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.
@Cibrian209: Either we are not looking at the same source or we are interpreting things differently. The source states: The card was posted on Twitter on Monday by the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust, a royal charity that touts Harry and Meghan as its president and vice president, respectively. It goes on to add that it was released without permission and after PA media picked this image up for use, they found that it was not representative of the original card. In response, the trust (with which Harry and Meghan were clearly associated) stated that it was an authorised image shared with permission, but the photo was killed anyway. The fact that they didn't take it off their Twitter account makes zero difference; social media is full of altered images. You are more than welcome to share a source which clarifies this was not the case; otherwise revert the changes. Keivan.fTalk 11:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say PA found anything, it says they were told but does not say who told them, and its not even clear if they are referring to the same copy/version of the photo. And there is no evidence of who supposedly altered it and we can't suggest anyone. Your claim of altered images on a Twitter feed is a likely BLP violation, you have no evidence that's what's on a twitter feed is altered. And your claim of "killed anyway" is not supported either, because the timing in the source suggests the retraction occurred before the Trust said anything. It is also undue minutia in any event, the source suggests no reason why it matters that one press group did not carry a photo anyone in the world (with an internet connection) can see a version of. (Nor is there any reason to use figurative newspeak from turn-off the presses in an encyclopedia article, 'kill' is sensationalist in this context.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter who notified them. They were notified of an alteration that did not meet their standards and killed the photo as a result (which by the way is a figure of speech; killing a photo is not the same as killing a person!). There is no evidence that the photo was restored on their database after the trust made a statement. With regards to photos on Twitter; first of all, what BLP violation are you talking about? Cause if you think there are no altered photos on social media you're awfully wrong. And the online version of the photo was problematic enough for other newspapers to raise questions about it. Keivan.fTalk 16:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It matters because you are misrepresenting the matter and trying to make claims about people that are not supported. They don't say anything about their standards. Nor does it matter to anyone but you that "the photo was not restored to their database after the trust made a statement" indeed, as far as can be told that is entirely meaningless. Under BLP, you don't get to imply actions were taken by living people on Twitter or otherwise. (As for "kill", I already told you what it is, and there is no reason to use such jargon here in the pedia article.). Your latest source just goes to show what a nonsense addition this is to this article, as any dispute appears to be with the photographer. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What claims?? 1) The photo is uploaded by the trust on Twitter 2) The PA media kills the photo (or erases it since you're so sensitive about it) because of its alterations 3) The trust makes the statement saying that the photo was authorized. What part of this exactly is a "claim"? It's what the source says. And there is no evidence of restoration by PA Media. You're more than welcome to provide it if it exists. The dispute between the photographer and the press is an entirely different matter, but goes on to show that the online versions were problematic anyway. Keivan.fTalk 16:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claims are that 1) alterations were made 2) you are attempting to attribute the alterations to someone or something. The first is unproven (and also contains another unproven claim, that there is more than one version: at least, the one said to be the so called original sent in the mail, and the one on the trust site, and perhaps a third that PA makes claims about) and the second we cannot do, at all per BLP. (And you made a bunch of others in the above posts which have already been pointed out to you.) Moreover, it's all nonsense, three steps removed from the subject of this article. (As for 'kills' as I think I made clear it was your use in the encyclopedia article that is problematic.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you are attempting to attribute the alterations to someone or something. No. I never said the trust (with which Meghan and Harry were associated) had necessarily altered the image maliciously. That does not change the fact that they published an altered version of the card per the source, and later issued a statement on the matter. The dispute between the photographer and the papers regarding other hypothetical versions is not necessarily related to the issue involving the trust, but shows that the photo itself was a topic of interest.
the one on the trust site, and perhaps a third that PA makes claims about I think it's pretty obvious from the source that the one published by the trust is the one PA had problems with.
three steps removed from the subject of this article I disagree. The photograph depicts the subject of this article (a high-profile figure) and was published by an organization associated with her at the time. It's not that far removed.
As for 'kills' Well, it is a technical term. I have no strong feelings about this whatsoever as long as the meaning is conveyed. Keivan.fTalk 17:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've jumped over your first baseless assumption. The claim of alteration is a disputed and unproven matter. On top of that the claimant is tabloid, which consider the source. And there is no doubt you are trying to pin the unproven alteration on someone, with no evidence. And you just reasoned, guilt by association. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did the trust publish a photo according to the source? Yes. Did the PA media ceased using the very same photo according to the source? Yes. Did the trust publish a statement afterwards claiming that the photo was authorized? Yes. Did the PA media began reusing the photo according to the source? No. Keep dancing around the facts. It's all there to read for anyone who has two eyes. Keivan.fTalk 18:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one doing the dancing, the tabloid claim of alteration is disputed and unproven. And no, the source for the PA photo is not given. And none of those other things prove an alteration occurred to begin with. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
.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)