Talk:Rachel Johnson

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Oxford Low‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"Rachel Johnson in the grip of Wikipedia's 'Orange Mike'". London Evening Standard. 13 May 2013.

File nominated for deletion on commons[edit]

file=c:File:Rachel-Johnson-01-1.jpg|patten=No permission indicated subpage=

Message automatically deposited by a robot on 07:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harideepan (talk • contribs)

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

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

Rachel Johnson.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Meghan Markel[edit]

I don’t understand why her article from 2016 is deemed irrelevant by the wikipolice. In it in she suggested Meghan Markle was not the right wife for Prince Harry. In the Mail on Sunday, she wrote that if the couple had children, “the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA”.^[1] TimMonksfiekd (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of what it says. That doesn't make this particular article significant. Why do you think this is the example of her style that most warrants inclusion, over quoting any other article she's written? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to other articles being quoted. But this is an example of her attitude, a can’t give a monkeys about the person I’m talking about as long as I can turn a good line, and patronising superiority. It has also been cited as an example of the media that has led to the Sussexes downsizing their Royal commitments. In all, pretty significant. TimMonksfiekd (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cited by what source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/09/hes-very-tortured-prince-harrys-growing-anger-at-the-press TimMonksfiekd (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Johnson, Rachel (2016-11-06). "RACHEL JOHNSON: Sorry Harry, but she has failed my Mum Test". Mail Online. Retrieved 2020-01-10.

[1] Johnson, Rachel (2016-11-06). "RACHEL JOHNSON: Sorry Harry, but she has failed my Mum Test". Mail Online. Retrieved 2020-01-10.

[1]