and literally, especially this part: "... A change to the name that she is most commonly known as (Meghan Markle) could minimise any public confusion or perception as to who she prefers to be as a living breathing human being and her role in the world at large." (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC). Note " ... could minimise any public confusion or perception as to ...". 'Public' refers to the general public. Sampajanna (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Oppose mainly per WP:NAMECHANGES. When filtered for results dated within the last year, a search for Duchess of Sussex on Bing brings up about 348,000 results compared to about 110,000 for Meghan Markle. While the "Bing" test is definitely not authoritative, there is a huge difference between the two numbers and if nothing else it casts doubt on the statement that "Meghan Markle" is the current COMMONNAME. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I disagree that this is relevant to Kate Middleton as she is quite likely to become a consort, and it makes encyclopedic and historic sense to keep with consistency for her titles. IMHO, the more relevant discussion would be if Prince Harry’s name should be changed, as he is invariably more known, as a quick google search for recent articles allows. A note - her name on legal documents is “HRH The Duchess of Sussex” according to unconfirmed recent reports by The Daily Telegraph. Her current projects are listed as “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex”, consistent with recent Spotify crediting. Previous arbitrations have stated that Meghan could return to her maiden crediting as she used throughout her acting career after resuming her creative career, this is not the case - in terms of legal/professional names, she retains her style.Bettydaisies (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettydaisies: Do you 'Oppose' or 'Support' the change under discussion? Sampajanna (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m deliberating; there’s obviously weight to the fact that people will always refer to her as Meghan Markle, including major reliable news sources - the recognizability of that won’t go away. But her current professional work (articles, appearances, etc.) list her clearly as Duchess of Sussex, and her notability does stem from being a part of the royal family. The only other royal listed by her maiden name was Wallis Simpson, and I gather because history books generally refer to her that way - we don’t have any such history books that apply to this right now. Regardless, both her common name, and her career name, have weight in this situation. It’s tricky.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettydaisies: Thanks for your input. Sampajanna (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose She has become better known as Duchess of Sussex than for her former acting career. Her citizenship and place of residence are not decisive. Also, this is a hardy perennial, it's only 11 months since the last move request, let's give this one a rest. PatGallacher (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. I have just tried a quick Google search. The results were Meghan Markle = 164 million, Duchess of Sussex = 26.2 million and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex = 12.7 million. Sampajanna (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Google has not supported the hit count feature for some time. It is a legacy feature that becomes less meaningful as time goes on. The company recommends using Ngram or Trends instead. In general, the hit counts that Google gives are wildly exaggerated. But the question here is whether the hit counts of two searches done with the same IP and at about same time can be compared. I haven't seen any data on this point. See WP:GOOGLETEST and "Why Google Can’t Count Results Properly." 5440orSleep (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Though her acting credits, mainly her role in Suits is what plunged her into the limelight at first, that hasn't been the case for almost three years now. Since her marriage her position as The Duchess of Sussex, a member of the British royal family and all the drama surrounding it, right from her supposed rift with the Duchess of Cambridge, then her pregnancy and finally Megxit are what have been the constant topics of discussion. Not to mention even post Megxit she still is a member of the British royal family and is still styled as HRH The Duchess of Sussex as of December 2020.[5] Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is what she's known as officially so let's just stick to it. TheRedDomitor (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME and NAMECHANGES. I don't really understand why we have to go over this discussion again and again (at least once every single year!!), when it is apparent that her common name at this point is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Her titles are recognized in Britain and by the royal family, just like her husband's, and as a person she has chosen to use "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" as her name in the articles that she publishes on newspapers such as The New York Times and that's how she's credited in her recent voice acting jobs. I think it's better if we respect people's decisions as well in regards to what their names should be! A very recent example would be that of Elliot Page who was formerly known as Ellen Page. Keivan.fTalk 18:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME Saimcheeda 05:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to those !voting "support per WP:COMMONNAME, please note the page you link to says "Wikipedia ... generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above", one of which is "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." - numerous of which are listed in my opposition above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. When it comes to questions of identity in biographies of living persons, Wikipedia generally respects the subject's preferences when they are known. The subject of this article has clearly expressed a preference to be known as Duchess of Sussex rather than by her maiden name. Why should she be treated with less respect than other living persons with biographies on Wikipedia? Another actor, Elliot Page, had a considerably more notable career under his previous name than Meghan did under hers. Would people supporting this move request also support a move of that article back to Ellen Page? I doubt it. Opera hat (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, I just noticed Keivan.f made the same point with the same counter-example further up the page. Opera hat (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be transgender to change your name! See Brian Warner, Declan MacManus, Michael Balzary and Gordon Sumner (and that's just off the top of my head!) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is meant to be said is that the example used is a transgender person and they tend to bypass WP:COMMONNAME. Markle is clearly not transgender so its apples to oranges. Stage names are their WP:COMMONNAME so they don't qualify either. The person similar to Markle's situation would be Teller. Showiecz (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet there is a consistent naming convention for consorts of princes. Nevertheless, the person's gender is not important. What was being discussed here was a living person's choice of name which has to be respected. That's also the case for those married women; one takes her husband's surname while another one does not, and we choose our article titles accordingly. And no one is bypassing WP:COMMONNAME. Among the criteria mentioned in WP:COMMONNAME is title consistency, which would be violated if the page were to be moved. Keivan.fTalk 00:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wording

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

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

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

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

It's too much. No, the name of the publication does not matter. Look at the rest of the article, we don't normally say the name of a publication. And there is no special reason to do that, here. And no, it does not need more than the allegation and by who. What it does need is the fact that this was years ago, in 2018, and it does need to be stated as alleged, it is not proven to have occurred. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other disputes with Splash News, Mail on Sunday, etc. have all named publications. Obviously it's not proven to have occurred - it's an allegation. I'd argue that the timing doesn't matter either - it was reported merely two days ago, which makes it relevant. The current phrasing makes it sound like Meghan bullied Knauf himself, instead of filing it on behalf of the employees. Context is important. To whom did he alleged it to? The Times itself? It's not specific enough to faithfully and succinctly summarize the widespread reporting by media sources.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reported two days ago does not make it relevant it makes it less relevant for the encyclopedia per WP:RECENTISM. Nor is Wikipedia here to pass along gossip, see WP:BLP. Knauf allegedly made the allegation. And yes, it was years ago. And no, this is not a dispute with The Times. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Knauf allegedly made the allegation, but was not the receiver of the supposed and alleged behavior. Phrasing it like he was is inaccurate. These allegations have garnered press attention and multiple statements to multipel news outlets from the couple's lawyers. Again, current phrasing contradicts reporting stating why and who Knauf make the allegations to in the first place - summaries should be accurate.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Knauf allegedly made the allegation. It's not phrased like he was anything except the one who allegedly made the allegation. You have against policy fixated on recent reporting, and that is precisely what we should not do in the encyclopedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"a 2018 allegation of bullying by former press secretary, Jason Knauf, against Meghan was reported" - It's phrased as if he made the allegation because he experienced the terms of the allegation. An encyclopedia should provide enough information to maintain accuracy of allegations, even in summary. --Bettydaisies (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see it, but have rephrased that the allegation refers to staff. The when (2018) and who made the allegation still belong, and the paper does not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC) 21:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thank you!--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dual degrees wrong.

Meghan markle did not earn her double major in theatre and international studies. She was a CANDIDATE for degree in communications. Shes not listed in the 2003 yearbook for theatre or international studies, and those 2 degrees are not offered together as a double major opportunity, since intl relations is an adjunct degree program. 85Rose (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex&oldid=1010339799"