Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Meghan Markle)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 5, 2006Articles for deletionDeleted
August 3, 2018Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited

Move moratorium proposal — Adopted through January 5, 2019[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Move moratorium imposed, back dated from July 6, 2018, through January 5, 2019. There is a narrow consensus in favor of granting the moratorium, very narrow in fact, but sufficient I believe. I think the community as a whole is satisfied with the current location of the article and I certainly don't see any serious attempt being made to go back to Meghan Markle and this moratorium should stop any trivial or sore loser discussions. If something truly important happens in the next six months, such as the death of the Queen, Prince Charles or both that would change her status/name/title, editors can and should ignore this moratorium and introduce the move request as appropriate. I have backdated the moratorium to the date of the latest page move. Safiel (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Same as Prince Harry, this article also has a lot of controversies on the title. I am here to propose regardless the outcome of the 18 June 2018 move request, a moratorium on move requests should be implemented on this article for six months. --B dash (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. --B dash (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6 months per my comment in the move request. — JFG talk 07:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on principle. For the sake of simplicity I suggest that any moratorium placed here be parallel with any placed at Prince Harry. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 08:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support jamacfarlane (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as per above and per my comments over there. –Davey2010Talk 15:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose while the current Rfc is in progress. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Please re-state proposal. The proposal as currently expressed is not clear. How can a moratorium be imposed at the same time as a move request is being considered? Is the proposal suggesting that any decision made regarding a move be postponed for six months? If that's the case, I wouldn't object. As I've stated earlier, there seems to be no good reason to change the article's title until circumstances change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What there should be a moratorium on is arguments such as "she is no longer an actress", "this is her official title", "you need to respect the monarchy", "the monarchy is crap", and "I hadn't heard of her before". If they were rejected as unhelpful in the last discussion, there is no need to repeat them. I pity the admin who is going to have go through hundreds of comments, and much more so if two thirds are going to be worthless junk like the last time. Surtsicna (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's quite likely that this latest move request will fail and the article remain where it is. But the more time elapses since the wedding, the more reliable sources there will be that refer to her by her married name. Even if it shouldn't be moved now (which is fair enough), the article will be moved eventually. Putting off that date for at least six months sounds like an attempt by the anti-Duchess party to hold back the tide. Opera hat (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Hah, just noticed that User:B dash actually proposed a move to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" so obviously isn't trying to delay anything. But I'm not going to change my vote. Eventually the balance of reliable sources in favour of the married name will tip (if it hasn't already) and the article should be moved then, not after some arbitrarily-set timescale. Opera hat (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
What is "her married name"? HRH Princess Henry, Duchess of Sussex, comparable with Princess Arthur of Connaught (HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife, 1913-1959), whose article is named Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife, and consider Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy. Qexigator (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Not really relevant here. If people want to argue over what her married name is, they should be allowed to do so. This proposal is to ban any discussion at all for the next six months, and that's what I'm opposing. Opera hat (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and the RM closer should have been expected to implement this without a vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Red Slash 22:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose current proposal. Both the proposed moratorium and the RM above are tendentious proposals designed to WP:REHASH discussion until the proposer exhausts their opposition and gets the result they want. A moratorium based on an RM that is itself an abuse of process would not be appropriate. James (talk/contribs) 01:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as we aren't a crystal ball and must be responsive to external events such as common name changes. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per RichardWeiss, good point. Who knows, she may start recording music under the single name "Meghan" (Meghan - Live From Buckingham Palace). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let the currently requested move runs its course. Given that the hype surrounding the wedding has died down, the current move request is likely to attract a more involved set of editors and have more thoughtful comments. 203.33.230.66 (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose A moratorium doesn't appear to be necessary or appropriate, as editors would be discouraged from discussing this further. See WP:CCC. Regardless of the RM's outcome, we must allow for WP:MR. Furthermore, if circumstances change or if new information emerges, we should allow editors to submit a new RM. If a future RM seems premature, then it will likely be speedily closed. Edge3 (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support six months, RMs are distractions, and it is very hard to imagine anything much new to say in another xis months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per crystal but troutslap anyone who would bring another RM soon without a change in circumstances. Jonathunder (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support unless of couse there are exceptionnel circumstances...e.g. divorce, revolution followed by abolition, multiple abdications leading to Harry's coronation, revelations by Trump that the marriage was "fake news"...or something else...Dom from Paris (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, concurrent with a Prince Harry moratorium, as suggested by Ivanvector. These have been very common RMs recently, and a short moratorium is in order so that the pages can settle down for a while. ONR (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 6 months. It seems like a reasonable time period to me. We can reassess the article title then. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The only reasonable change would be to "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" for reasons already stated on this page. Once that is done, the need for further consideration vanishes, and with it the question of moratorium of any duration. Qexigator (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support 6 months This isn't a race. There are currently move proposals being made without any RS unambiguously indicating what her legal name is, largely on assumption, tabloid reports, and OR. WP is an encyclopedia, not a fairy tale or romance novel. on further consideration Chetsford (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Whatever your view on what title her and Harry's articles should have, this is consuming far more energy than it deserves. PatGallacher (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support For 6 months. We've already spent far too much time on this subject. We've had multiple high drama discussions over the past couple months about this with moving back and forth. Let's give it 6 months and see what the battlefield looks like then. Hasteur (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Given the discussion started below it's clear a pause is needed. Timrollpickering 09:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A move moratorium has been set up for her husband's article as well. It's totally reasonable to have one for hers too. Keivan.fTalk 18:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Bumping thread for 170 days. Safiel (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Adding bump template sufficient to retain this thread on the talk page until the expiration of the move moratorium described therein. Safiel (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The Info About Herself Should Be Changed[edit]

It should be just "an American member of the British royal family. Prior to her marriage to Prince Harry she was an actress who was best known for her role as Rachel Zane in the USA Network series Suits from 2011 to 2018."

Is this accepted? She should have the DMY layout despite being an American.

Lastly, tomorrow marks the 21st anniversary of Princess Diana's passing. God rest her soul.

67.81.163.178 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Not done Consensus exists that this article should remain in American style, including English usage and date usage. Safiel (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Note Additionally, please refrain from making comments unrelated to improving an article on talk pages. Safiel (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @Safiel: I agree with the use of American dates but I wonder about the "American-born". This suggests that she is no longer American which is not the case. She may obtain British nationality but it is not automatic and she will have to go through the same long procedures as anyone else. I agree that it should be American and not American-born. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox caption[edit]

Caption restored. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Your edits have been reverted twice, and since you're the person who wants to make a change to the article, you are responsible for bringing the issue to the talk page. The quote that you included in your edit summary says nothing about omitting the year, it just says that one should avoid adding redundant info such as the person's name repeatedly. "March 2018" is not redundant info based on that description, as that's not the title of the infobox and has not been mentioned anywhere else. Keivan.fTalk 17:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

(Unsolicited 3rd opinion)(Didn't see there was more than 2 editors involved. Dom from Paris (talk)). In most cases there is no need for a caption for infobox images but in this case it may be useful because she became universally known only recently when she married Prince Harry and to be perfectly honest she looks younger in the photo than 37 and the way she is dressed is not what some may expect a "princess" to wear so some may conceivably think it is an older photo. People's faces change with age and her's has and will too so nothing too shocking in giving the date of the photo I think. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
There were two reverts but one of those was not accompanied by any edit summary or explanation. And you've been reverted four times by two different editors, so I think we can all see who is the more disruptive here. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not the one who was trying to remove an existing caption, thus I was not required to discuss it with you. As I explained before, my first edit didn't have a summary because I had not seen your initial edit. By the way, Surtsicna didn't have any strong feelings about either keeping or removing the caption, so I guess it is pretty obvious that if anyone was disruptive here it was you. Keivan.fTalk 02:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Read more carefully. I did not say I wasn't disruptive. I said you were more so. Your failure to acknowledge that you were wrong, as I have done, compounds your error. You accused me of assuming bad faith, but you're doing exactly that. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm going to jump in again. I do not believe that User:Keivan.f was being disruptive. Your edit Celia, should have really been dealt with as a bold edit, revert and discuss because an image with a caption has been part of this article since May 2014 so instead of reverting again a discussion should have been started to try and gain consensus. Just because a 3rd editor joined in doesn't make the reverts legitimate and constitute consensus. The first time it was noted that the image dated from January 2013 and when it was changed in April 2018 to an image dated March 2018 the caption included this information as well. If there had been no caption on the photo from 2013 a reader in April 2018 could have assumed it was a recent photo as per Celia's edit summary "Unnecessary: readers will assume it is her and a recent picture unless told otherwise." wheras in fact it was over 5 years old. I think this edit summary is a compeling argument for an image caption, people will assume it is a recent photo because they imagine that they are updated regularly but they aren't. How do we decide when a photo is no longer recent and needs a caption to tell us that? I don't think there are any guidelines or MOS that help us there. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I already acknowledged that Dom. Stop berating me please. This is beginning to look like harassment, though of course I realise your comments are based on misunderstanding rather than misogyny. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Why on earth would you bring misogyny into the discussion???? Do you know whether I am a man or woman? I don't believe I have mentioned it in this discussion, Keivan f could be a man or a woman I have no idea and I am not interested in checking his user page to find out. You name seems to be a woman's name but you may not be and I couldn't care less. You are accusing Keivan f of disruptive editing because they reinstated a long standing edit that you removed and I am trying to help with a different take on this. I am sorry you feel this is harassment or misogyny on my part but you are so far off track that this ad hominem comment is very displeasing to me and if repeated without proof is a personal attack. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Both you and Keivan have self-identified as male in your user preferences, just as I have self-identified as female. By using the popupShowGender navigation popup, I can see your gender by rolling over your username. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I thought you might be a chauvinist because you are mansplaining. You explain to me what I did wrong even though I've already acknowledged it, have stopped editing the article, and have just as much experience and expertise as you do. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

American or American-born[edit]

I changed the lead back to American as per WP:NATIONALITY. American-born is true because she was born in America but misleading because it suggests that she is no longer American. It has been reported that she will be applying for UK citizenship but this is a long process and not automatic. For now she only holds American citizenship and I believe that it is useful to readers to know that one can be a member of the British royal family and not have to become a UK citizen or that it is automatically bestowed when marrying a Prince of the realm. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure that it is misleading certainly "American-born member of the British royal family" reads better than "American member of the British royal family" which could imply that the royal family had an American branch. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@MilborneOne: I agree it may read better but it is imprecise and potentially misleading. Bios normally require the person's nationality and in this case the nationality is very important because in certain cases titles cannot be given to non nationals and you would be forgiven in thinking that this was the case with Duchesses. How about "an Americain former actress and member of the British royal family"? This seems to sum up her situation perfectly and reads better I think. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I dont see the problem with "American-born member of the British royal family " and dont find it misleading or imprecise, perhaps see if anybody else has a view on this. MilborneOne (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with that position. While it may be true, emphasising her American nationality seems a bit pointy to me. She is clearly heading down the path of becoming a UK citizen. That's her future. We don't need to emphasise her past. HiLo48 (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Nothing to do with being pointy but having an article that gives appropriate information in an unambiguous style. The lead is supposed to give clear precise information, American-born does not say what her actual nationality is and that is supposed to be in the lead of bios when we have the information available. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Since the situation is somewhat unusual, would it be an idea to first state that she is is "a member of the British royal family and add the information about her American citizenship in a second sentence? The problem seems to be the interpretation of "American", and this can be resolved by explicitly using the word "citizenship" (or similar)--Boson (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
THat's fine by me it's just the American born bit that bothers me because it gives the impression she is no longer American. This is a phrase that is almost always used in Wikipedia to identify those that were born American but adopted another nationality or citizenship (a quick search here for "American-born" turns up dozens of bios of people in that situation).Dom from Paris (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps something like
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (born Rachel Meghan Markle; August 4, 1981), is a member of the British royal family and a former film and television actress. She was born in the United States. As of December 2017, it was not known if she intends to retain her American citizenship, but she has started the lengthy process of becoming a British citizen.[1]
--Boson (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "How will Meghan Markle become a British citizen?". BBC News. December 1, 2017. Retrieved July 12, 2018.
I don't think we should be saying what is not known but what is known. The person who wrote the BBC piece did not know what she intended to do but that doesn't mean that it was not known (by someone else). How about "... Markle is a member of the British royal family and an American citizen". Someone above suggested we shouldn't emphasise her past so maybe forget the former actress bit. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps useful as a reference here is the lede from Grace Kelly's article. It seems her acting career was a bit more extensive than Markle's so it may not be completely applicable to this context: "Grace Patricia Kelly was an American film actress who became Princess of Monaco after marrying Prince Rainier III in April 1956." I agree that American-born, at least for now, doesn't seem quite right either. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

We should not define her as "an American citizen". She is not notable for having US citizenship. Going into detail about her citizenship in the lead paragraph is also unreasonable. A number of Wikipedians have been trying to sweep this woman's pre-royal life under the carpet, including her career, first marriage, and heritage, as if she had not been notable at all prior to marrying Harry. The suggestion to define her by "her future" because "we don't need to emphasize her past" is an example of that and is very odd too, if I may add. I don't mind defining her as "an American-born member of the British royal family". I think "an American former actor and member of the British royal family" would be a good alternative. Surtsicna (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion is: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (born Rachel Meghan Markle; August 4, 1981), is an American former film and television actress who became a member of the British royal family upon her marriage to Prince Harry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
To me, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
That sounds OK to me. --Boson (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Great suggestion factual and unambiguous. Works for me. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I've made that change now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Up-to-date[edit]

May I praise this article for showing how up-to-date Wikipedia is. The news of the pregnancy of Meghan Markel was only announced in the news today (October 15 2018) and already it is in the article. What is more, by going to this page one can learn more than was announced in the news. Keep up the good work, Wikipedians. Vorbee (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, thanks but if there is anything here not found elsewhere first (and in very good sources) something is really wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

What's remarkable is that the information was added only a minute or so after the announcement was made. Surtsicna (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)