Talk:Harry & Meghan

Audience reception is valid. Why has this been omitted?
The Rotten Tomotoes score of 16/100 is significant in that it is indicative of the general public reception of this docuseries and should be included. The article gives the impression this docuseries was received with an average reception, whereas Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, YouTube, etc. show an overwhelmingly negative response by the general public. This fact is missing from the article. Randomacces10101010 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Randomacces10101010 Probably because there wasn't an overwhelmingly negative response. just right wing bigots having a big tantrum and continuing their slander. 185.150.170.2 (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is neither a right or left wing issue (clearly you are biased to the left).
 * IMDB shows an overwhelming NEGATIVE response https://www.imdb.com/title/tt23900194/ratings/?ref_=tt_ov_rt
 * Rotten Tomatoes shows an overwhelming negative response of 16/100 (the minumum possible is 10/100 therefore 16% includes reviews where user had to leave 1/10 when they wished to leave 0/10.
 * YouTube publisher "HG Tudor" uses this docuseries to show by example Narcissistic Personality Disorder
 * YouTube publisher "The Body Language Guy" analyses the manipulations, lies and inconsistencies within this docuseries and also by example of body language Meghan's objectively identified NPD.
 * Moreover, since the docuseries was released, NETFLIX shares dropped significantly (Not mentioned in this article)
 * And the public opinion of Meghan Markle dropped significantly over the course of the docuseries airing.
 * NONE of the above objective facts (that are not politically biased) are mentioned in the article and this should be corrected. Randomacces10101010 (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Randomacces10101010 You wrote all that, and said absolutely nothing. you mentioned two right wing YouTubers, IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes and think you made a point. you are a funny little fool. 185.150.170.2 (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I'm trying to make the point the user reception was overwhelming negative, irrespective of political orientation. You are a TROLL Randomacces10101010 (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Randomacces10101010. The response was indeed largely negative. The poor score on Rotten Tomatoes (16%) is evidence for that, but the article at times makes it look as if there had been some balance. Plus, most reviews, even in the mainstream/liberal/left-wing media, such as The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, was negative towards the couple and the series as a whole. The article makes it seem as if response had been mixed or neutral, but it wasn't. 67.207.12.1 (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @67.207.12.1 Oh dear. try and quote at least one uncompromised source. 185.150.170.2 (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is in line with WP:TVRECEPTION which states: Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including its "Audience Says" feature), as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. If you want the audience score included, you have to change the policy through consensus first. We cannot create an exception solely for this page. Keivan.f  Talk 04:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

why is this page so disgustingly one sided??
This page is a disgrace to the fabric of Wikipedia. was it written by Piers Morgan? Why are all the sources and citations from right wing hacks and Tory politicians? shameful. 185.150.170.2 (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't know where you got that from. The Guardian, People, Harper's Bazaar, BBC News, Vanity Fair, BuzzFeed News, Deadline, Forbes, etc. are all cited within the article, none of which are actually right wing. Keivan.f  Talk 04:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * An enormous number of the citations are from publications that are criticized in the documentary. Looks a lot like huge sections of this Wikipedia page were written by people working for those publications in an attempt to counter the narrative of the documentary. 74.96.164.205 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The docuseries is critical of the British press in general. That doesn't mean that parts of the free press should be excluded as reliable sources just because the docuseries doesn't approve of their coverage. Keivan.f  Talk 00:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The documentary is critical specifically of the royal rota. I’m not saying they should be excluded entirely. I’m saying it looks incredibly suspect that they are the overwhelming majority of sources cited in the parts that reflect negatively on the documentary, and that, no, their reliability should not be assumed given that they have a clear vested interest in a particular side of the story.
 * You specifically have left a lot of negative edits on a number of different Wikipedia pages related to Harry and Meghan (changing the word “viewpoint” to the word “resentment” on the page for Harry’s book is one of the more bizarre ones if I had to choose examples), so to be honest I think you are coming to this discussion, and to the edits you have been making, with a specific axe to grind against them. 74.96.164.205 (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The word needed to be changed because it was a direct quote from the source. It's simple as that. When quoting from a source, you don't change the words to fit your narrative. And by the way, it was The Guardian that used that word when describing the book's theme and Guardian is not part of the so called royal rota. Keivan.f  Talk 21:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * > "The word needed to be changed because it was a direct quote from the source."
 * Yet it wasn't in quotes, and you didn't put it in quotes. And even though both sentences of that section were clearly adapted from the Guardian article and both differed from the wording of the article, you only corrected the wording of the first sentence and not the second.
 * It does not seem like you were treating any part of that section as a direct quote. If you had been, you'd have put quotes around it, and you'd have corrected the wording on the whole thing, not just the one word you didn't like.
 * > "it was The Guardian that used that word when describing the book's theme and Guardian is not part of the so called royal rota."
 * I said "the overwhelming majority of sources cited in the parts that reflect negatively on the documentary" in THIS article are from the royal rota. I didn't say "all" I said "the overwhelming majority" and I didn't say "any related article" I said this one.
 * Look, if anybody else is following this conversation, look at Keivan.f's edit history on this page or any page related to Prince Harry or Meghan Markle. I really think the history speaks for itself. This is probably the only time in the last decade I've commented on Wikipedia at all and it is because of how absolutely bizarre and bizarrely freaking enormous the negative sections in these articles are. If they don't look bizarre to anyone else, then there's probably nothing I can say that will convince. But I think they are incredibly self-evidently bizarre and reflect negatively on Wikipedia's reliability. I find it hard to imagine most people could read these and not think they smell like they were written by someone with an agenda. 74.96.164.205 (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Trying to push a baseless claim about a supposed agenda will get you nowhere as all the sources used in the article are reliable and none of them fall under WP:RSP.
 * And even though both sentences of that section were clearly adapted from the Guardian article and both differed from the wording of the article, you only corrected the wording of the first sentence and not the second. The word was a quote from the source. Not the whole of the sentence. Too many quotations would violate the website's policy regarding copyright violations and if you have ever heard of something called paraphrasing you ought to know that some words change as you restructure the sentences, except maybe for the core word or phrase.
 * it is because of how absolutely bizarre and bizarrely freaking enormous the negative sections in these articles are. So what? The article is meant to be a reflection of what the sources report. It is not meant to appease the subject. The criticism section on the article about British royal family contains negative coverage. What are we supposed to do? Wipe it out because it is negative and enormous? Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Keivan.f  Talk 23:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the “Veracity of Claims” section
It’s completely rambling, nitpicky, one sided, and should be edited down. The bulk of this section goes against Wikipedia not being a soapbox intended for scandal mongering and gossip. Many of the things cited as facts are anecdotes and speculation about the Duchess’s subjective opinions. It’s completely inappropriate. 2607:FEA8:589E:900:D98C:8D37:FF4B:80C6 (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is that the whole documentary is one sided with comments thrown in by people based on their subjective (not objective) opinions. And this was reflected in the reviews put forward by newspapers and outlets from both sides of the political spectrum. Since we are including the subjective content of the documentary, then the subjective reaction to it can be equally included. Keivan.f  Talk 04:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)