Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Image

Is that picture of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex the best that can be used? I’m sure there’s one more apt for her Wikipedia. A kind suggestion to change please. Rose 2579 (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's the best one we have. Surtsicna (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This page reviews the rules for image use on the Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Images. Profile pictures are preferably head-shots with a clear view of the face, which is why this is the best photo that the WP has at this moment. You can see the repository of images available for use at the Wikimedia Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex

It is always possible to add more images if they comply with Wikipedia's guidelines so there may be more head-shots to choose from at a later date. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a better image and it's from the royal families website. https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/styles/grid_2x2/public/images/biography/header_photo.jpg?itok=uo40HkC4&anti-cache=04a6724329d15 HardeeHar (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Does it comply with wikipedia's policies and guidelines? DrKay (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

These two links may be helpful in tracking down images that can be used on the Wikipedia:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Public_domain
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources

-Classicfilms (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but this URL does seem to have images that may comply with WP's guidelines:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary

-Classicfilms (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Signature?

Does the lady in question's signature remain "Meghan Markle?"2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It will just be "Meghan". jamacfarlane (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

It's just Meghan now, yet a picture with a good quality of her signutare post-marriage is not available on the Commons. Keivan.f^Talk 22:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to British English and dmy dates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this informal discussion was No consensus for change. Arguments for neither side are convincing. I would suggest that this proposal is WP:TOOSOON. The article currently states that she has applied for British citizenship. If and when a reliably-sourced statement is added that she is now a British citizen then the relative merits might become clearer and it would be a better time to resubmit. Meanwhile, interested editors might like to refresh their memory of WP:ENGVAR and its subsections dealing with consistency, national ties and consensus for change. (non-admin closure) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

---

I propose that, as the subject of the article is now a senior member of the British royal family, the article should use British English and dmy dates. jamacfarlane (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment That would be consistent with the article's name change, but, before the few lines in the 'Titles and styles' section, the article is mostly about her "Markle" years and career as an American citizen, before her present marriage to the royal Duke. Nancy Astor, Viscountess Astor's article uses dmy etc., but most of that article is about her notable life in England, first as Nancy Astor and later as Lady Astor. Perhaps switching Meghan's article from American to English style, if noticed, would be expected or preferred by most of those to whom Meghan's existence in her career before the engagement and marriage to the Duke was unknown, and for the millions who viewed the wedding ceremony as broadcast at the time, and later as recorded, and most of those who currently see news or other articles about her, including the royal websites. Qexigator (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not proposing rewriting the article, just changing the the {{Use American English}} and {{Use mdy dates}} templates. She is not yet a British citizen, but she lives in England and is definitely now a British public figure. She is far more notable for marrying Prince Harry than for being a former American actress. The article's pageviews have increased significantly since the engagement was announced in November 2017 - monthly average 700,000 before and 4,500,000 after. Until recently, most people marrying into the British royal family were foreign-born. Prince Philip, for example is Greek, and the Queen has German ancestry. jamacfarlane (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree with the proposal. In addition to the fact that most of the article discusses her pre-royal life, as highlighted by Qexigator, the subject is still a citizen of the United States only. Using American English and mdy dates is a nice and subtle way to emphasize that, unlike other members of the British royal family, she is not actually British. Being a non-British member of the British royal family is a significant part of her notability as a royal. Surtsicna (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not she is a British citizen, is 'Using American English and mdy dates' too nice and too subtle for a WP article, or a passively covert way to promote a less than neutral pov? Do we know she is not a British citizen?[1] Either way, let that be stated explicitly in the article, in npov way. Qexigator (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not, because there can be nothing biased or POV-ish about retaining the original spelling. There is nothing shameful or disputable about her being American. The article says that "Meghan began the years-long process of becoming a British citizen". Surtsicna (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there a precedent for this? We use British English for Rupert Murdoch and my instinct is to reject the proposal without good precedent. Do our guidelines even allow such a change, and if so, under what circumstances? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Not that it would make much difference, but surely Murdoch's article should use Australian English. HiLo48 (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Murdoch's article has a British English template and the talkpage an American English banner. Surely it should be in Tabloidese more than anything else? Timrollpickering 12:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me try it in tabloidese: ONLINE OUTRAGE: Web wonks wallow in anti-British bias Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, per MOS:ENGVAR where there is consensus. jamacfarlane (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Question jamacfarlane: Please clarify, if by not proposing rewriting the article, just changing the ..templates you mean that you propose changing only the templates but not changing anything in the article to comply? Qexigator (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN states "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another". I interpreted that as meaning when consensus on which language to use changes, that applies to future edits only. But if I'm wrong could someone clarify what that guideline means? jamacfarlane (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Surtsicna's rationale. Chetsford (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand a lick of this. British subjects warrant the use of 'colour,' for instance? Americans should expect to see 'color'? Dual nations?2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Links.

I see that the links for the Countess of Dumbarton and the Baroness Kilkeel are to the Earl of Dumbarton and to the Baron Kileel, respectively. Would this not lead us to believe that the link for the Duchess of Sussex would be to that of the Duke of Sussex? (Please give some logical response to this rather than something like 'you know what we mean.'2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Because those are the feminine forms of the actual titles that have been bestowed upon Harry, and at this time it's not necessary to create separate articles for the feminine equivalents. The Duchess of Sussex redirects here because that's Meghan's most common and prominent title. Another example would be the Countess of Wessex. Keivan.f^Talk 22:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Family ancestry

The Markle are originally of ethnic German stock before becoming "Americans": https://www.dw.com/en/tracing-meghan-markles-german-roots/a-41574493 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/prince-harrys-and-meghan-markles-german-roots/ar-BBFUjxS http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5027891/Harry-Meghan-cousins-family-tree-1480-reveals.html https://metro.co.uk/2017/11/27/lets-not-forget-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-are-actually-cousins-7111639/ Even as France had annexed the German-speaking Elsass as "l'Alsace" during the life time of Meghan's earliest known ancestor, the populations always was and stayed culturally and ethnically German. So, no French ancestry for Meghan, just German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:DBD3:DB00:7D73:91B0:B94E:4857 (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Cant really see the relevance as far as most people are concerned she is an American. MilborneOne (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Some of the sources you have listed are unreliable such as Daily Mail. By the way, as MilborneOne said, she's American and she identifies as such. Keivan.f^Talk 22:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

request to add information about her dogs

Hi, I was wondering if under Personal Life, one could briefly mention her dogs, Guy and Bogart. In 2012, she adopted Bogart, a labrador-shepherd puppy from a shelter in L.A. Then in 2015 she adopted Guy, a beagle, via an adoption event at a rescue center in Toronto.

The relevance of this information is to show more of the Duchess's ethics in that she supports animal shelters and her views on adopting, not shopping, as she mentioned on her Instagram and blog The Tig.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

2a02:810d:980:4e8:4a4:6d56:5fc8:7a4a, for an edit request you need to provide a verbatim copy of the text you want added. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Your text must also be fully referenced. jamacfarlane (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Keivan.f^Talk 00:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Why "mixed race"?

The second paragraph says Markle is "of mixed-race heritage". Is that truly pertinent? Consider some of our other articles:

• Barack O'Bama -- "...an American attorney and politician who served as the 44th President....the first African American to serve as president." He's of African, English, German, Irish, Scottish, Swiss and Welsh descent. But unlike Markle, we don't describe him of being "of mixed-race heritage".
• Mariah Carey --"...is an American singer and songwriter." She's of African American, Venezuelan and Irish descent, but we don't describe her as being "of mixed-race heritage".
• Keanu Reeves -- "...is a Canadian actor, director, producer, and musician." True, but as per article, born in Beirut to English mother and American father of Chinese, English, Irish, Native Hawaiian, and Portuguese descent. We don't describe him ss being "of mixed-race heritage".
• Wentworth Miller -- "...is an American actor, model, and screenwriter. ". His father is of African-American, Jamaican, German, and English ancestry, and his mother is of Russian, Swedish, French, Dutch, Syrian, and Lebanese ancestry. We don't describe him as being "of mixed-race heritage".

I could go on, but you probably already get the picture. I am unsure why it is specified in this article, but not in others. Anyone have comments? Moriori (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I think 'mixed-race' is the term that the lady in question prefers. Myself, I call myself Irish-American, but not because I am Irish. I am the last of an older `line` of Irish-Americans who shared common behaviors. The `stereotype` will fade away shortly after I am dead, I imagine, though perhaps the type will persist a bit longer in New York and Boston, where my truly Irish relatives landed. I suppose I`m White, but that doesn`t really say anything about me. Defining race is rather senseless now, unless one wants to use it as a weapon in argument or as a means of seeking advantage.2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Would you have a comment on why this particular BLP specifies mixed race heritage whereas the others named don't? Wikipedia isn't built on what we think. Moriori (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't look to Wikipedia if you're desirous of consistency. The lady in question refers to herself as mixed-race. I don't mind people self-identifying in this way. Do you? You ask about pertinence, but why? In Brazil, President Obama would likely be considered mulatto. Does that matter? Does race matter at all? Why do we insist upon it and all its confusion. "Blacks" in America were once defined, in some places, by having just one great grandparent who was "Black." Would you apply rules that change so frequently, that are often offensive and/or confusing, that are relatively meaningless?2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The relevant quote and citation are in the second paragraph of the first section after the lead. She says she is half black, half white, mixed-race. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"I wouldn't look to Wikipedia if your desirous of consistency." I say don't look to the United States if you're desirous of consistency. Sadly, that country has been unable to break free of an ugly background of racism, and still seems to invent new racist names, even today. There is little hope that anything we write will ever offend nobody. We can only look to the sources, and kinda blame them where things don't make sense. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't single America out as being the only nation stuck in the mire of racism.2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Nor would I, but this mess of language comes from that particular country's attempts to pretend it is no longer racist. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

We'll all be a bit further down the road from racism once we stop blaming specific groups for it. We all have blood on on hands.2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

That's off-topic. I'm talking about the language used, which in this case is clearly and almost exclusively an American issue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

HiLo, I agree with you. I asked the question because I wonder about the ethics of pigeonholing her but not others. Sure, I've been around Wiki long enough to know that a percentage of edits to the project are made simply "because we can". But I often despair about the motivation. Moriori (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I obviously don`t understand what is your topic. The lady in question calls herself mixed-race. That seems to be the extent of it. I don`t think we should worry about how others are described unless we`re willing to go in and do some editing. The issue of race is as interesting as oatmeal.2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand that comment. Oatmeal would perhaps indicate a Scottish ancestry. "My topic" has always been in relation to the initial question. And a an awful lot of Americans do still seem to think that race is a critical factor in life. HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand that plainly stating her mixed-race heritage may seem a bit awkward. It does seem to be pertinent to her acting career and royal status, however, as explained in detail in the article body. If there is a better way to phrase it in the lead, please do so or suggest something here. Surtsicna (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

"Heritage"? Hmmm. There's an interesting word. Is that yet another complication in the insistence so many people have on giving others labels from some imagined race/ethnicity/ancestry categories? HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Surtsicna (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

One wonders. When Harry and Meghan have their first child it may not have her nice caramel skin colour, meaning it won't be described as mixed race heritage. But if it does.....Moriori (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

And when that child has a child......? Imagine if they marry an Asian (whatever that means)! HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to try a last time to understand this discussion. Are some upset with the term 'mixed-race'? If the lady in question prefers this description, then I support her in this. 'Mixed-race' means all but nothing, and that may be the lady's point. Is there an objection to mentioning race at all? Eliminating discussion of the lady's racial background would be fine with me too. So, what are we going on about?2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm from a country where we get on fine without mentioning race at all. (That's apart from a tiny handful of foolish, ignorant racists who most of us ignore.) I alternately laugh then cry at the mess the USA has got itself into with its obsession with the matter. I admit to making a bit of fun of the situation, because there is so little logic in it. Obviously I see no point in trying to give Meghan a racial label. It serves so little positive purpose, apart from providing non-Americans with amusement. Sorry if my whimsy has made some Americans uncomfortable. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Strange subject matter for 'whimsy.' (At least we're done here now?)2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you want me to say? Americans are fools with an obsession about race? No, I try to get my message across a little more diplomatically. There was a view in there. I said "I see no point in trying to give Meghan a racial label". Why must Wikipedia do so? HiLo48 (talk)

Americans care very much about race because of the ongoing systematic violence and oppression that exists because of our history of slavery (which came from being made up of former British, French, and Spanish colonies which all had slaves). It's not foolish. Surely you're educated enough to draw historical connections to present day realities. Not to mention much of the hype about Meghan marrying into the House of Windsor had to do with her race. Your native Australia, I should point out, has a lot of race issues (government persecution of Aboriginal Australians for one of many examples). Just because you are blinded by ignorance doesn't mean anything is "imagined". -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Two factual errors there. I did not say "foolish". In fact, I made a massively clear point that I wouldn't say it. And you got your tense wrong about Australia. Australia HAD a lot of race issues, but we found a way out of them. Nobody is officially given a racial label in Australia these days. The vast majority of the public never use them. And it works really well. While it insists on maintaining the labelling, the US will never grow out of its race issues. Wikipedia should not be supporting racial labelling. Now that I have rebutted your insults, can we get back to how it helps anyone to give Meghan a racial label? HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't doing the labeling--in this case the subject does that, and while for wonderfully liberal-minded white people her color may not matter, for many African Americans this is an important thing. And for them (including the subject) it probably matters too that the rest of the world knows it. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Required reading? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Australia2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you still trying to insult me? Australia has definitely been a racist country in the past. It has fortunately moved on from that position very successfully. Oh, and I have been able to update some content in that article, so thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Why in the world would I want to insult you? (We ARE done here.)2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

For me, the main value of having the cited quotation about mixed-race is that it explicitly refutes her being "Black" or "African-American" or whatever. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: As seen at Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/Archive 7#Nationality/ethnicity categories and here, we recently had discussions about the mixed race topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Racism in Austrialia is not a matter addressed by pretending it does not exist. [2] [3] [4] [5] More importantly, the continued discussion by HiLo about his prejudices concerning America is a continued WP:NOTAFORUM violation. We are here to discuss this article, and it's Meghan Markle who used the term "mixed race", so unless you are trying to say she is racist and that should somehow be reflected in this article, your America comments are totally irrelevant. Now turning to this lead, I would not have placed it there, and it, to me, does seem a bit awkward, but I can't decide if it seeming awkward is actually a good reason it should be placed there, as in, why can't she say it out-loud, and proud (it is certainly well sourced). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobody has said racism doesn't exist in Australia, but it is a country where terms like "mixed race" are very rare. This is because of dramatically changed public attitudes, and government policy which involves NOT giving people racial labels. It has been a raging success. I see the latter as a very positive approach for the whole world, and wish all would stop the racial labelling. This includes Wikipedia. If you feel like attacking me for such a desire, go for it,, but it won't look good. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

But you explicitly did refer to Australia (eg. your "country") as if that matters, here, several times, more importantly this is not the place for your ideas about the world or Australia or America. That's the essence of NOTAFORUM, and telling you, you are breaching WP:TALK#USE is not an attack. (Nor is this the place for you to give unsourced critique of Meghan Markle's use of words, see WP:BLP). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggested edit-MOS:LEADCITE states: “The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.” This is one of those occasions when it makes sense to refer to the source in the lead. How about tweaking the sentence this way (properly cited in the article of course):

“Rachel Meghan Markle was born and raised in Los Angeles, California, and refers to herself as a “mixed-race woman.”[6]

-Classicfilms (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Update to my suggestion: Or, per the discussion below, the sentence should be rewritten for clarification.-Classicfilms (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobody here has challenged it and it is very unlikely to be challenged, given how much prominence it has been given since she married into the royal family. The question here is whether it is important to be mentioned in the lead. Turning that bit into the only cited sentence in the lead will only make it more prominent. The only edit that might make sense is one that would incorporate her ethnic identity into her career or royal life, as it is relevant in that context. Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This thread began as a means of questioning the inclusion of the phrase "mixed-race" in the lead at all. While I agree that as the thread continued and it was pointed out that this is how the subject refers to herself and no one challenged that fact, the inclusion of a citation would help to clarify this particular version of the sentence. That being said, I'm not opposed to rewriting the sentence - in fact, if you go through the edit history, there are alternatives such as a longer version of it with context, or not including it at all.-Classicfilms (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not just her that calls her 'mixed-race'. Almost every media outlet has done so. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, though it seems the media is reflecting the subject's choice. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Context, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." That Markle is of "mixed race" has been talked about in the media, especially with regard to her marriage to Prince Harry and what it means for the royal family, but the current piece in the lead doesn't state what she's mixed with and doesn't indicate how it ties into her notability. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree: This is a good point, underscoring the fact that the sentence should probably go through a rewrite.-Classicfilms (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Noting: it is discussed or alluded to in sections 1, 2, 3 and 7 of this article. And although they don't have a separate article, it is a part of her encyclopedic notability, as far as the editors of Britannica are concerned: "In May 2018 Harry married Meghan Markle—a divorced American actress, daughter of an African American mother and a white father—whose informal approachability . . . The ceremony was held in the medieval St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle but was unlike any previous royal wedding. . . .mixed with elements of African American culture, . . . . and an impassioned sermon in the tradition of the black church . . ..The couple, whose union reflected the changing social landscape of an increasingly multicultural Britain . . .". [7] Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Another good point that reflects the importance of context re: Flyer22 Reborn's comment. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems, so. Further noting, we already discuss actress and divorced in our lead, so . . . putting our heads together, we probably can come up with some intro info , here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

A Perspective: I would approach the question of "mixed race" by what had been reported widely. Meghan identified herself as biracial during interviews about her life and her career as an actress. One could search across the Internet to find sources about how Meghan identified herself in racial terms. She has even penned an essay about her identity in Elle Magazine in 2015. I'm supposing that Meghan considered her biracial identity as personally relevant since she has both spoken and written about as she sees herself (e.g., her story about her dad telling her to draw her own box to response to her school teacher telling her to fill in census form based on her (Meghan's) physical appearance). So, how Barack Obama, Mariah Carey and others identify themselves have no bearing on how Meghan identifies and sees her personal self, since this topic important to her. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 23:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Fashion and style

Keivan.f did a great job adding this section. I have two concerns, however. Names of 16 fashion designers and 12 brands appear in long lists with little to no context. They are recitations as well as seas of blue. The other thing is the choice of sources. A while ago, I replaced all of the tabloids and gossipy magazines with more reputable sources, such as The Guardian, BBC, The Telegraph, etc. Is it possible to replace Glamour and Vogue with some of these? Surtsicna (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Surtsicna, I really appreciate it. Please feel free to trim it down and remove some of the names. I have no strong feelings about keeping all of them there (you can do the same thing with the Duchess of Cambridge's article if you wish). The reason that I used Vogue is that it's a fashion magazine. It's not very reliable for biographical information, yet it's well known in fashion industry. One of the sources from Glamour, is the interview that Meghan herself had given to them back in 2015 (I'm not sure which year exactly). But I think the other one can be removed. Keivan.f^Talk 19:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Keivan.f, I believe the article is not far from a Good Article status. I have just expanded the lead a bit. It might be useful to request some help fro Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a good idea, thank you for bringing it up. By the way, per your request, I'll trim down those sections on the Duchess of Cambridge and the Duchess of Sussex's articles in a few hours. Then a request can be submitted for a general review by copy editors. Keivan.f^Talk 19:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I have submitted separate requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for the articles of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to be reviewed and copy edited in terms of grammar and style. Keivan.f^Talk 21:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I fear that the other articles are not quite there yet regarding content and quality of references, and that they might distract copy-editors from this article. It might be better to start off with this one. What do you think? Surtsicna (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You are right. By the way, per their rule one user cannot submit more that two requests at a time. Thus, for now they will only review the articles about Meghan and Catherine. That way they will be able to focus on these two pages, and the ones about their husbands could be reviewed later. Keivan.f^Talk 23:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this information about fashion and style of any real interest for an individual known as a 'vocal feminist?'2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

What does it have to do with feminism exactly? Keivan.f^Talk 22:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Keivan.f, you draw a conclusion that's not obvious from the text itself. The text itself is as uninformative as it could be. Would it not be possible to find sources that say something to that effect? E.g. this. On a related note, I see that there is a lot about Meghan's style in The Guardian. I suggest replacing the Vogue and Glamour citations with The Telegraph citations. Surtsicna (talk) 10:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I'm not saying that I oppose your changes, but there should be a sentence in the paragraph which would imply that she has some sort of influence on the fashion choices of people. Vogue is not a bad source for a section like this, but if you want to replace Glamour you can absolutely do it. The section could be expanded even more with the sources that you mentioned. Keivan.f^Talk 13:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry section

This section starts with "On her mother's side..."

Wouldn't using a term such as 'maternal lineage'be more professional. HardeeHar (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Also there's mention of "One of her possible forefathers"

With regards to that, surely theory/conjecture shouldn't be on Wikipedia pages. HardeeHar (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, to both points. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. "Maternal lineage" would be her mother's mother's mother's mother and so on. I think the information about her mother's family relates to the Raglands rather than than Arnolds. Wikipedia pages can include conjecture, as long as it is sourced and given due weight. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is there no family tree for Meghan yet? StarLegacy (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Because one is not required. Her parents would be the only notable people in it, and they are clearly named already. Surtsicna (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2018

Not American-born just American. Prior to her marriage she was an actress who was best known for her role as Rachel Zane in the USA Network series Suits from 2011 to 2017. 67.81.163.178 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

 Already done Best known role already in. She is American-born per ref 1 and 2. Waddie96 (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Meghan Markle (signature).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The Info About Herself Should Be Changed

It should be just "an American member of the British royal family. Prior to her marriage to Prince Harry she was an actress who was best known for her role as Rachel Zane in the USA Network series Suits from 2011 to 2018."

Is this accepted? She should have the DMY layout despite being an American.

Lastly, tomorrow marks the 21st anniversary of Princess Diana's passing. God rest her soul.

67.81.163.178 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Consensus exists that this article should remain in American style, including English usage and date usage. Safiel (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note Additionally, please refrain from making comments unrelated to improving an article on talk pages. Safiel (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment @Safiel: I agree with the use of American dates but I wonder about the "American-born". This suggests that she is no longer American which is not the case. She may obtain British nationality but it is not automatic and she will have to go through the same long procedures as anyone else. I agree that it should be American and not American-born. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

American or American-born

I changed the lead back to American as per WP:NATIONALITY. American-born is true because she was born in America but misleading because it suggests that she is no longer American. It has been reported that she will be applying for UK citizenship but this is a long process and not automatic. For now she only holds American citizenship and I believe that it is useful to readers to know that one can be a member of the British royal family and not have to become a UK citizen or that it is automatically bestowed when marrying a Prince of the realm. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure that it is misleading certainly "American-born member of the British royal family" reads better than "American member of the British royal family" which could imply that the royal family had an American branch. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: I agree it may read better but it is imprecise and potentially misleading. Bios normally require the person's nationality and in this case the nationality is very important because in certain cases titles cannot be given to non nationals and you would be forgiven in thinking that this was the case with Duchesses. How about "an Americain former actress and member of the British royal family"? This seems to sum up her situation perfectly and reads better I think. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I dont see the problem with "American-born member of the British royal family " and dont find it misleading or imprecise, perhaps see if anybody else has a view on this. MilborneOne (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that position. While it may be true, emphasising her American nationality seems a bit pointy to me. She is clearly heading down the path of becoming a UK citizen. That's her future. We don't need to emphasise her past. HiLo48 (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to do with being pointy but having an article that gives appropriate information in an unambiguous style. The lead is supposed to give clear precise information, American-born does not say what her actual nationality is and that is supposed to be in the lead of bios when we have the information available. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Since the situation is somewhat unusual, would it be an idea to first state that she is is "a member of the British royal family and add the information about her American citizenship in a second sentence? The problem seems to be the interpretation of "American", and this can be resolved by explicitly using the word "citizenship" (or similar)--Boson (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

THat's fine by me it's just the American born bit that bothers me because it gives the impression she is no longer American. This is a phrase that is almost always used in Wikipedia to identify those that were born American but adopted another nationality or citizenship (a quick search here for "American-born" turns up dozens of bios of people in that situation).Dom from Paris (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps something like

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (born Rachel Meghan Markle; August 4, 1981), is a member of the British royal family and a former film and television actress. She was born in the United States. As of December 2017, it was not known if she intends to retain her American citizenship, but she has started the lengthy process of becoming a British citizen.

--Boson (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

References

I don't think we should be saying what is not known but what is known. The person who wrote the BBC piece did not know what she intended to do but that doesn't mean that it was not known (by someone else). How about "... Markle is a member of the British royal family and an American citizen". Someone above suggested we shouldn't emphasise her past so maybe forget the former actress bit. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps useful as a reference here is the lede from Grace Kelly's article. It seems her acting career was a bit more extensive than Markle's so it may not be completely applicable to this context: "Grace Patricia Kelly was an American film actress who became Princess of Monaco after marrying Prince Rainier III in April 1956." I agree that American-born, at least for now, doesn't seem quite right either. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

We should not define her as "an American citizen". She is not notable for having US citizenship. Going into detail about her citizenship in the lead paragraph is also unreasonable. A number of Wikipedians have been trying to sweep this woman's pre-royal life under the carpet, including her career, first marriage, and heritage, as if she had not been notable at all prior to marrying Harry. The suggestion to define her by "her future" because "we don't need to emphasize her past" is an example of that and is very odd too, if I may add. I don't mind defining her as "an American-born member of the British royal family". I think "an American former actor and member of the British royal family" would be a good alternative. Surtsicna (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion is: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (born Rachel Meghan Markle; August 4, 1981), is an American former film and television actress who became a member of the British royal family upon her marriage to Prince Harry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

To me, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me. --Boson (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Great suggestion factual and unambiguous. Works for me. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I've made that change now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox caption

Caption restored. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your edits have been reverted twice, and since you're the person who wants to make a change to the article, you are responsible for bringing the issue to the talk page. The quote that you included in your edit summary says nothing about omitting the year, it just says that one should avoid adding redundant info such as the person's name repeatedly. "March 2018" is not redundant info based on that description, as that's not the title of the infobox and has not been mentioned anywhere else. Keivan.fTalk 17:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC) (Unsolicited 3rd opinion)(Didn't see there was more than 2 editors involved. Dom from Paris (talk)). In most cases there is no need for a caption for infobox images but in this case it may be useful because she became universally known only recently when she married Prince Harry and to be perfectly honest she looks younger in the photo than 37 and the way she is dressed is not what some may expect a "princess" to wear so some may conceivably think it is an older photo. People's faces change with age and her's has and will too so nothing too shocking in giving the date of the photo I think. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC) There were two reverts but one of those was not accompanied by any edit summary or explanation. And you've been reverted four times by two different editors, so I think we can all see who is the more disruptive here. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC) I'm not the one who was trying to remove an existing caption, thus I was not required to discuss it with you. As I explained before, my first edit didn't have a summary because I had not seen your initial edit. By the way, Surtsicna didn't have any strong feelings about either keeping or removing the caption, so I guess it is pretty obvious that if anyone was disruptive here it was you. Keivan.fTalk 02:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Read more carefully. I did not say I wasn't disruptive. I said you were more so. Your failure to acknowledge that you were wrong, as I have done, compounds your error. You accused me of assuming bad faith, but you're doing exactly that. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Sorry but I'm going to jump in again. I do not believe that User:Keivan.f was being disruptive. Your edit Celia, should have really been dealt with as a bold edit, revert and discuss because an image with a caption has been part of this article since May 2014 so instead of reverting again a discussion should have been started to try and gain consensus. Just because a 3rd editor joined in doesn't make the reverts legitimate and constitute consensus. The first time it was noted that the image dated from January 2013 and when it was changed in April 2018 to an image dated March 2018 the caption included this information as well. If there had been no caption on the photo from 2013 a reader in April 2018 could have assumed it was a recent photo as per Celia's edit summary "Unnecessary: readers will assume it is her and a recent picture unless told otherwise." wheras in fact it was over 5 years old. I think this edit summary is a compeling argument for an image caption, people will assume it is a recent photo because they imagine that they are updated regularly but they aren't. How do we decide when a photo is no longer recent and needs a caption to tell us that? I don't think there are any guidelines or MOS that help us there. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC) I already acknowledged that Dom. Stop berating me please. This is beginning to look like harassment, though of course I realise your comments are based on misunderstanding rather than misogyny. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Why on earth would you bring misogyny into the discussion???? Do you know whether I am a man or woman? I don't believe I have mentioned it in this discussion, Keivan f could be a man or a woman I have no idea and I am not interested in checking his user page to find out. You name seems to be a woman's name but you may not be and I couldn't care less. You are accusing Keivan f of disruptive editing because they reinstated a long standing edit that you removed and I am trying to help with a different take on this. I am sorry you feel this is harassment or misogyny on my part but you are so far off track that this ad hominem comment is very displeasing to me and if repeated without proof is a personal attack. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Both you and Keivan have self-identified as male in your user preferences, just as I have self-identified as female. By using the popupShowGender navigation popup, I can see your gender by rolling over your username. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC) I thought you might be a chauvinist because you are mansplaining. You explain to me what I did wrong even though I've already acknowledged it, have stopped editing the article, and have just as much experience and expertise as you do. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Race so important?

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? --T3rminat0r (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@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 SoWhy 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. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• This was previously discussed on this talk page here Note the Britannica source mentioned there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Text needs update

Someone needs to find the sources and update from future tense to past tense the Australia/nz/togo trip. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI @Surtsicna: since you have nominated this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I've finally got to it, 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... Surtsicna (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Can someone also put in which month the baby is expected in I am bone123 (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure we have that information. Surtsicna (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Move moratorium proposal — Adopted through January 5, 2019

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

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. 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. --B dash (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --B dash (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support 6 months per my comment in the move request. — JFG ^talk 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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 08:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support jamacfarlane (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per above and per my comments over there. –Davey2010^Talk 15:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose while the current Rfc is in progress. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• 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. 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 hold back the tide. 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. 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. 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. Opera hat (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support and the RM closer should have been expected to implement this without a vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Red Slash 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. James (^talk/_contribs) 01:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as we aren't a crystal ball and must be responsive to external events such as common name changes. ♫ RichardWeiss talk 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). 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. 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. 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. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per crystal but troutslap anyone who would bring another RM soon without a change in circumstances. 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...Dom from Paris (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. ONR (talk) 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. 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. Qexigator (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose 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. on further consideration 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. 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. Hasteur (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Given the discussion started below it's clear a pause is needed. 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. Keivan.f^Talk 18:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bumping thread for 170 days. Safiel (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Adding bump template sufficient to retain this thread on the talk page until the expiration of the move moratorium described therein. Safiel (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

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." Hattrick (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Hattrick! Do not hesitate to fix such errors yourself. It means a lot. Surtsicna (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Political views

I have added a paragraph about Markle's political views in Meghan, Duchess of Sussex#Politics and public life. Is everyone okay with it? Surtsicna (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi. I'm going to do this review. COI disclaimer: I'm a fan of suits, but I think that's okay --DannyS712 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 00:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Review

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Notes

•  Partly done The "Titles, styles, and arms" has a lot of whitespace when the coat of arms is collapsed. Can we reduce that?

• Can we combine eliminate the collapse of the arms, and combine the two sections. It looks really bare, with just 1.5 lines of text, and then the centered caption

• Yes, I too have noticed that there is still a lot of white space, but I do not know why. Your suggestion seems very reasonable. Surtsicna (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Surtsicna: I noticed you removed the section break, but not the collapsing. Why? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• There was an extensive discussion about the coats of arms and they way they are explained, resulting in the consensus to keep them collapsed. I am afraid I cannot point you to this discussion without spending some time looking it up, but if you check related articles, you will notice it is the standard. We could remove the collapsing, but I am sure doing so would mean stepping on a lot of toes. Surtsicna (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Done The second image ("Markle at a panel discussion of Suits, Paley Center for Media, 2013") - the right side of the image isn't the best quality, with an odd cutoff or something. I'm not a photography person, but can this be improved at all?
•  Done Lede - Sussex on her marriage to - on? shouldn't this be "upon"

Early life (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC))
Done As of 2017, her mother - update  Done that her "dad is Caucasian and my mom is African American. I'm half black - pronoun switch. Introduce with 'that "my..."' or something else  Done a bachelor's degree and a double major in theater the bachelor's degree isn't separate from the double major, maybe "degree, double majoring in" instead

Acting career (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC))
Markle deftly and "actively re-positioned" her character from ingenue to "the show's moral conscience" and gave viewers  Done "deftly" isn't in the article, likely editorializing, suggest removal  Done "ingenue" -> "ingénue"

Personal life (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Done They married in Ocho Rios, Jamaica, - misuse of the verb "to marry", see https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/marry. It should be "They were married"  Request withdrawn His grandmother Elizabeth II is queen - need commas -> "grandmother, Elizabeth II, is"  Done The statement described sexism, racism and defamatory stories directed at her. what does this have to do with anything? unneeded It has to do with the preceding sentence. It may be a good idea to merge the sentences. Surtsicna (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC) @Surtsicna: Then please do so --DannyS712 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Even combined, In November, the British royal family's communications secretary released an official statement that addressed sexism, racism, and defamatory stories directed toward Markle., it still makes little sense. How is this connected to the previous sentence (The couple met on a blind date set up by a mutual friend.) or the next (In September 2017, they appeared together in public for the first time an official royal engagement at the Invictus Games in Toronto, Canada.)? I have rearranged the paragraph so that the sentence comes after He was then fifth in line to the British throne; his grandmother Elizabeth II is queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms, as well as Head of the Commonwealth. It then ties into Harry's background (since it mentions the British royal family for the first time). The entire paragraph is a chronology of their relationship. This statement was the official confirmation of their relationship. Besides, Wikipedia should surely report that the coverage of their relationship was so nasty that it warranted an intervention by the Palace. Surtsicna (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)  Done The ring Harry gave Markle was made by Cleave & Company Ltd, and consists of a large central diamond from Botswana, with two smaller diamonds from the jewellery collection of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales. unneeded trivia

I'm going to stop here. This article needs a general copy edit before I proceed. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Politics and public life (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC))

Done Members of the royal family are politically neutral by convention, and Dickie Arbiter, former press secretary to Prince Charles, expects the Duchess to follow suit. - need a citation for specific claim  Partly done Markle joined Harry for the first time during an official public appearance after their engagement at a walkabout in Nottingham on December 1, 2017,[65][66] in connection with World AIDS Day.[67] - awkward phrasing, especially with the multiple citations in the middle Now its Markle made her first official public appearance with Harry after the engagement at a World AIDS Day walkabout in Nottingham on December 1, 2017. This is better, but still hard to parse. What about "After the engagement, Markle's first official public appearance with Harry was at a World AIDS day..."? Markle joined Harry for the first time during an official public appearance after their engagement at a walkabout in Nottingham on December 1, 2017, in connection with World AIDS Day. In early 2018, she accompanied him on his engagements in Brixton, Cardiff, Goldsmiths' Hall, and Edinburgh. On February 28, the couple attended an official engagement at the first annual forum of The Royal Foundation, "Making a Difference Together". She became the foundation's fourth patron, alongside Harry and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, after her marriage into the royal family. Markle and Harry marked International Women's Day by attending an event in Birmingham hosted by the Stemettes. Along with the Queen and other members of the royal family, she attended the Commonwealth Day service at Westminster Abbey on March 12. The couple made their first visit to Northern Ireland on March 23. Markle carried out a total of 26 public engagements prior to the wedding. The Duchess's first official engagement after the wedding came on May 22 when she and her husband celebrated the charity work of his father, Prince Charles. Her first trip abroad at the request of the British government was to Dublin, Ireland, in July. According to a review in The Irish Times, her visit became a unique national obsession. The Duchess takes part in her husband's work as youth ambassador to the Commonwealth, which includes overseas tours. The first such trip was to Australia, Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand in October 2018. Despite the low support for the monarchy in Australia, the couple were greeted by crowds in Sydney, and the announcement of the Duchess's pregnancy hours after their arrival was received enthusiastically by the public and media. - this is a lot of detail, that I don't think is warranted. Most of the first paragraph is trivia, and the last sentence of the second is likewise not encyclopedic in nature I agree that the first paragraph contains a lot of fluff. We do not need to chronicle every step she makes, and the article should not sound like a diary. That said, I am not sure what exactly to remove and what to retain. Feel free to remove whatever you consider trivial. Could you please explain why you do not consider the last sentence encyclopedic? It summarizes the reports of two reputable sources, and adds context that ensures the paragraph does not sound like a diary entry (they went here, then there, then here...). Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC) @Surtsicna: I think the spacing resulted in us talking about 2 different sentences. I'm referring to According to a review in The Irish Times, her visit became a unique national obsession. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Oh, yes, of course. That sentence is indeed an eyesore. Surtsicna (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Its still a bit long. Can we trim it some more? I've trimmed it some more and it does not seem too long any more. If there still remain sentences that seem unnecessary, please point them out. Surtsicna (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Fashion and style (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Done The lines, based on her personal style, and that of her Suits character, described as "aspirational girl next door", quickly sold out. - I'm a big fan of commas, but this is a lot, making it hard to parse  Done Markle cited Emmanuelle Alt as her style inspiration in 2017. - what about her inspiration in 2016? who was it in 2018? Suggest: "In 2017, Markle..."  Request withdrawn the Duchess appeared in a Karen Gee dress - most of the article, and the section, refers to her as Markle The article refers to her as "Markle" when discussing her life before she became Duchess of Sussex and as "the Duchess" afterwards. Compare with Hillary Clinton and Pope Francis, who are referred to as "Rodham" and "Bergoglio" where appropriate. Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Charity work (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ssuggest shortening a bit, the 4th paragraph is fine, but the first 3 are really specific. Maybe just touch on the highlights? Eg "In 2016, after a trip to India focused on raising awareness for women's issues, Markle wrote an op-ed for Time magazine concerning stigmatization of women in regard to menstrual health." We don't need to know about every trip she made... Agreed! Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC) @Surtsicna: Okay. Its not a big deal --DannyS712 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Its still a bit long. Can we cut it down some more? Yes, of course. I've trimmed it down a bit more. Surtsicna (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC) Done, I think. Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC) likely to use her role as a member of the royal family to continue - potential WP:CRYSTAL violation. Also, can you rephrase the 4th paragraph. Looking over it now, it sounds off. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC) That has been pretty much announced by the Palace via the official website. The only thing I would change about that sentence is replace "likely to" with "will". The fourth paragraph is a recent addition; I've removed the fluff. Surtsicna (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ancestry (all done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC))

Request withdrawn On her mother's side, the Duchess of Sussex - she is referred to as Markle in the rest of the article Explained above. Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC) @Surtsicna: But ancestry doesn't change - it was the same before she got married, whereas her appearance in the dress was only after the marriage. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC) That is true. One could argue, however, that her ancestry is only noteworthy because she is now Duchess of Sussex, i.e. a member of the British royal family. That is why we have an article called Family of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Surtsicna (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Request withdrawn Filmography section - given that a lot of this is covered in the prose, could we have this be a separate article and just a short summary here? The tables stand out, in part because they are narrow, and in part because its just a list (like other filmography sections, but see Sean Connery#Filmography for precedent (you would want to add a summary though)

• Do you think there is enough for a new article? Her filmography is not nearly as extensive as Connery's and is unlikely to expand. Surtsicna (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Surtsicna: If its not, then idk... maybe put the tables side by side, move the prose about her acting work to that section, and collapse the tables by default? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Moving the prose so far down would not work because the chronology would become messed up. Her acting career should not come after her royal marriage. I do not think putting the tables side by side is possible, but I am no expert. Surtsicna (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Surtsicna: It should be. See Help:Table#Positioning. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• DannyS712, it won't work for me. I thought it might be due to the width of the first table, but fiddling with that did not help either. Surtsicna (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: please see the rest of the review. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please note here when you have fixed the issues noted above, and once I confirm that I will strike them. Please do not just remove them yourself. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, DannyS712. I have addressed all the issues. The article was copy-edited by Twofingered Typist on 3 August 2018. Surtsicna (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Can you continue the copy edit beyond where I stopped. Its not very efficient for my notes to focus on grammatical or spelling errors, etc, but they do need to get fixed --DannyS712 (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree with all of your grammar and spelling concerns. For example, "on marriage" is fine, though I have replaced it with "upon marriage". There should be no commas before and after the name of Harry's grandmother because she is not his only grandmother. I do believe Twofingered Typist did a good job copy-editing the article. Surtsicna (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: That copy edit was months ago. a lot has changed. My point is just that it should be copy edited beyond the last note I gave. We may disagree on "on marriage" or commas, so I'm just requesting that you copy edit the rest of the article so I don't have to point out every time I think something is wrong, because I'll know that it was an intentional choice. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist informed me today that she or he copy-edited the article again. Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Please see the updated notes DannyS712 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Any update? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I sent a message to you on 7 January. It seems you did not see it. Surtsicna (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I saw that edit on my watchlist, but there is still other stuff left I thought you were still working on it. In the future please ping me when you have responded to all of the remaining notes, so that I know to check back. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Please see update review --DannyS712 (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I think its just the one charity work section left. Fix that, then I'll reread it all, and hopefully pass it! --DannyS712 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: I'm going to reread it soon --DannyS712 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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? I am bone123 (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The palace hasn't announced a specific month yet, only saying the child is expected in spring 2019. ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Misnamed

This page is misnamed: unless the subject is divorced or succeeded she is THE Duchess of Sussex or even possibly Princess Henry of Wales. Not until After a divorce or her death will she become Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Giano (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

RM

Apparently there is/was a move moratorium. Where did that get archived to? Agathoclea (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It was archived yesterday: [8][9] But we couldn't see it because of this. Corrected now. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• The move moratorium expired on January 5, 2019. Safiel (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Photo

The current infobox photo is dated and a profile or side shot (not looking into the camera). In contrast, this free photo is current and offers a front view looking into the camera:

• • https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_calls_and_evening_reception_for_Duchess_of_Sussex_(1)_(cropped).jpg

I would like to replace the side shot image with the front view image in the infobox. Rather than begin an edit war, I'm posting here to talk first. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Dated? It has not even been a year since it was taken. She has not changed much, if at all. Surtsicna (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The current image obviously isn't dated. Both images are from 2018. She's wearing a poppy in the evening reception one, which does seem dated to me. Ordinarily, you would never see someone wearing a poppy like that outside the first two weeks of November; it's a clearly a Remembrance Day event. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Then by this logic, no one will object if I change the caption of the image currently in the inbox from “Markle in 2018” to “The Duchess in 2018”?

• • https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meghan_Markle_-_2018_(cropped).jpg

Thus, this article will be in sync with: Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (infobox: The Duchess in 2014) or Sophie, Countess of Wessex (infobox: The Countess in 2018) or Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (inbox: The Duchess of Cornwall in April 2014) etc. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I will object. She was not a duchess at the time and there is no reason to force uniformity, especially when it is at the expense of accuracy, grammar, orthography, and style. Surtsicna (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so it sounds like the current photo is dated. Fair enough. Thus I propose using the photo I suggested instead:

• • https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_calls_and_evening_reception_for_Duchess_of_Sussex_(1)_(cropped).jpg

which accurately depicts her as “The Duchess in 2018”. This would put this article in sync with : Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (infobox: The Duchess in :::2014) or Sophie, Countess of Wessex (infobox: The Countess in 2018) or Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall (inbox: The Duchess of Cornwall in April 2014) etc. :::This photo is free to use, a head shot looking directly at the camera, and accurately depicts the subject. I'm not sure I understand the objection to using it. -:::Classicfilms (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not dated. Two users have told you this. A woman does not Pokemon-style evolve into another being when she marries, regardless of whom she has marries. She is the same person now as she was a year ago and looks basically the same. Images are not chosen based on the subject's marital status. The photograph you suggest is pixelated. There are better photographs of her taken in New Zealand, but I am not sure any of them beats the quality of the March 2018 photograph. And once again, I object to pointlessly enforcing uniformity in even the smallest matters, such as caption wording. Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The current photo is better quality. And agreed with above regarding caption. It's made clear throughout the entire article that she is now The Duchess of Sussex. We don't need to overdo it. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok Willthacheerleader18, fair enough. I appreciate your insight. One possibility would be to simply remove captions such as in these articles: Hillary Clinton rather than Hillary Rodham and Michelle Obama rather than Michelle Robinson- which would end the discussions of consistency in these articles- but that was not the point I had originally raised. I appreciate your argument about photo quality-thanks for answering my question. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course! I wouldn't be opposed to the caption simply saying "Meghan", but I do think "Markle" is more suitable in this situation. If there is a better quality photo taken of her after her marriage that replaces this one, then I would move for the caption to say "The Duchess" or "The Duchess of Sussex". -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you Willthacheerleader18 on all of your points above. Thanks for the feedback! -Classicfilms (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hospital

Please let us not clutter the article with unnecessary detail. The name of the hospital in which she was born, the exact time of birth, and length and weight at birth are not standard biographical information. Surtsicna (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Adding the detail of her birth place the reason is the royal families number is always show the birth place of them in Wikipedia inbox, for example of her husband Prince harry is have writing his birth place inside the main inbox of life and his grew background in the article, We can see the royal family biography in Wikipedia to helping to adding to adding her detail of birthplace in the article! Thanks Geoffreyrabbit(talk) 17:51 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Let us not clutter the article with unnecessary detail. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • And who determines that is unnecessary? Dimadick (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Those who reach a local consensus at an article Talk page? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Kate has the hospital included, as have both Sophie and Fergie? But including birth length and weight seems well over the top. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I saw the royal family number is write the birth place in the background for youth age, but I think just use time and date of birth and birth place in generally in article, I think no need to added about length and weight is only detailed in the article, Just keep the birth date and birth place in enough for simply recommend for birth. Geoffreyrabbit(talk) 14:17 19 February 2019

Fake Pregnancy - notable?

Do you think we should we be including that there are theories that her pregnancy is fake?

See here:

Dark theory surrounding Meghan Markle's pregnancy - https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12219212

People are STILL accusing Meghan Markle of faking her pregnancy - https://www.her.ie/celeb/people-are-still-accusing-meghan-markle-of-faking-her-pregnancy-446931

The Bizarre Cult of Meghan Markle Pregnancy Truthers - https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-bizarre-cult-of-meghan-markle-pregnancy-truthers

Trolls target Meghan over ‘fake’ pregnancy - https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/trolls-target-meghan-over-fake-pregnancy/news-story/239c926934a2fa768568723077c5cae2

Meghan Markle baby FURY: Horror as trolls STILL claim Meghan's pregnancy is 'fake' - https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1111104/meghan-markle-baby-fake-pregnancy-prince-harry-trolls-twitter-instagram-royal-news

This seems notable and has a lot of coverage...

Thanks for starting a discussion. I say no to including this information. The headlines make it clear these are trolling theories, not serious accusations based on reliable evidence. We shouldn't give more attention to these trolling effort by placing them in the article. If Meghan responds, I might reconsider. Knope7 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed this is an encyclopaedia not a conspiracy blog. Facts matter. This stuff is nonsense Garlicplanting (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The Tig

Just a suggestion: Might want to mention the etymology of her blog, Tignanello (wine), with a link to said article. Also, the only edits I intend to ever do to this page will be in relation to the archiving of references via the wayback machine. Archiving is really the only interest I have in this article. I'm not interested in edit wars. If you don't like my edit, you win. I only care about archiving the references, and we are far from archiving all of them. That's all. Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2019

I suggest to remove the sentence 'From 2011 until their divorce in 2013, Markle was married to actor and producer Trevor Engelson.' from the introduction. Because it is not that characteristic, when the duchess is described, to mention it in the introduction. Furthermore it is clearly described later in the article. 129.125.156.48 (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: For another woman's bio, perhaps not, but for a member of the House of Windsor, it still rather matters encyclopedically, see [10] "divorced American actress" (compare Duchess of Windsor), see also, lead to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2019

Change RETIRED to FORMER. Retired is not accurate or correct. Another option is to use neither retired nor formal. Abthc (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Why isn't it correct? She no longer works as an actress. NiciVampireHeart 15:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2019

Instead of “American former actress” it should be “retired American actress” since she is retired from acting 71.224.226.127 (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've switched it to "American retired actress". She didn't retire from being an American. NiciVampireHeart 06:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Unemployed

Tirelessly accompanying Prince Harry as they perform work on behalf of Her Majesty, supporting several charities is not "unemployed". You would tell label a woman who volunteers all day merely "unemployed". And she does far more than that. I think it's disgraceful.

Where does the article say that she is "unemployed"? Surtsicna (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, it used to say that for about 40 minutes today. Surtsicna (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Mixed date formats

This being a British topic, shouldn't 6 May 2019 be the format instead of May 6, 2019? I don't want to go fixing a bunch of dates if it's not the right thing to do.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how it's distinctly a British topic. She is American, and American English had been used in the article for a decade before she moved to the UK. Surtsicna (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Surtsicna. While she is a member of the British royal family, she is still an American citizen. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please remember that the Duchess of Sussex has Dual Citizenship - she is a Citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irleand, and is also a baptised and confirmed member of the Church of England.Ds1994 (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No She has not gained UK citizenship (yet) Garlicplanting (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Then what should the date format be? It looks sloppy to mix them.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I think they should stay in the American format. Although I personally prefer European style, this seems most suitable for the article at this time. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree. As the subject has strong national ties to both the US and the UK, we should retain the predominant style the article has historically used (American English, as Surtsicna points out), per MOS:DATERET. clpo13_(talk) 20:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the template on the article page, this article uses "mdy dates", which makes sense for an American English article. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Namedropping of 13th century people

Namedropping alleged 13th century royal ancestors, even stating it as if it were an absolute certainty, is usually the first thing people who are entirely unfamiliar with genealogy do. In reality such claims are highly problematic:

• Every living European has royal ancestors in the middle ages; it's nothing special. In fact, "anyone alive 1,000 years ago who left any descendants will be an ancestor of every European."[11]
• The further back you go, the harder it will be to prove a specific connection, and most claims of royal ancestry in the middle ages are based on conjecture, often by amateurs and hobby genealogists, and is by definition a low quality piece of information that is dubious at best. A claim of descent from a 13th century person shouldn't be stated as an absolute certainty. It's a claim that is rife with uncertainty.
• Another complicating factor is the "paternal discrepancy rate", so a line of descent from a royal man over nearly a millennium is inherently dubious even when based on official descent (which is itself usually quite dubious in such cases).
• Also, the further back you go, the less relevant the ancestor is for a person alive today. How on earth did the alleged descent from Robert the Bruce impact Thomas Markle, his children or the hundreds of millions of other people who are likely also descended from him? They didn't know him, he didn't pass on anything to them – whether property, social status or family traditions.

I think we would need extraordinarily good reasons to mention an alleged 13th century ancestor in the biography of any person alive today. In most cases such claims are just highly dubious trivia. In Europe "official" genealogy can generally typically be traced back to the 16th or 17th centuries (sometimes not even that), while ancestry before that is rarely reliable. In an article on a living person we should limit ourselves to mention ancestors that are somehow relevant for the subject of the article. As a rule of thumb, people who lived more than 200 years ago (which is often the maximum timespan of a family's oral traditions) rarely have any direct relevance for the article subject, unless the article subject inherited some title or property from them. --Tataral (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree. Let's drop these claims. — JFG ^talk 22:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree too. For years I have been resisting attempts to elaborate on Markle's completely ordinary ancestry. bUt PeOPle ARe iNTeresTED. People are interested in all sorts of non-encyclopedic stuff, such as what she eats for breakfast or her fitness regime.[12] I have already tried to explain that virtually everyone with any English heritage is descended from Edward III. Tataral, I believe we should always limit ourselves to mentioning only those ancestors that are directly relevant to for the subject of the article. Unfortunately, and despite a very clearly and aptly named WP:NOTGENEALOGY, namedropping is widespread and commonly occurs in the form of Template:Ahnentafel. Over the years it has acquired an informal but efficient immunity against any verifiability and relevance concerns. Surtsicna (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear from the above discussion that we also don't need details on whether one of her ancestors, a relatively unknown person born in 1599 with a short stub article only in the English language Wikipedia, was "a founding father of Nantucket" (which turned out to be a small village with a population of 10,000). Even if he did (dubious; he was just one of the first several people who lived there), it wouldn't have any direct relevance for her. She doesn't have any connection to Nantucket that justifies mentioning Nantucket prominently in her family section. --Tataral (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hussey NEVER lived at Nantucket - he co-founded it. Hussey was best known as a Governor of The Royal Province of Hampton. We might add this position that he held - he was appointed by King James - rather than the ref to Nantucket. At ant rate - Hussey is indeed an important historical figure. Srbernadette (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It's clear there is no consensus here for that content to be included. By repeatedly restoring it, you appear to edit warring, which can lead to your account being blocked. Please wait for a consensus to develop supporting your position on the Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Nantucket, Hussey and King James have nothing to do with Meghan Markle. It doesn't matter whether he co-founded Nantucket in the 17th century. This is the article about a person in the 21st century. A section about her background and education shouldn't be dominated by irrelevant material about someone co-founding Nantucket (population: 10,000) four centuries ago. --Tataral (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

the article is certainly NOT "dominated" by this ancestral fact. Please see all of the other current (HRH) Royal Family members' pages. ThanksSrbernadette (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Who cares about what other articles include? This article did not reach Good Article status by dropping names of random 16th century people. Take it to Family of the Duchess of Sussex or wherever. Surtsicna (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2019

Meghan is not a princess, she is a duchess. Harry is a prince because he is a direct descendant of the queen. Meghan can only become a princess if a monarch bestows the gift on her or she is married to the king. 79.69.15.48 (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Meghan's occupation was "Princess of the United Kingdom" on her son's birth certificate. aboideau^talk 17:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Authored Articles

Does writing a forward for a charity's annual report really belong in the Authored Articles section? I would think this list should be more the notable things she has written, not everything she has ever written. Because she will undoubtedly write a lot of little blurbs for her charities over the years. But I didn't want to just take it off without asking. Arg Matey (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

American people of African descent

Add category "American people of African descent". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.82.238 (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

And also add category "American people of European descent" as well HardeeHar (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

American princesses category

So someone added the Category:American princesses, because she was (still is and in some ways will always be) an American who became a princess. Now that was removed for the odd reason that the category implies she is a princess of America, which is just not true, there are no princesses of America but there are American princesses. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Willthacheerleader18 reverted the addition of the category in Grace Kelly, so it appears that I am not the only one who believes that the category implies the existence of US royalty. Describing Meghan Markle as an American princess is about as misleading as it would be to describe Henry Kissinger as a German politician - despite him being a German who became a politician. Surtsicna (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

She is an American person and a British princess. Not an American princess. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Much like she is not a British actress. Surtsicna (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Simply none of these arguments the two of you are making, make any sense as long as the category exists. You may personally abhor a world that talks about American princesses but categories exist precisely because people want help in finding the commonality of the category. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I created the category under that name because I thought it would be obvious there were no princesses of America, but I appreciate that the title could be seen as ambiguous. The discussion should now be at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 29#Category:American princesses. Opera hat (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

She identifies as a dutchess HardeeHar (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

She is not a Princess. Just as Kate is not a Princess, nor is Sophie a Princess, nor was Sarah (Fergie) a Princess. Before Yanks start commenting on our society structure, could they possible study and learn about it rather than plastering Disney labels across articles? LeapUK (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

They are all princesses. In your society structure, a wife always shares the title and rank of her husband. A baron is married to a baroness, a viscount to a viscountess, an earl to a countess, a marquess to a marchioness, a duke to a duchess, a king to a queen, and, yes, a prince to a princess. The birth certificates signed by princes of the United Kingdom describe their wives explicitly as princesses of the United Kingdom. And now you may leap off with that condescending, chauvinist remark. Surtsicna (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)