Talk:Doria Ragland

Uncited content mentioned on unreliable sources
There are some unreliable sources that state that she was born September 1956 or September 2, 1956 and that her middle name is Loyce. One of these sites also state that her mother was Ava Burrows, but if other (less than reliable sources) are correct, this woman was her step-mother born just a few years before Ragland.

If some solid news or other reliable sources can be found for month of birth, middle name, or other information, that would be great to add back.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleting content
,

Regarding your recent edits, it is far better to tag sources that you question with Better source than to delete all the content -- which is covered in a number of sources. I did remove the one bit that isn't reported in a number of places about association membership.

By the way, I wanted to add a comment, but the rollback function makes the edit without allowing for that opportunity. I forgot about that until it was done.

It makes it harder to go back and review the content and find better sources from history, but I'll work on that. You also removed a comment that didn't apply to the content you were removing.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's a BLP of someone who isn't a public figure. This is a time to err on the side of not including information sourced to gossip sites. Natureium (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call Good Housekeeping a gossip site, but I get your approach is to remove rather than tag to be fixed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --2.27.208.53 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

She is the mother of a newly instated member of the Royal Family. How this article should be deleted, is beyond me! The article of Meghan's father, has not been suggested to be deleted, so why this article? Is this what racism has come to in 2018?! 2.27.208.53 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not an appropriate section, since this article was first nominated for deletion and speedy deletion is not appropriate. Please comment at Articles for deletion/Doria Ragland.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"She is the first African-American parent of a member of the British royal family"
A sentence like "She is the first African-American parent of a member of the British royal family" (in the lead, even) is an example of a US local bias. The level of US-specific detail is absurd, given that she is the first American parent of a member of the British royal family regardless of skin colour, and even the first such parent from the Americas regardless of both ethnicity, country and other local characteristics. However, if she were Czech, Moroccan, Israeli, Indian, Chinese or Finnish (really: most countries other than the UK itself and Germany, and to a lesser extent France and a few others), she would also have been "the first parent" from such a background. It would be impossible to not find something "first" about her. It's only to be expected that a foreign individual whose child marries into a European royal family on a different continent is the "first" individual in that situation from that specific background. This is really trivial. "First African American" this or that is a term used when discussing roles that white Americans have long occupied in their own country while African Americans have been excluded. It's not a relevant term when discussing a situation in which no white American has ever found themselves. --Tataral (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it is particularly notable due to the degree of racism against people of African descent and the potential to better celebrate diversity in the UK and US as a result... but I also see your point. My vote is to remove it, because the statement lends itself more to the development of an essay over an encyclopedia article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to say black instead, that's fine, but this is not American bias because the status of black people is lesser in Europe as well. This is one of the most culturally important aspects of the Harry/Meghan royal wedding and has been reported on extensively throughout British media. Many, many of the articles on Doria Ragland are on this subject specifically. I feel it belongs in the lede that this is an historic moment for black people worldwide, however you wish to phrase it. Proserpine (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Denying her blackness, and denying that it's important...I don't know, Becky might say that, but we shouldn't: the internet is exploding with articles about the color added to the British royal house. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get that there is a lot of discussion out there. Meghan's article has a paragraph about her ancestry under Early life, so it's not being ignored.


 * The question, though, is whether something is needed in the lede of this article stating Ragland "is the first African-American parent of a member of the British royal family".


 * I thought about this in the context of other royal family members whose ancestry may have caused controversy, like Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth II, and Queen Charlotte. For both Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth, their German ancestry (and that of their husband's), was controversial, but there's not really any mention of that in their lede's. And, there's nothing in the lede for Queen Charlotte about her potential African ancestry.


 * It seems to me, it's best to discuss it in Meghan's article, since she is the one that joined the Royal family. Thoughts?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's particularly notable for Ragland's article, specifically, because it's a big part of why Ragland herself is notable. See for example today's article on Ragland in The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-appearances/the-profound-presence-of-doria-ragland Proserpine (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I love The New Yorker article. It captures much of what I was thinking as I watched her leading up to - and during the wedding - as well as the potential changes for the future, including the effort and cost required to get there. It's a very well written article and enjoyable to read.


 * I'm not quite sure though what could be gleaned in terms of encyclopedic content. What are you thinking?


 * I am wondering if there could be an article about Meghan, titled like Kate Middleton effect and focus on the various ways that she has an effect on society... with some background information about how her mother plays an influential role.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe Doreen St. Félix's New Yorker piece should be referenced in the intro, because it gets to the heart of what's important here.--Pharos (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * There was information added to the article from The New Yorker. Since it's background information and not encyclopedic content, the info is in the notes.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's cultural criticism and totally appropriate, even vital, to cite in the main body of the article. The reason we have an article on Doria Ragland is because she has become a cultural phenomenon.--Pharos (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * , Can you come up with content and a source of what would be considered encyclopedic content? See also the discussion that I have started about the Meghan Markle effect, which I think would be appropriate to mention her mother's impact (introducing charitable works as a child, heritage, etc.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * There is literally nothing notable about Doria Ragland other than the fact that she is the first African-American parent of a British Royal Family member. If you don't mention that in the lead, you may as well delete the article. She's just a social worker whose daughter married well. Smurfmeister (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it just be easier to describe Ragland as the mother of the first half white British royal princess?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5B02:703C:D9AA:3027:C038:EDE2 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The New Yorker article is questionable in the light of the many revelations about Meghan Markle since the wedding and her family. Boing55 (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Meghan Markle effect
Relating to my comment above about the Kate Middleton effect and a potential Meghan Markle effect article, I started a discussion at Talk:Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, they once talked about the Fergie Effect! Valetude (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you tweet
thank you Victuallers (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability
I saw that these article was up for deletion, regardless of the result I believe an article of the mother of the wife of the sixth to the throne is not relevant enough to have its own article (in that case the parents of the Countess of Wessex and ViceAdmiral Lawrence should have its own articles as well) I suggest to have this article merge with Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex MaliG28 (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Was unaware of that article (which should surely be also linked in this article, for now?). Seems like a lot of duplication. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That was one of the options discussed in the deletion discussion, but the decision was to "keep".


 * I will add a link to the family article. Good idea!–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

What are the rules about articles about an individual who's only notability is via their relationship to an actually notable figure? Peter G Werner (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good question in a case like this. None, as long as enough Wikipedians want the article? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there is WP:Not inherited. Surtsicna (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP: Not inherited says: "Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up"." 65.242.57.18 (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Photo
hi there. i just removed a poor quality photo as for a biography under wp:blp it seems very poor indeed.Govindaharihari (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I saw that... and I had noticed earlier that the image wasn't the best and had played around with reducing the size to reduce blurriness. Even though it doesn't help a lot, it does help a bit. How about if we take that route rather than removing it altogether?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Carole, thanks for response. I don't think that this photo will ever be compliant with wp:mos or wp:blp guidelines. It's easy really - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Choosing_images A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people.Govindaharihari (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Govindaharihari, It seems the specific guidelines are MOS:LEADIMAGE which mentions the need for "high-quality" photos and Biographies_of_living_persons has no specific quality requirement, but refers to Image use policy, which says low quality images may be deleted.


 * I agree that the quality is not great. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the quality is not great but it is still quite a lot better than nothing it that it gives a reasonably fair sense of what Doria Ragland looks like. The way I read the relevant guidelines quoted above is that high quality single person images are what we should aim for and so I favour re-instating the image unless / until a better image comes along. Greenshed (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the quality is not great, I think the photo is better than no photo, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no photo is more policy compliant that this very low quality photo. Please be aware, altough there is royal editing here - Doria Ragland is a wp:blp Govindaharihari (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have requested photos before. I am guessing that administratively it might be best to check in Meghan's secretaries, etc - vs. Ms. Ragland. Any idea how I could find an email address / other for that? Perhaps there is a contact page on the Kensington Palace site? Or, perhaps there is an email address or social media for Ms. Ragland?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, just please don't post low quality of living people here, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Greenshed that the image is better than nothing and so have restored it. Andrew D. (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree too. Better than nothing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

hi, I don't agree that better than nothing is a correct blp standard and have opened a chat for feedback at the noticeboard Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard - thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The photograph is ridiculous. It hardly illustrates the subject, as required by Image use policy. There is no requirement to have a lead/infobox image, and it would be much more appropriate and useful to include the original video clip in the Personal life section instead. After all, the point is to illustrate the subject, and the clip does it much better than that horrid screenshot. Surtsicna (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * While the photo is not great quality, it does not portray the subject is a misleading way or make her look ridiculous. To say it's ridiculous is something of an exaggeration. 2.103.113.212 (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, this is a distinctively poor-quality image. If one already knows what Doria Ragland looks like, one can confirm that this image does not misrepresent her.  But if one doesn't already know what she looks like, this image doesn't confer that knowledge.  Are there no available images of reasonable quality that show her alone, without other people?  If I recall correctly, she was seated by herself at her daughter's wedding, beaming and looking beautiful in a mint-green dress.  An image from that event would be ideal, because it is associated with the event by which she became notable.  An image of her with her daughter (but better quality than the current image) would be good for the body of the article.  --DavidK93 (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We can only use free images. That's the limitation. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with that limitation. However, I have no experience with adding images to articles, and I don't know where or how to look for free images.  --DavidK93 (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I have a better photo. How do I submit it? Queensgrl (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's your own photo and/or not copyrighted (you'd need to prove that) you upload it to Wikimedia Commons. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * better than nothing was the claim in the section above, In my opinion in regards to wikipedia policy, it is not compliant. As there were only three accounts and an IP address that supported this and for an out of policy opinion I will start a wp:rfc Govindaharihari (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, this image is awful and very poorly reflects the image of the subject. in violation of MOS:IMAGELEAD and wp:blp please see the awful photo here, it was claimed in the previous discussion that the photo is better than nothing, is that the wikipedia policy way? Govindaharihari (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If a subject person is distinguishable in a photo of poor quality, and no other free image exists for us to use, it's rather obvious to me that the only free photo should be used until a better one is uploaded to Commons. Wikipedia is not a showcase of excellent photography but an encyclopedia where information is to be given to readers to the best of our ability. The best of our ability, as I see it, does not include removing the only available depiction that exists of a subject. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * hi Serge. I see your opinion but it is not wikipedia policy that however bad a photo of a living person is (and this photo is poor indeed) that we use it if it is the only one we have that is free to use. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am at least as familiar as most anyone else with Wikipedia policy, and it would be useless to reply and argue on and on about various personal opinions and interpretations which are not (not) found in the texts of our policies. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove the image - agree with Govindaharihari (talk) that "better than nothing" is not a valid reason to add an image to a bio article. It's poor. ArchieOof (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * from MOS:IMAGELEAD - Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.
 * I will also add that her notability is also quite low as you can see by the usage of this photo is only on this single wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Doria_Ragland.png. So, you have a low notable living person here wp:blp, please explain why under english wikipeda policy there is any justification, desire or requirement under policy to portray her in such a poor manner? Govindaharihari (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have notified a user that added this photo User_talk:Andrew_Davidson if needed tomorrow I will notify all previous commenters about this. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I still agree with SergeWoodzing, Greenshed and others that we should retain this photo unless and until a better one is found. Andrew D. (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Better than nothing means exactly that and in this case what we have is better than nothing. That does not mean that I would be in favour of retaining photos in every conceivable circumstance.  For example, if the only available photo we had actually portrayed the subject in a misleading way or in some other manner that would be likely to give the reader the wrong idea about what the subject actually looked like then I would say we should remove it. However, that does not apply here.  As a slight aside, if there were a policy which insisted that only high quality portrait photographs be used (there is no such policy) then for typically 19th century people for whom only poor quality daguerreotypes etc exist, we would be denying ourselves the option to provide the reader with useful visual information. Back on topic, I would love to get a better photo for the article and there is a good chance that someone will take a Commons compatible photo of Doria Ragland at some point in the future. In the meanwhile, let's stick with the best that we can do. Greenshed (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Same as above: it's the best we got and better than nothing. please don't revert the image to the crappy overcompressed way too bright version from Beyond My Ken. It may come as a surprise, but Doria Ragland is not white. And they are standing in the shade of a building. The brightness is just fine. I could boost it a tiny bit, but the version from Beyond My Ken is worthless. - Alexis Jazz 21:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For those who complain "infobox image shall not include anybody else!!!11one", I've uploaded a crop. I prefer the larger image with Meghan included though. - Alexis Jazz 22:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - cropped it's not too bad (not the best, but agree that better than nothing until we get something else that can replace it). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove - got to disagree that it's better than nothing, in this case nothing would be better per MOS:IMAGELEAD - It is not an appropriate representation of the subject of this article at all. It is neither high-quality or what our readers would expect to see. It's of inferior quality, blurry and/or out of focus and just plain crappy. Lead images are not required, so the argument that it's "better than nothing" doesn't hold water. This photo of the subject is of the quality of what our readers expect to see in an encyclopedia, and is an appropriate representation of the subject. We certainly wouldn't crop Meghan Markle out of the other side of that crappy and blurry photo and use it in her bio article. This is just appalling to say the least. Isaidnoway (talk)  05:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not out of focus. And we would use a blurry extract from a video for Meghan Markle if we had nothing better. So I'm looking forward to you obtaining a free license to use the photo you linked from.. lemme see.. Getty. Hmmm. Right. Well good luck with that. - Alexis Jazz 16:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Btw, this image was extracted from a 1080p YouTube video. A better result could certainly be obtained using the original video. I'll see if there's any way to get that.. - Alexis Jazz 16:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not content with the cropped versions. The best result might be to use a suitable segment of the video.  IIRC, I extracted a still because there wasn't an easy option to use a video in the infobox and there are file format issues with videos.  I suppose some technical work might resolve those issues. Andrew D. (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess you'll be looking for a long long time my friend. You act like it's a requirement that an inferior quality photo be used in this article, when the guideline clearly states the opposite. I'll be perfectly fine, and go on to live another day - whatever the outcome of this RfC is, because I believe in WP:CONSENSUS. I'm just one man giving one opinion. Have a nice day. Isaidnoway (talk)  21:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep There are better photos in the world, but this doesn't hurt the subject's reputation in any way, it just looks a bit blurry. I've reduced the pixel size a bit, and we could do this more perhaps.  I highly endorse trying to extract something better from the original 1080p video, though.--Pharos (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The wording of our guideline could be clearer, but it is being misquoted/misrepresented in some of this. "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic [my bold]." There is an easy representation in this case. Also the reference to "high-quality publications" does not (not) apply to any mandatory quality of images on Wikipedia. It pertains to a standard that we should strive for, ideally, with whatever free images we are able to use. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - The quality of the image isn't the best but it certainly isn't unflattering. Meatsgains (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a poor quality image as long as Meghan isn't in it. Low-quality does not solely refer to pixels. It is a clear shot of her face, low-quality wouldn't be that. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep BUT - move the image underneath the infobox and also have it as a full image (ie her with Megan), The image to put it bluntly is extremely awful to go in the infobox however it's not too bad to go somewhere in the article. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as an adequate image until a better quality one can be substituted, FactStraight (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as the current image, when cropped, really isn't that terrible. It is possible to discern some basic facial features from the image. Hickland (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly fails MOS:LEADIMAGE, even in the cropped version, and is so low-resolution it could just basically be any of millions of African-American women. It is not better than nothing, and makes us look amateurish and bloggy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I very much wish that we had a better image of her, but I find this mediocre image to be acceptable in the interim. It conveys a basic understanding of her appearance and is freely licensed. I understand the concerns of those who want to remove this image but must respectfully disagree. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit
I reverted the edit here by that added an unknown parameter, "origin" to the Infobox. It doesn't show up, and is a bit confusing, as she was born in Ohio. I posted a message here, because when I did the rollback I wasn't given the edit summary box.––CaroleHenson (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Not a person of note
Why does Doria Ragland have a wikipedia page. She is not a person of note and has no particular accomplishments. Her past is somewhat shady, rumors of a prison term, known drug use and child abandonment. She is Meghan Markle's mother but is that enough to give her a wikipedia page? Thomas Markle is at least a 3 time Emmy Award winning lighting director. Boing55 (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Is Doria's Company a Shell Company?
In looking up Doria's company where she is CEO I came across the below - which indicates that the company is a shell company, that it does not actually provide any services. In the Bustle article referenced on her wikipedia page to confirm this appointment it is mentioned that Meghan Markle's lawyer got her this gig. Is this another one of the corporations Meghan set up in Delaware? It seems more research is needed before including this on wikipedia. Seems a lot of information about her is unclear or vague, including her date of birth, middle name, mother's name, as mentioned above.

https://skippyv20.tumblr.com/post/644804113118478336/dorias-company-loving-kindness-senior-care Boing55 (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah pretty sure that's why this entire page is getting deleted lol 174.115.15.87 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Doria make-up artist claom
Doria was not a qualified Make up Artist, she was on the set helping put make up on actors, she was not a professionally qualified make up artist, she did try to become one but failed. 14.203.5.26 (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Rachel's Racism
Megan Markle never claimed she was black until she met Harry, on her driver's licence she claimed she was caucasian not mixed race. 14.203.5.26 (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * So-called "race" does not appear on driver's licenses. Wordreader (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Not an article we can be proud of
This article contains large amounts of albeit sourced but absolutely non-noteworthy material, plus some things which apparently are shifty and omissions of (shady) things that could be noteworthy. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Proposal: delete everything non-noteworthy and keep only that she is the mother of the Duchess of Sussex and attended the wedding. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If the information was not noteworthy, then it wouldn't have been covered by sources. Also, the references and the information covered establishes her notability as an individual. I could see your point of view in saying that somethings are missing. The best way to deal with it would be to either tag the article, or specify the missing things here first. I know there are a lot of biographies being thrown around these days, some of which do not necessarily show her in a good light, but we should also try to remain neutral as this is a WP:BLP. Keivan.f  Talk 23:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not agree. Huge chunks of trivia do not belong in a Wikipedia article under any circumstances. The only thing notable about her is her relationship to Meghan. I will remove it all again unless someone can come up with more convincing excuses not to. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How is information on her career and education trivia exactly? And it doesn’t matter ‘why’ she’s notable. The only thing that matters is that she is notable whether we like it or not (there was an AfD discussion and that’s what the community decided). And since I opposed this bold edit of yours, I think it behooves you to seek consensus first, since the article was stable up until 20 days ago when you suddenly decided to remove almost everything from it. I suggest an RfC if you insist on your viewpoint. Other opinions are needed on this matter. Keivan.f  Talk 14:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I must repeat: The only thing notable about her is her relationship to Meghan. All the other non-notable info, sourced or not, is filler, trivia, does not add to her notability and does not belong in an encyclopedic article. An RfC may be a good idea. It was a good idea before my bold removal of all that trivia was reverted. It was removed two days after I started this talk section and made the proposal, which was ignored. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I never disagreed with you on the reason behind her notability. In fact, many extended members and in-laws of the royal family have gained prominence via their association with a specific member. Yet, once notability is established, I think details about the person's life can be included if indeed they are covered in reliable neutral sources. If an article is missing info, appropriate tags can be added once the issue has been brought up on the talk page, but I don't find removing the existing info to be productive. Again, if you have not changed your mind, let's put this to debate and see what others might think. Keivan.f  Talk 07:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

3O: To me, this looks like general biographical info of a person deemed notable by the sources, as well as consensus on Wikipedia, and not trivia. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk)
 * Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Photo again
Why has such a a blurry photo been chosen, she has loads of clear photos on Google, I’m not understanding? ClaireJohnsonIndia (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Pejorative language
She has been listed as the 'mother of Meghan gold-digger Markle' and there are a number of other more subtle, but equally judgemental, comments made (e.g. in reference to her marriage) 84.64.72.53 (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Gold digger is not a bad word 152.37.134.125 (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * "Gold digger" is appropriate for someone who digs for gold in earth. Otherwise, it's meant to be offensive.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @152.37.134.125 [a.k.a NET-CBL1-152-37-134-0] - According to Merriam-Webster, Pejorativee = "a word or phrase that has negative connotations or that is intended to disparage or belittle : a pejorative word or phrase"
 * So, in that usage, "gold-digger" IS a "bad word". Wordreader (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Name for Meghan
I am not sure why, but here have been several attempts to add "Rachel" to Meghan's name - or change Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. One time, the reason was that they were changing the name to her legal name. The changes have removed links to Meghan's articles (e.g., Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.)

A couple of things:
 * The article should reflect the commonly recognized name, considering her title. See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL
 * Rachel Meghan Markle is her birth name, but she does not go by Rachel. It has been her preference since college to go by Meghan Markle. When I google Rachel Meghan Markle, most of the returns are Meghan Markle or Megan, Duchess of Sussex

What is the reason why links would be removed to add the name Rachel to her name in the article? If you think the article title for Meghan's article should be changed, it should be brought up there, rather than attempting to use a different name in her mother's article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Rachel Meghan Markle is correct.
her name needs to be correct. The title if Duchess does not apply here in the United States. Her name is Rachel Meghan Markle. She's not Madonna or Fergie. Erodrig5 (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I don't understand. Her birthname is properly attributed in the article.


 * I agree the name needs to be correct.


 * It is just not clear why you think her name needs to be changed.
 * In newspapers.com articles for the United States, it seems that most references to Rachel are "Rachel (Meghan Markle)" for a character named Rachel played by Meghan Markle.here.
 * 10 times the number of articles in the United States are for "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" here.


 * Here's an example of how one newspaper (picked as the top one on the search results) used Meghan's name in combination with Prince Harry. It sets the name as "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" and shorthands her name as Meghan then in the article. There's no mention of "Rachel" in her name.here.


 * It is incorrect to state that her title is not used in the United States.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The name should not be changed here, and be something different in Meghan's article. If you think it should be changed, please add the topic at Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex page. It would think a stronger argument might be that Duchess of Sussex doesn't carry the same weight it did before Harry and Meghan antagonized the British Royal Family and have lost gravitas on the world stage. Even so, I don't know if that is a strong enough reason, but it's an argument. Of 1,185 articles about Meghan and "Price Harry" published in the United States so far in 2023,here only 415 include the title "Duchess".here


 * But, it has to be a stronger argument than "her name needs to be correct" (and Rachel Meghan Markle is correct). You need evidence that it is the commonly used name and why the Duchess of Sussex is no longer applicable.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * One last thing, when I ran a search on "Can Meghan Markle still use the title Duchess of Sussex" the results state yes and here's why.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * in the constitution, article 8, clause 8 it says: "Clause 8 Titles of Nobility and Foreign Emoluments
 * No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
 * She has used her title to write and appeal to government officials. You refer to newspaper articles. I bring you the Constitution. By using her title to get involved in political persuasion, she violates the constitution. Erodrig5 (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I like your sense of humor! The US did not grant her title. It didn't grant Grace Kelly the title of "Princess of Monaco" either, but that is mentioned in her article and how she was referred to around the world.


 * By your comment, I don't think you read the links about article titles. And, that you are so sure that you are right. So, my recommendation is to post your argument for changing the name of the article at Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and see what happens with a broader audience. You will have greater support if you can refer to specific guideline(s) and what evidence you have that a change is needed to meet a guideline.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

, There is an active discussion about her name at Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex‎–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)