Jump to content

Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Hattrick (talk | contribs)
Grammatical Error: new section
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{GA nominee|16:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=Royalty, nobility and heraldry|status=onreview|note=}}
{{Skip to TOC}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}}
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Entertainers|class=B}}
{{American English}}
{{American English}}
{{Article history
{{Article history
Line 16: Line 14:
| action2oldid = 853260205
| action2oldid = 853260205


| action3 = GAN
| currentstatus = <!--VA-->
| action3date = 17 January 2019
| action3link = Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/GA1
| action3result = Listed
| action3oldid = 878915146

| topic = Royalty, nobility and heraldry
| currentstatus = GA
|otd1date=2021-08-04|otd1oldid=1036996634
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|living=yes|listas=Meghan Markle|1=
{{WikiProject African diaspora |class=B |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-work-group=yes |filmbio-priority=low |royalty-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject British Royalty|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |class=B |listas=Markle, Meghan |filmbio-work-group=yes |filmbio-priority=low |royalty-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject British Royalty |class=B |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject California|importance=low |la=yes |southerncalifornia=yes |la-importance=low |southerncalifornia-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject California |class=B |importance=low |la=yes |southerncalifornia=yes |la-importance=low |southerncalifornia-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject England|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject England |class=B |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom |class=B |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United States |class=B |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Women's History |class=B |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject African diaspora|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Women in Red|60}}
}}
}}
{{Old moves|collapse=yes
| title1 = Meghan Markle
| title2 = Meghan, Duchess of Sussex
| list =
* Undiscussed move<sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Meghan_Markle&diff=prev&oldid=841979244&diffmode=source]</sup>, Meghan Markle → Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, by [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]], 19 May 2018
* RM, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle, '''No consensus''' to revert an "out-of-process move performed by the founder", 19 May 2018, [[Talk:Meghan Markle/Archive 6#Requested move 19 May 2018]]
* AN, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle, '''Move reverted and being discussed at MR''', 26 May 2018, [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299#Unenforceable consensus to revert Jimbo's unilateral page move]]
* MRV, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle, '''Overturn, restored to Meghan Markle''', 26 May 2018, [[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 May]]
* RM, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle, '''Procedural close''' (being discussed at AN and MRV), 27 May 2018, [[Talk:Meghan Markle/Archive 5#Requested move 27 May 2018]]
* RM, Meghan Markle → Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, '''Moved''', 18 June 2018, [[#Requested move 18 June 2018]]
* Move moratorium requested, '''6 Month Moratorium adopted''', 21 June 2018, [[#Move moratorium proposal — Adopted through January 5, 2019]]
}}
{{WIR-60}}
{{Press|collapsed=yes
{{Press|collapsed=yes
| author = Sam Reed
| author = Sam Reed
Line 54: Line 48:
| author2 = Michelle Ruiz
| author2 = Michelle Ruiz
| title2 = Meet Meghan Markle: Prince Harry’s Feminist, Philanthropist, Actress Girlfriend
| title2 = Meet Meghan Markle: Prince Harry’s Feminist, Philanthropist, Actress Girlfriend
| org2 = [[Vogue (magazine]]
| org2 = [[Vogue (magazine)]]
| url2 = https://www.vogue.com/article/meghan-markle-prince-harry-girlfriend
| url2 = https://www.vogue.com/article/meghan-markle-prince-harry-girlfriend
| date2 = November 18, 2016
| date2 = November 18, 2016
Line 61: Line 55:
| archivedate2 = 28 November 2017
| archivedate2 = 28 November 2017
| accessdate2 = 28 November 2017
| accessdate2 = 28 November 2017

| author3 = Robert Mendick and Hannah Furness
| title3 = Meghan's Wikipedia entry was altered days before her relationship with Prince Harry was revealed
| org3 = [[The Daily Telegraph]]
| url3 = https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2020/07/28/meghans-wikipedia-entry-altered-days-relationship-prince-harry/
| date3 = 28 July 2020
| quote3 = Online entry was changed to remove a television quiz-show appearance and alter her occupation from model to humanitarian
| accessdate3 = 28 July 2020
| author4 = Tina Sanders
| title4 = Meghan Markle’s Wikipedia was edited just before Prince Harry reveal
| org4 = Gruntstuff
| url4 = https://gruntstuff.com/meghan-markles-wikipedia-was-edited-just-before-prince-harry-reveal/115384/
| date4 = 28 December 2020
| quote4 = The IP deal with is linked to a Los Angeles PR agency with no identified hyperlinks to the duchess, in keeping with The Telegraph, which speculated that the modifications might have been made by mates...
| accessdate4 = 28 July 2020

| author5 = Iris Goldsztajn
| title5 = Meghan Markle Reportedly Got Her Wikipedia Page Changed After She Met Prince Harry
| org5 = [[Marie Claire]]
| url5 = https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/meghan-markle-changed-wikipedia-page-prince-harry-tom-bower/
| date5 = 31 August 2022
| quote5 = ''Page Six'' reported in 2020 that the then-actress' Wikipedia page had made the object of a bunch of changes in October 2016... At the time, the dominant theory was that friends of Markle's had asked for these changes to be made. Now, though, author Tom Bower is claiming that it was the future duchess herself who worked with the PR company to have her page modified.
| accessdate5 = 11 June 2022
}}

{{Old moves|collapse=yes
| title1 = Meghan Markle
| title2 = Meghan, Duchess of Sussex
| list =
* Undiscussed move<sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Meghan_Markle&diff=prev&oldid=841979244&diffmode=source]</sup>, Meghan Markle → Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, by [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]], 19 May 2018
* RM, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle, '''No consensus''' to revert an "out-of-process move performed by the founder", 19 May 2018, [[Talk:Meghan Markle/Archive 6#Requested move 19 May 2018]]
* AN, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle, '''Move reverted and being discussed at MR''', 26 May 2018, [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299#Unenforceable consensus to revert Jimbo's unilateral page move]]
* MRV, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle, '''Overturn, restored to Meghan Markle''', 26 May 2018, [[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 May]]
* RM, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle, '''Procedural close''' (being discussed at AN and MRV), 27 May 2018, [[Talk:Meghan Markle/Archive 5#Requested move 27 May 2018]]
* RM, Meghan Markle → Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, '''Moved''', 18 June 2018, [[Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 7#Requested move 18 June 2018]]
* Move moratorium requested, '''6 Month Moratorium adopted''', 21 June 2018, [[Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 8#Move moratorium proposal — Adopted through January 5, 2019]]
* RM, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle, '''No consensus''', 2 March 2020, [[Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 9#Requested move 2 March 2020]]
* RM, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex → Meghan Markle, '''Consensus to not move''', 6 February 2021, [[Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 10#Requested move 6 February 2021]]
}}
}}
{{All time pageviews|83}}
{{annual readership}}
{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2017 Top 50 Report|2017]] and [[Wikipedia:2018 Top 50 Report|2018]]}}
{{Top 25 Report|Oct 30 2016|Nov 6 2016|Sep 24 2017|Nov 26 2017|Dec 3 2017|Dec 17 2017|Dec 24 2017|Apr 29 2018|until|May 27 2018|Oct 14 2018|May 5 2019|Jan 5 2020|until|Jan 19 2020|Mar 7 2021|Mar 14 2021|Sep 11 2022}}
{{Annual readership|days=30}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{Spoken Wikipedia request|Catfurball|Important}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(21d)
| algo = old(60d)
| archive = Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive %(counter)d
| archive = Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 8
| counter = 13
| maxarchivesize = 100K
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{tan}}
| archiveheader = {{tan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 77: Line 115:
|leading_zeros=0
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
|indexhere=yes}}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=21|small=yes}}
{{Archives|search=no|archive_age=60|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}

{{Archives|search=no}}
== Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2024 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Meghan, Duchess of Sussex|answered=yes}}
In the introduction, I propose adding a new line informing readers of her latest polled popularity among Royals. Meghan's popularity has fallen from well over 50% to just 30% in recent years. It would be biased not to inform readers of this substantial factual change. This is not intended to slander, but rather to inform factually of a significant change.

Propose adding:

Meghan's popularity among the UK public has declined significantly in recent years, according to opinion polls, where she now regularly ranks among the least popular members of the British Royal Family.

https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all [[User:Bhav92|Bhav92]] ([[User talk:Bhav92|talk]]) 13:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:The article reads "In December 2022, Meghan was found to be the second most disliked member of the British royal family". It seems in June 2024, according to your yougov source, she is the third most disliked. I'm not seeing where in the source it supports the claim that her popularity has declined. I can only see that it supports she is currently one of the less popular royals. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 09:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:PianoDan|PianoDan]] ([[User talk:PianoDan|talk]]) 14:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2024 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Meghan, Duchess of Sussex|answered=yes}}
Megan Markle is a former member of the royal family. She is no longer apart of the royal family. [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:4700:A893:F152:8286:F06B:70F9|2603:8001:4700:A893:F152:8286:F06B:70F9]] ([[User talk:2603:8001:4700:A893:F152:8286:F06B:70F9|talk]]) 05:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> Please also provide reliable sources that support your proposed edit. [[User:Aoi|Aoi (青い)]] ([[User talk:Aoi|talk]]) 06:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:The [https://www.royal.uk/royal-family official website] says otherwise. <span style="font:'Pristina'">[[user:Keivan.f|<span style="color: #1E7HDC">Keivan.f</span>]]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>[[user_talk:Keivan.f|<span style="color: purple">Talk</span>]]</sup></span> 15:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)



== Article name ==
== Move moratorium proposal — Adopted through January 5, 2019==
The name of this article is neither the subject's legal name nor her common name and I propose changing it to "Meghan Markle" which is her common name and also a name she is legally entitled to use.
{{Discussion top|'''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. [[User:Safiel|Safiel]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:B dash|B dash]] ([[User talk:B dash|talk]]) 06:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as proposer. --[[User:B dash|B dash]] ([[User talk:B dash|talk]]) 06:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
* '''Support 6 months''' per my comment in the move request. — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 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]]. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 08:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:Jamacfarlane|jamacfarlane]] ([[User talk:Jamacfarlane|talk]]) 09:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as per above and per my comments over there. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 15:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' while the current Rfc is in progress. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk: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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8|2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8]] ([[User talk:2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8#top|talk]]) 17:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*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. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk: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 [[King Canute and the tide|hold back the tide]]. [[User:Opera hat|Opera hat]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Opera hat|Opera hat]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:Qexigator|Qexigator]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Opera hat|Opera hat]] ([[User talk:Opera hat|talk]]) 05:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' and the RM closer should have been expected to implement this without a vote. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 18:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[User:Red Slash|<font color="#FF4131">Red </font>]][[User talk:Red Slash|<b><font color="#460121">Slash</font></b>]] 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. [[User:James Allison|James]] (<sup>[[User talk:James Allison|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/James Allison|contribs]]</sub>) 01:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as we aren't a [[WP:CRYSTAL|crystal ball]] and must be responsive to external events such as common name changes. ♫ [[User:RichardWeiss|RichardWeiss]] [[User talk:RichardWeiss|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/RichardWeiss|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''). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/203.33.230.66|203.33.230.66]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Edge3|Edge3]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:CRYSTAL|crystal]] but troutslap anyone who would bring another RM soon without a change in circumstances. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk: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...[[User:Domdeparis|Dom from Paris]] ([[User talk:Domdeparis|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. '''[[User:Old Naval Rooftops|<span style="color:#002244;background:#FFFFFF">ONR</span>]]'''&nbsp;[[User:ONR/t|<span style="color:#002244;background:#FFFFFF">(talk)</span>]] 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. [[User:Rreagan007|Rreagan007]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Qexigator|Qexigator]] ([[User talk:Qexigator|talk]]) 21:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' <del>'''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.</del> on further consideration [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:PatGallacher|PatGallacher]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 16:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Given the discussion started below it's clear a pause is needed. [[User:Timrollpickering|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. <span style="font:'Pristina'">[[user:Keivan.f|<span style="color: #1E7HDC">Keivan.f</span>]]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>[[user_talk:Keivan.f|<span style="color: purple">Talk</span>]]</sup></span> 18:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}
[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|14px|link=|alt=]] {{Small|1='''Bumping thread'''{{space}}for 170 days. [[User:Safiel|Safiel]] ([[User talk:Safiel|talk]]) 04:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)}}
<!-- [[Template:Bump]] --><!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 04:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1546747446}}
*Adding bump template sufficient to retain this thread on the talk page until the expiration of the move moratorium described therein. [[User:Safiel|Safiel]] ([[User talk:Safiel|talk]]) 04:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


Per the Canadian government section on "Style of Address": "As the former Meghan Markle, “Princess Meghan”, “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex” or “Meghan” may be heard informally, but are not used officially."[https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/protocol-guidelines-special-event/styles-address.html] She is correctly known as the [[Duchess of Sussex]]. Conveniently, that page redirects here.
==Up-to-date==
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. [[User:Vorbee|Vorbee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 18:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
:Actually, I have found that for most notable topics under the sun, there seems to be a swarm of (usually one-time) WP editors who swoop in and update the relevant article within SECONDS of the first news report. It is so consistent, that I can usually check article history to determine when exactly the news first broke. [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26|2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26|talk]]) 01:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


But shouldn't we atleast put in which month the baby is expected in? [[User:I am bone123|I am bone123]] ([[User talk:I am bone123|talk]]) 15:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I will put in a move request, but would appreciate any feedback. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)


:I think it is an odd thing to be fixated on, when 'Duchess of Sussex' is commonname (there is often not just one) and chosen name. Nor is it a surprise, when her husband and children are known as Sussex. Also, to rule on legal name for a BLP is another odd matter and Markle also is redirect and easy to find here too. Your link appears to not work or go to the right place, but as it is recognizing it is ''former name'', it also seems no reason to move. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 16:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
==Text needs update==
::I did not rule on what her legal name was, but provided a reliable source. (The link now works.)
Someone needs to find the sources and update from future tense to past tense the Australia/nz/togo trip. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 00:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
:FYI {{ping|User:Surtsicna}} since you have nominated this article. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 19:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
::Are you saying that the article should be moved to "Duchess of Sussex?" [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 17:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::duchess of Sussex is fine to redirect here. Are you saying you object to putting Meghan with it? Your source does not object or seem offended by it, indeed it recognizes it might regularly be used. I don't think that source is discussing legal name at all nor would it, as it is discussing a matter of style in Canada and she is a resident of California who married in the UK. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 17:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::I've finally got to it, [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]]. I am surprised the article has not been reviewed yet. Surely judging biographies of royal women should be as popular as judging the women themselves... [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 01:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Can someone also put in which month the baby is expected in [[User:I am bone123|I am bone123]] ([[User talk:I am bone123|talk]]) 15:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
::::What criteria do you think should used for naming this article and which name best meets them? [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 17:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The status quo is fine, it was no real surprise when it was chosen and it has served fine in the six years since. It is acceptable as commonname, and avoids former name.[[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 17:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:I am not sure we have that information. [[User:Surtsicna|Surtsicna]] ([[User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]) 01:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::The name is perfectly fine and follows the guidelines set by [[WP:CONSISTENT]] (other examples include [[Catherine, Princess of Wales]], [[Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh]], [[Diana, Princess of Wales]], [[Sarah, Duchess of York]], [[Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester]], [[Katharine, Duchess of Kent]]). Wikipedia is not bound to follow legal principles and choose legal names as article titles, otherwise Lady Gaga's page would have been titled Stefani Germanotta. Additionally, we should not be [[Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it|fixing things that aren't broken]]. The current title has been in use for a long time now and was agreed upon through several RMs, the links to which can be found at the top of this page. There is also the matter of [[MOS:IDENTITY]]. The subject herself [https://sussex.com/meghan-the-duchess-of-sussex/ prefers to utilize her title] and has not used the surname Markle since her marriage, a family name that is incidentally associated with her birth family from whom she's estranged. I don't know where this obsession with shoving maiden names down both Meghan and Catherine's throats comes from. <span style="font:'Pristina'">[[user:Keivan.f|<span style="color: #1E7HDC">Keivan.f</span>]]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>[[user_talk:Keivan.f|<span style="color: purple">Talk</span>]]</sup></span> 03:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)


I would support a move to "Meghan Markle" on grounds of [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. [[User:Cagliost|cagliost]] ([[User talk:Cagliost|talk]]) 08:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== Race so important? ==


== double major ==
Hi, it might be due to me being German, but to me, it feels strange, that literally the second sentence tells me that she is of mixed race. Is that really so important, as to put it in the preamble of the article? Or am I just overly sensitive on the topic? --[[User:T3rminat0r|T3rminat0r]] ([[User talk:T3rminat0r|talk]]) 18:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
:{{re|T3rminat0r}} Important for Wikipedia is what is important for the majority of reliable sources. Since they focus on her heritage pretty heavily, it needs to be prominently featured here as well. German sources tend to focus far less on this aspect as far as I can tell (being German myself), so the de-wiki article only mentions it once (but is far shorter as well). Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 20:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
::It's obviously important to many in the US. In the UK, it's of minimal interest except to far right sources. I very much doubt whether "the majority of reliable sources", globally, that discuss her, make any mention of it, and my suspicion is that we're giving undue weight to those sources that do mention it. [[User:Ghmyrtle|Ghmyrtle]] ([[User talk:Ghmyrtle|talk]]) 20:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
*This was previously discussed on this talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex/Archive_8#Why_%22mixed_race%22? here] Note the [[Britannica]] source mentioned there. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 14:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


The Northwestern University catalog from the years she attended describes that within the BA in Communications it's possible to obtain a minor in international studies. A double major would mean satisfying the requirements for a degree in international studies, which requies fluency in three languages etc. I know there are sources which seem to say she does have a double major, however it just isn't possible, not even in theater and international studies. I'm going to simplify the text just to say BA in communications. I know that some sources may say differently but it is absurd to include a clearly wrong fact just because it can be found in a news source.[[User:Createangelos|Createangelos]] ([[User talk:Createangelos|talk]]) 20:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
{{Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/GA1}}


:This has been gone over before. It is not a minor in the catalogue, the catalogue calls in an adjunct major, and Northwestern itself referred to that and her degree with a double major.[https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2017/november/from-wildcat-to-royalty/] And you offer nothing but your say so, and thus every reason to believe you are wrong not the sources, and Wikipedia follows sources, not what editors claim they think know. I have also removed your claim which violates [[WP:BLP]]. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 20:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
== Grammatical Error ==
::News about alumni isn't reliable source since we would not expect the writer to check degree register.
::Does the university provide a list of degree-holders with majors and minors? if so, it would be a reliable source for a claim about her degree.
::it seems that a lot of analysis would be required to determine that no degree in international studies was available therefore she could not have majored in it. If you want to make that argument, you need a reliable source for it. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 05:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::In this article, it is sourced to two newspapers, not to the Northwestern publication. (At any rate, Kristen Samuelson is the writer for Northwestern and what she does presently is here: [https://news.northwestern.edu/for-journalists/contact-us/show/kristin-samuelson], there is no reason doubt her based on any assumption, or that she and her editors were not conversant in acceptable terminology at or for the university.) But if you are saying we can't do any original research on this in primary sources, I agree. 'Not majored in it' would be a conclusion, editors can't draw on their own, and not even from 'no degree', double majors have one degree. And also not from what the OP thinks the 'proper' coursework is, or how the OP thinks the university should have been organized to provide it. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 12:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Just to say Alanscottwalker seems like a really legitimate editor, so I have to conclude that the objection (to me saying the assertion in the article is wrong) is not based on a wish to mislead anyone. Markle received a degree in communications with a minor in international studies. She is on the commencement list as having a degree in communications. The communications department offered a minor option in international studies (not international relations). There is no such thing as a single major international relations in that year. There is also no such thing as a double major in international relations and theater or anything else. The degree was not offered, does not exist. [[User:Createangelos|Createangelos]] ([[User talk:Createangelos|talk]]) 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Your purported original research digging up of the old course catalogue is dangerously obsessive about a BLP subject, and also from a BLP violation standpoint you misrepresent it (as you have already been told, and as this has already been discussed). Northwestern offered it as adjunct major (not a minor). This article and sources have always said it was in "international studies" (to my knowledge) so your point about "international relations" is irrelevant or distraction at best, and could be something much worse, given your feelings: (You shared some dramatic feelings you have on my talk page. First, this is not the place to share your feelings about anything concerning a BLP, anywhere on the project, and second given your apparently very intense feelings you should stay away from this topic.) [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Fully concur. I have had my disagreements elsewhere with User:Alanscottwalker on other issues, but on this issue, I am in full agreement.
:::::The actual course catalog for Markle's year of graduation is a primary source and problematic under [[WP:SPS]]. It might be allowable only in the context of statements in articles about Northwestern University itself. But it's very problematic to cite it as a source for assertions about topics other than Northwestern. Even worse, [[User:Createangelos]] is then trying to use that source to insinuate that there is something incorrect about Markle holding herself out as a double major in communications and international studies. It's extremely doubtful that the catalog actually says that about Meghan Markle in particular (because catalogs are usually focused on courses, not people), so inviting the reader to draw that inference that is an improper attempt to use WP as a first publisher of original research in violation of WP core policy [[WP:NOR]].
:::::The correct approach is to find some journalist who has already put their credibility on the line by publishing that claim under their byline in a reliable source. Otherwise, the claim stays out. WP goes with what the published reliable sources say, regardless of whether they are pigheaded or stupid. Yes, this can be incredibly frustrating, but that's how WP core policies work.
:::::For example, when [[Robin Williams]] died, dozens of incompetent or poorly trained reporters incorrectly reported that he died in [[Tiburon, California]]. If that had been all, WP would have been stuck with that wrong information which is obviously inaccurate to anyone who actually understands U.S. mail addressing and [[ZIP Code]]s. Fortunately, a [[Sky News]] journalist correctly reported that Williams died in [[Paradise Cay, California]]. I was able to add a citation to that source to Williams's article, so now Google and many other sources correctly report that Williams died in Paradise Cay. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] ([[User talk:Coolcaesar|talk]]) 04:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::News media article said that Markle had a double-major because that is what she claimed. An article in the New York Times said that Donald Trump finished first in his class at Wharton presumably because that is what he claimed. Other news media stated that Elizabeth Warren was Native American.
::::::News media are not reliable source for analysis per [[Wikipedia:NEWSORG]]. This article should not make claims that cannot be supported by reliable sources. If we want to mention it at all, the claim should be attributed in text. That is, it should be reported as a claim, not a fact.
::::::According to the "Annual commencement/Northwestern University," (2003), Rachel Meghan Markle earned a "Bachelor of Science in Communication" from the School of Communication. There's no record of what she or anyone else majored in. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 10:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Your comments make little sense for an experienced editor. Your comment violates [[WP:BLP]] (unsourced statement about a living person, "she claimed"). Moreover, this and your earlier comment made multiple unsourced assumptions about why media report (so it is your comments that are unreliable, provide citations that, that is why the media wrote this particular piece of information, or don't make unsourced assumptions). Your last comment's attempt to read a source and do original research, also is not well made, [[double majors in the United States]] only get one degree usually, and there is no reason why that document would list majors for anyone. That is at least 3 reliable sources, you are missing to begin to support your chain of assertions, and to even begin to properly make or evaluate your assertions. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I defer to a greater force. I can only hope it is a force for good in a confusing world. [[User:Createangelos|Createangelos]] ([[User talk:Createangelos|talk]]) 18:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The reality is that we do not know what major(s) if any she has beyond what she has said and no way of knowing, nor do any of the sources. It's policy that news media are not reliable sources for analysis. It's also policy that what BLPs say about themselves is not reliable. I agree that the article should not cast doubt on her claim, but neither should it endorse it.
::::::::We are supposed to, by the way, conduct original research when evaluating sources and applying policy and guidelines. It would be impossible to do so otherwise and and note the policy says, "This policy does not apply to [[Help:Using talk pages|talk pages]] and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards."
::::::::The policy is designed to keep OR out of articles.
::::::::Northwestern's website say, "Double-majoring is generally possible within any given school, with the exception of the School of Communication."[https://admissions.northwestern.edu/academics/degree-options.html#double_majors] Since she graduated with a degree from the School of Communication, it's a redflag that she graduated with a double-major and therefore requires a strong source.
::::::::Incidentally, Northwestern does not offer a major in international reliations, although it offers a major in Polisci. That department offers a second year course in introduction to international relations.[[https://polisci.northwestern.edu/undergraduate/major-minor/]]
::::::::[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::First, you again violate [[WP:BLP]], you have never offered a RS for "she claimed". Nor have you offered any source for why the sources report this information (that it is only reported by RS based on what she claimed), you have instead made unsourced assertions, and bald assumptions. What we know, is your comments are making generally unsupported claims in service of denigrating the subject of this article, and others. (As for your latest and new one about what the website says today, not only is it irrelevant grasping at straws for your personal doubt about a rather prosaic unextraordinary fact about an American college student (double majors are common in the United States), it is not evidence of anything, given that this started off with the course catalogue from when she went there which shows, it was offered at that time in the School of Communication as an adjunct major).


:::::::::And your comment again reverts to quibbling about "international relations" which is not the subject here and, to my knowledge never has been. This article says, as with the sources, "international studies". (Moreover, she spent part of her university years in Argentina and Spain and in Argentina interning for the [[US State Department]] office, it is hardly extraordinary to not doubt, she would have picked up credits in international studies, again not relations. And there should be no doubt why a Communications school would not encourage study that is also internationally focused, as communication has international dimensions).
Under Charity Work, "ran by" is incorrect in "Markle became interested in the Hubb Community Kitchen, ran by the survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire." It should be "run by" or, better, "operated by." <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Hattrick|Hattrick]] ([[User talk:Hattrick#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hattrick|contribs]]) 16:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:::::::::Also, this is a fact, not "analysis". I again remind you, Northwestern University, itself, endorses her double major as fact, so your comments' 'doubts' (and your personal vaunting of your own "analysis" over RS) are completely unfounded, and it is rather your expressions of 'doubts' and 'analysis' that are extraordinary.
== Grammatical Error ==


:::::::::As for your claims about the personal statements of BLP's, your comments are wrong on multiple levels, first this article relies on third party reports, so your claim is irrelevant. Moreover, Wikipedia does accept personal statements of BLP's in their articles, they are not per se always unreliable, as any rule of Wikipedia. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 12:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Under Charity Work, "ran by" is incorrect in "Markle became interested in the Hubb Community Kitchen, ran by the survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire." It should be "run by" or, better, "operated by." [[User:Hattrick|Hattrick]] ([[User talk:Hattrick|talk]]) 16:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:32, 6 January 2025

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.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 5, 2006Articles for deletionDeleted
August 3, 2018Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
January 17, 2019Good article nomineeListed
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 4, 2021.
Current status: Good article

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2024

[edit]

In the introduction, I propose adding a new line informing readers of her latest polled popularity among Royals. Meghan's popularity has fallen from well over 50% to just 30% in recent years. It would be biased not to inform readers of this substantial factual change. This is not intended to slander, but rather to inform factually of a significant change.

Propose adding:

Meghan's popularity among the UK public has declined significantly in recent years, according to opinion polls, where she now regularly ranks among the least popular members of the British Royal Family.

https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all Bhav92 (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads "In December 2022, Meghan was found to be the second most disliked member of the British royal family". It seems in June 2024, according to your yougov source, she is the third most disliked. I'm not seeing where in the source it supports the claim that her popularity has declined. I can only see that it supports she is currently one of the less popular royals. DrKay (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2024

[edit]

Megan Markle is a former member of the royal family. She is no longer apart of the royal family. 2603:8001:4700:A893:F152:8286:F06B:70F9 (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Please also provide reliable sources that support your proposed edit. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The official website says otherwise. Keivan.fTalk 15:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Article name

[edit]

The name of this article is neither the subject's legal name nor her common name and I propose changing it to "Meghan Markle" which is her common name and also a name she is legally entitled to use.

Per the Canadian government section on "Style of Address": "As the former Meghan Markle, “Princess Meghan”, “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex” or “Meghan” may be heard informally, but are not used officially."[2] She is correctly known as the Duchess of Sussex. Conveniently, that page redirects here.

I will put in a move request, but would appreciate any feedback. TFD (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an odd thing to be fixated on, when 'Duchess of Sussex' is commonname (there is often not just one) and chosen name. Nor is it a surprise, when her husband and children are known as Sussex. Also, to rule on legal name for a BLP is another odd matter and Markle also is redirect and easy to find here too. Your link appears to not work or go to the right place, but as it is recognizing it is former name, it also seems no reason to move. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not rule on what her legal name was, but provided a reliable source. (The link now works.)
Are you saying that the article should be moved to "Duchess of Sussex?" TFD (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
duchess of Sussex is fine to redirect here. Are you saying you object to putting Meghan with it? Your source does not object or seem offended by it, indeed it recognizes it might regularly be used. I don't think that source is discussing legal name at all nor would it, as it is discussing a matter of style in Canada and she is a resident of California who married in the UK. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What criteria do you think should used for naming this article and which name best meets them? TFD (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo is fine, it was no real surprise when it was chosen and it has served fine in the six years since. It is acceptable as commonname, and avoids former name.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name is perfectly fine and follows the guidelines set by WP:CONSISTENT (other examples include Catherine, Princess of Wales, Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh, Diana, Princess of Wales, Sarah, Duchess of York, Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester, Katharine, Duchess of Kent). Wikipedia is not bound to follow legal principles and choose legal names as article titles, otherwise Lady Gaga's page would have been titled Stefani Germanotta. Additionally, we should not be fixing things that aren't broken. The current title has been in use for a long time now and was agreed upon through several RMs, the links to which can be found at the top of this page. There is also the matter of MOS:IDENTITY. The subject herself prefers to utilize her title and has not used the surname Markle since her marriage, a family name that is incidentally associated with her birth family from whom she's estranged. I don't know where this obsession with shoving maiden names down both Meghan and Catherine's throats comes from. Keivan.fTalk 03:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a move to "Meghan Markle" on grounds of WP:COMMONNAME. cagliost (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

double major

[edit]

The Northwestern University catalog from the years she attended describes that within the BA in Communications it's possible to obtain a minor in international studies. A double major would mean satisfying the requirements for a degree in international studies, which requies fluency in three languages etc. I know there are sources which seem to say she does have a double major, however it just isn't possible, not even in theater and international studies. I'm going to simplify the text just to say BA in communications. I know that some sources may say differently but it is absurd to include a clearly wrong fact just because it can be found in a news source.Createangelos (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been gone over before. It is not a minor in the catalogue, the catalogue calls in an adjunct major, and Northwestern itself referred to that and her degree with a double major.[3] And you offer nothing but your say so, and thus every reason to believe you are wrong not the sources, and Wikipedia follows sources, not what editors claim they think know. I have also removed your claim which violates WP:BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News about alumni isn't reliable source since we would not expect the writer to check degree register.
Does the university provide a list of degree-holders with majors and minors? if so, it would be a reliable source for a claim about her degree.
it seems that a lot of analysis would be required to determine that no degree in international studies was available therefore she could not have majored in it. If you want to make that argument, you need a reliable source for it. TFD (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this article, it is sourced to two newspapers, not to the Northwestern publication. (At any rate, Kristen Samuelson is the writer for Northwestern and what she does presently is here: [4], there is no reason doubt her based on any assumption, or that she and her editors were not conversant in acceptable terminology at or for the university.) But if you are saying we can't do any original research on this in primary sources, I agree. 'Not majored in it' would be a conclusion, editors can't draw on their own, and not even from 'no degree', double majors have one degree. And also not from what the OP thinks the 'proper' coursework is, or how the OP thinks the university should have been organized to provide it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say Alanscottwalker seems like a really legitimate editor, so I have to conclude that the objection (to me saying the assertion in the article is wrong) is not based on a wish to mislead anyone. Markle received a degree in communications with a minor in international studies. She is on the commencement list as having a degree in communications. The communications department offered a minor option in international studies (not international relations). There is no such thing as a single major international relations in that year. There is also no such thing as a double major in international relations and theater or anything else. The degree was not offered, does not exist. Createangelos (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your purported original research digging up of the old course catalogue is dangerously obsessive about a BLP subject, and also from a BLP violation standpoint you misrepresent it (as you have already been told, and as this has already been discussed). Northwestern offered it as adjunct major (not a minor). This article and sources have always said it was in "international studies" (to my knowledge) so your point about "international relations" is irrelevant or distraction at best, and could be something much worse, given your feelings: (You shared some dramatic feelings you have on my talk page. First, this is not the place to share your feelings about anything concerning a BLP, anywhere on the project, and second given your apparently very intense feelings you should stay away from this topic.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fully concur. I have had my disagreements elsewhere with User:Alanscottwalker on other issues, but on this issue, I am in full agreement.
The actual course catalog for Markle's year of graduation is a primary source and problematic under WP:SPS. It might be allowable only in the context of statements in articles about Northwestern University itself. But it's very problematic to cite it as a source for assertions about topics other than Northwestern. Even worse, User:Createangelos is then trying to use that source to insinuate that there is something incorrect about Markle holding herself out as a double major in communications and international studies. It's extremely doubtful that the catalog actually says that about Meghan Markle in particular (because catalogs are usually focused on courses, not people), so inviting the reader to draw that inference that is an improper attempt to use WP as a first publisher of original research in violation of WP core policy WP:NOR.
The correct approach is to find some journalist who has already put their credibility on the line by publishing that claim under their byline in a reliable source. Otherwise, the claim stays out. WP goes with what the published reliable sources say, regardless of whether they are pigheaded or stupid. Yes, this can be incredibly frustrating, but that's how WP core policies work.
For example, when Robin Williams died, dozens of incompetent or poorly trained reporters incorrectly reported that he died in Tiburon, California. If that had been all, WP would have been stuck with that wrong information which is obviously inaccurate to anyone who actually understands U.S. mail addressing and ZIP Codes. Fortunately, a Sky News journalist correctly reported that Williams died in Paradise Cay, California. I was able to add a citation to that source to Williams's article, so now Google and many other sources correctly report that Williams died in Paradise Cay. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News media article said that Markle had a double-major because that is what she claimed. An article in the New York Times said that Donald Trump finished first in his class at Wharton presumably because that is what he claimed. Other news media stated that Elizabeth Warren was Native American.
News media are not reliable source for analysis per Wikipedia:NEWSORG. This article should not make claims that cannot be supported by reliable sources. If we want to mention it at all, the claim should be attributed in text. That is, it should be reported as a claim, not a fact.
According to the "Annual commencement/Northwestern University," (2003), Rachel Meghan Markle earned a "Bachelor of Science in Communication" from the School of Communication. There's no record of what she or anyone else majored in. TFD (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments make little sense for an experienced editor. Your comment violates WP:BLP (unsourced statement about a living person, "she claimed"). Moreover, this and your earlier comment made multiple unsourced assumptions about why media report (so it is your comments that are unreliable, provide citations that, that is why the media wrote this particular piece of information, or don't make unsourced assumptions). Your last comment's attempt to read a source and do original research, also is not well made, double majors in the United States only get one degree usually, and there is no reason why that document would list majors for anyone. That is at least 3 reliable sources, you are missing to begin to support your chain of assertions, and to even begin to properly make or evaluate your assertions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to a greater force. I can only hope it is a force for good in a confusing world. Createangelos (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that we do not know what major(s) if any she has beyond what she has said and no way of knowing, nor do any of the sources. It's policy that news media are not reliable sources for analysis. It's also policy that what BLPs say about themselves is not reliable. I agree that the article should not cast doubt on her claim, but neither should it endorse it.
We are supposed to, by the way, conduct original research when evaluating sources and applying policy and guidelines. It would be impossible to do so otherwise and and note the policy says, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards."
The policy is designed to keep OR out of articles.
Northwestern's website say, "Double-majoring is generally possible within any given school, with the exception of the School of Communication."[5] Since she graduated with a degree from the School of Communication, it's a redflag that she graduated with a double-major and therefore requires a strong source.
Incidentally, Northwestern does not offer a major in international reliations, although it offers a major in Polisci. That department offers a second year course in introduction to international relations.[[6]]
TFD (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, you again violate WP:BLP, you have never offered a RS for "she claimed". Nor have you offered any source for why the sources report this information (that it is only reported by RS based on what she claimed), you have instead made unsourced assertions, and bald assumptions. What we know, is your comments are making generally unsupported claims in service of denigrating the subject of this article, and others. (As for your latest and new one about what the website says today, not only is it irrelevant grasping at straws for your personal doubt about a rather prosaic unextraordinary fact about an American college student (double majors are common in the United States), it is not evidence of anything, given that this started off with the course catalogue from when she went there which shows, it was offered at that time in the School of Communication as an adjunct major).
And your comment again reverts to quibbling about "international relations" which is not the subject here and, to my knowledge never has been. This article says, as with the sources, "international studies". (Moreover, she spent part of her university years in Argentina and Spain and in Argentina interning for the US State Department office, it is hardly extraordinary to not doubt, she would have picked up credits in international studies, again not relations. And there should be no doubt why a Communications school would not encourage study that is also internationally focused, as communication has international dimensions).
Also, this is a fact, not "analysis". I again remind you, Northwestern University, itself, endorses her double major as fact, so your comments' 'doubts' (and your personal vaunting of your own "analysis" over RS) are completely unfounded, and it is rather your expressions of 'doubts' and 'analysis' that are extraordinary.
As for your claims about the personal statements of BLP's, your comments are wrong on multiple levels, first this article relies on third party reports, so your claim is irrelevant. Moreover, Wikipedia does accept personal statements of BLP's in their articles, they are not per se always unreliable, as any rule of Wikipedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]