This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article was created or improved during the Women in the world contest hosted by the Women in Red project in November 2017. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
Tina Sanders (28 December 2020). "Meghan Markle's Wikipedia was edited just before Prince Harry reveal". Gruntstuff. Retrieved 28 July 2020. 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...
Iris Goldsztajn (31 August 2022). "Meghan Markle Reportedly Got Her Wikipedia Page Changed After She Met Prince Harry". Marie Claire. Retrieved 11 June 2022. 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.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
This entry seems to be riddled with and deeply influenced by references to opinion, commentary, and editorial pieces often run in publications known for their lack of journalistic integrity (The Telegraph, The Independent, News.com.au for example). If the Daily Mail is not allowed as a source, I'm not certain how these are different. And regardless of the source, opinion and commentary should not be used as sources for a serious encyclopedic entry.
Further, these are largely used to cite rumors or allegations in such a way as to (I suspect intentionally) lend them passive credibility. Similar entries for other members of the royal family do not lend nearly as much space to the detailed discussion of rumors and allegations, nor do they delve as deeply into ultimately irrelevant details about each individual item.
For example, the section "Bullying allegations and Oprah interview" begins an entire heading and paragraph with an ultimately unconfirmed allegation made through a royal commentator from unnamed sources, when in reality the interview was chronologically announced first and the allegations were made in response to that. In a straightforward telling, should then the subheading not simply read "Oprah interview" as this is the primary and factually most important topic of the paragraph under the heading of "Media"? There is zero factual context or details provided for the interview itself, which can be easily and reputably sourced. Why is so much space given to one single poorly sourced accusation, unless the intent is to make that the primary focus of the reader's attention. Should not things like this, if they must be reported, go under a separate "Controversies" heading or similar?
Overall, this entry seems packed full of as many references to rumors and accusations as possible, however big or small, regardless of whether they are correct or not, or even cited from a reliable source. The whole page should be trimmed and edited to be a straightforward description of the facts of the subject's life. Simply including "claimed" or "alleged" or "rumored" is not enough to justify inclusion in a serious historical record.
For example: "Among unfounded conspiracy theories spread on social media, including Twitter and YouTube, were claims that Meghan had faked her pregnancies and used a surrogate mother, or, alternatively, that her children do not exist at all."(Sourced from THREE editorial opinion pieces, for unfounded conspiracy theories. Really? If we did this for every single public figure, then this website would read like a gossip blog and need ten times the server space.)
How is this relevant to the facts of her life? Does this kind of thing really belong in her encyclopedic biography? This is just one of dozens of easy examples.
I suggest the editors consider overhauling this entire entry to be truly unbiased and simpler, rather than being a clearinghouse for every editorial ever written about the subject, regardless of who or where it comes from.
Finally, I will note that the entry for the Princess of Wales correctly does not concern itself with the litany of rumors and tabloid commentary on the subject over her many years in the public eye, and instead takes a neutral tone as would be expected for any public figure. I will also note that the sourcing for the entry is largely from reputable sources with almost no references to tabloids or opinion/commentary of any kind. The Princess of Wales "Privacy and the media" section is markedly different in tone from this one and they really should match identically in tone, as they are the same category of public figure. 2603:8000:3B41:B00:A1EB:698B:F696:CD31 (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are two of the world's most respected news media and I cannot take seriously any comment that begins by questioning them. While I accept that banning the Daily Mail may be questionable, it definitely is not in the same class as the other two newspapers. TFD (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If the Daily Mail is not allowed as a source" The "Daily Fail" is not allowed because it regularly publishes fabrications and "inaccurate scare stories". Can you point to instances of The Daily Telegraph misleading the public?Dimadick (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They supported the obviously false claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. So did the Daily Fail btw. TFD (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think that at the time a lot of news sources supported the weapons of mass destruction claims, as did plenty of politicians, of course..
So I don't believe that this particular story validates the claim that The Telegraph has a lack of journalistic integrity. Certainly, The Telegraph has a strong right-wing bias. But there is a difference between a newspaper's political slant and false reporting. Most English newspapers are known to have a political bias. Though, when founded, The Independent was actually sold on the basis that it would report the news independently and would not.
I therefore agree with TFD's comment above.. The Daily Telegraph, and still more The Independent, are generally well-respected for the journalistic integrity of their factual content, even though some will naturally violently disagree with the slant used as the facts are presented.
These two papers are not generally considered to be in the same category as The Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror and other British newspapers whose content is known as "tabloid journalism" and therefore by definition not necessarily to be reliable. MrsJJHH (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I only write on an important technicality. You advise Meghan's children as Princess and Prince of Sussex. Being British you grow up with RF information and understand you do not refer to a Princes (Prince Harry) in the terms of their County of which he holds a further Royal Title of Duke of Sussex. It must be understood Meghan only has a title through her husband. Although H&Ms children are none heritage titles,meaning they cannot pass their Prince/Princess titles to their own children, importantly they are ONLY must be known as 'Prince Archie' and 'Princess Lilibet', not of Sussex as you are currently showing.Under Royal rules,by putting 'of Sussex' after Meghan's children's titles you are implying the County of Sussex is giving the children their Royal Titles. The children's titles are inherited from their father Prince Harry. As King Charles' second son as the current ruling Monarch, and as such are British (UK) national titles. A County cannot have Prince and Princess, therefore like Princess Eugeny and her sister they can ONLY be known correctly as 'Prince Archie' and 'Princess Lilbett' and you must remove 'of Sussex'reference.
British Royal Titles are very complex but having been employed for many years by the Royal family, I thought ut only right to advise you of this so you can correct this as it stands it does not make sense. If you need further information please say. Dr S. Selwyn. Drsselwyn (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are officially "Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex". See [2] and [3]. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In our British prince article, it is said the the current king was known at birth as, Prince Charles of Edinburgh, so it appears that the "of Sussex", refers to the father, not the county, as in the old custom, Harry would also be known as just, "Sussex". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please update from "Meghan lived with her father until she was 18 years old." This is FALSE.
Change to:" Meghan lived with her mother full time and would visit her father on weekends until she was 18 years old." 209.136.129.146 (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone update the biography for Meghan's new royal title, Her Royal Highness, Princess of Arochukwu, an ancient kingdom of Nigeria. Purplebrown43 (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not likely to update the title itself, since it is not official. They could write about the trip or write about her Nigerian fans and what popular title they may make for her but would need several solid sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
