Talk:Oprah with Meghan and Harry

Stray ampersand

I've redirected Oprah with Meghan & Harry here as I've noticed it floating around semi-official interweb places. Move if it becomes standard. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Context

@User:Sampajanna Hi! I noticed you trimmed some of my additions from yesterday, and I just wanted to point something out. Personally, the media speculation can come and go, but the Times report in particular expressly mentions in its opening line that "Royal aids have hit back at the Duchess of Sussex before her television interview with Oprah Winfrey.." whether this is true or not, is obviously unknown, but it still serves for the background and context, in my opinion, against which the interview will be aired. The timing has also been noted by other publications. --Bettydaisies (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@User:Bettydaisies It will all be past history in a number of days, so let's stick to facts. Sampajanna (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The Times article reflects the general belief of British media that the two sides are parrying in a crowded media landscape ahead of the airing of the programme, and should be put into such a context, and included in this article. A similar situation is reflected in the article about the 1994 interview with Harry's father. These interviews do not come out of the ether. In my opinion there are no real facts on Wikipedia, our prose is the string around the flowers of others. No Swan So Fine (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

If such principles were applied, the Corden interview needn't be included either; my opinion is that since reporting The Times article framed itself specifically around the interview, as have numerous media outlets, it's valid for historical context and commentary.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@User:Bettydaisies The broadcast is scheduled for tomorrow. No doubt, there will be more edits and reviews afterwards. Sampajanna (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I've contextualised the media run-up to the interview, the section would have appeared sanitised to a casual reader. No Swan So Fine (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection of article

@User:DrKay Semi-protection of this Oprah with Meghan and Harry article may help against possible vandalism in relation to broadcast of TV interview on 7 March 2021. Sampajanna (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Good source to start updating the article with

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/harry-meghan-oprah-interview/ SecretName101 (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@User:SecretName101 Please carefully read what you write before posting. For example, "Harry and Meghan announced that the child she is expecting will be a baby girl, and that their due date would be Valentine's Day of 2021." Valentine's day 2021 was last month. Sampajanna (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: I would have had time to review my edits if I wasn't rushed to publish by someone repeatedly stepping on my toes, ignoring the "in use" tag completely. SecretName101 (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: You did notice that there was a giant tag atop the article reading "please do not edit this page while this message is displayed", didn't you? Why'd you ignore it completely? Because before I had made that mistake, you had already made seven or eight edits while that tag was in place. You can see why I'd be rushed to post my edits, before another edit conflict complicated my ability to post them. SecretName101 (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@User:SecretName101 : Again, please carefully read what you write before posting and accept responsibility thereafter. Sampajanna (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: Wow, way to not own up to your total disregard for a tag warning you not to make intervening edits. That's the reason people put those tags in place. Otherwise they'll be rushed you make their edits quickly to decrease the odds of coming across and edit conflict. SecretName101 (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@User:SecretName101 You were asked in the edit summary an hour ago: "To avoid an edit war, please take this to talk." Sampajanna (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: I'm sorry, again, but was that about the error I made because you were rushing me by ignoring the tag? Pretty sure it was. Was it not? SecretName101 (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@User:SecretName101 : Please click and carefully read this WP:OWN. Then, check Oprah with Meghan and Harry Revision history at 03:45, 8 March 2021‎ for yourself ... Sampajanna (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: This is not WP:OWN. This is an incident in which you would not grant me 15 or so minutes to make the needed major edit I was in the process of executing SecretName101 (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@User:SecretName101 Ask yourself: Why is this bothering you so much? Beyond that, I have nothing further to add. Sampajanna (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: FYI, prematurely marking a discussion "closed" so that you can have the last word is bad practice friend. You are rather shameless. SecretName101 (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Discussion reopened to appease User:SecretName101 / No furher comment as already stated .Sampajanna (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Some good sources/source

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/07/world/meghan-harry-oprah-interview SecretName101 (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

How can any of the sources really be reliable when as this is a contemporary still developing topic, when all of the sources are news publications which have some element of bias. Lady Rose MacClare (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lady Rose MacClare: "Political bias has been a feature of the mass media since its birth following the invention of the printing press." Sampajanna (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: "How can we be writing about this interview neutrally with good sources if they all have a bias." Lady Rose MacClare (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2021

@Lady Rose MacClare: The reports tend to become more neutral as the event becomes more distant in time. Have a look at "Daily pageviews of this article" further up the page you are currently reading. They seemed to have peaked at 50,000 on March 8 / 9. However, two weeks later, they are way back down to the level of the immediate promotional buildup period. Sampajanna (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Running time

According to the episode's page on CBS' official website, the actual running time of the special is 86 minutes. the ITV showing in the UK is also only 110 minutes long... thoughts? @Sampajanna: - Peterpie123rww (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Peterpie123rww: I haven't watched or timed it. However, the 120 minutes may be allowing for advertisements. Otherwise, Oprah is scheduled to join CBS This Morning on March 8 to unveil footage from the interview that was not included in the special. Sampajanna (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

CBS This Morning

@Sampajanna:, @Bettydaisies: Hi. I just wanted to see if you guys have added info from the CBS This Morning footage to the article. It's really hard to keep track of the edits on the page's history, so I decided to ask directly about it. Keivan.f^Talk 17:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Go for it Sampajanna (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: Done. Feel free to make modifications. It's missing the part in which she talks about her own family, though I don't have enough time to add it now. I can add it later today or you can add it yourself if you wish. Keivan.f^Talk 17:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: There is sure to be more edits generally by others after the British view the program. Sampajanna (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, especially on the reception part. Keivan.f^Talk 18:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Contextualizing the couple's claims

This is an inevitable minefield, but as coverage and discussion of this interview in reliable sources increases it will be important for this article to present the couple's statements in the context being provided by third-party commentators now writing about them. At present, the Content section properly attributes their statements to them rather than stating them as undisputed fact, but there are some glaring issues that immediately stand out and probably need contextualizing in the text of the article itself:

• The suggestion that
  • their son Archie was not made a prince for reasons of racial prejudice,
  • the raising of this possibility in connection with the report of a member of the royal family speculating before he was born about how he would look,
  • or just the claim that his not being made a prince is somehow exceptional,
  • or that he was pre-emptively stripped of a status he would otherwise have been entitled to.

  The relevant context here is firstly that great-grandchildren of the monarch, except the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, are not princes under existing letters patent. And further that it was reported at the time of his birth that Archie's parents didn't want him to have a title. And further still that he could probably be known by a courtesy title like Earl of Dumbarton, and if so this wouldn't have required any action by the queen, unlike the granting of the title of prince. (The situation is not quite clear-cut for reasons discussed at Talk:Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, specifically that some might have expected the queen to make an individual grant in this case.)

• The claim that Meghan did not know people being introduced to the queen are expected to curtsey, when she was already dating a member of the royal family, one of the most noticeable aspects of whose protocol is the practice of bowing and curtseying.
• The claim that Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge did not face similar opprobrium to Meghan because her wedding to Prince William occurred before the era of social media, when that wedding occurred in 2011, very much in the era of social media.
• The unqualified statement in the article It was revealed that the couple had secretly wed in a private ceremony in 2018, three days prior to their public ceremony. Although sourced, this is patently untrue, because such a wedding would not have been lawful, as anyone in the UK with basic general knowledge could tell you. This is an exception to what I said above about how we at least attribute claims to the couple. Here we just state something as fact that cannot be true.

That's enough for now but there are surely others. I don't know quite how we handle this. I suspect even the listing of the above will make people think I have some partisan interest one way or the other, when I am really only interested in the encyclopedia advancing readers' understanding as far as it can. At present we have a situation where an interviewer offered a platform to a couple to make various claims, some of which may be questionable and some of which don't stand up at all, and this article just reproduces those claims without the proper context offered by subsequent commentary about them. Beorhtwulf (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Having watched the entire interview from the perspective of an American who is not deeply interested in British royalty, here are my responses to your points.

• There was no flat assertion that the baby was not made a prince because of racial prejudice, and both repeatedly said that their main complaint was the denial of a security detail especially at a time when they felt very insecure. They went back to this point over and over again.
• Yes, they discussed the conversations about skin color but I do not recall them making a direct connection to the denial of a title.
• There were no claims that not being made a prince was exceptional.
• Social media is vastly more intense and pervasive now than ten years ago.
• It is impossible to overstate how ridiculous the vast majority of Americans think curtseying is, and how little most of us know about it, other than it exists.
• No claim was made that the private ceremony was legal, and the legality was not mentioned at all. People have private ceremonies without formal legal status all the time.

So, that's my view from California. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll avoid a point-by-point because if we go down that route the discussion could easily turn into a debate about the topic rather than the article. I can't resist stating for the record though that I also find curtseying ridiculous (not to mention demeaning) in case anything I said sounded like an effort to defend the institution of the monarchy and its odd ways. The point I was making was that if you were dating a member of the royal family, you would probably notice fairly quickly that people bowed and curtseyed around them, wherever in the world you had spent your life until that point, and however ridiculous or objectionable you found the practice. My reason for starting this talk page section can be summed up as follows: if Prince Harry had said the moon was made of cheese, and Oprah Winfrey had smiled and nodded, would we want Wikipedia to say it was revealed during the interview that the moon is made of cheese? That's a reductio ad absurdum of the way the article currently reads. Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beorhtwulf: You are absolutely right about the part in the article in which her son's lack of title was attributed to his mother's ethnicity. I actually had to fix that because she never said such a thing in the interview anyway. Though she wouldn't have complained about it, had her husband told her about letters patent that determine the status of family members. I added a footnote at the end of this part to show that her claims about her son being "refused" a title do not necessarily have a solid basis. I'd also suggest we keep the part on curtsying. She could have been naive and not so many people actually know how to do it properly anyway. Also, the article does not suggest that social media did not exist back in 2011. It was just not as developed as it is today and didn't have its current form. Regarding their claim of a private marriage ceremony, we just have to take their word for it. It's not a scientific discovery that would need approval by a community of experts. It's a detail about their personal life which they have decided to reveal and no one can dispute it to be honest. Nevertheless, I changed the phrase "secretly wed" to "had a private exchange of vows". That eliminates the issue of legality to some extent. Keivan.f^Talk 07:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how the royal family was somehow prevented from giving Archie some sort of royal distinction that would have included a security squad, if they had wanted to. But the royal family freely chose to deprive this sweet little boy of the modicum of safety that he deserves for being born into this fabulously wealthy dysfunctional family that attracts the attention of dangerous and crazy people. That's my main takeaway from the interview, and I hope that simple fact is reflected in the article going forward, since I consider that the predominant theme of the interview. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, the part on the child's security is included. However, Meghan's concerns were presumably about his future as an adult not as an infant. Obviously when his parents were working royals they had round the clock security and so did their dependents, in this case their son. And as a male-line grandchild of a future monarch, he was likely to become a prince upon Charles's ascension and get a security squad of his own but that went down the drain when his parents stepped away. Nevertheless, there are other members of the family who don't have titles and do not require constant protection, including Prince Edward and Princess Anne's children. As a person set to become a private citizen, Archie's path will be similar to theirs eventually. Keivan.f^Talk 08:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

To anyone who watched the entire interview as I did, the assertion However, Meghan's concerns were presumably about his future as an adult not as an infant is obviously false since the couple made it crystal clear that their security concerns are about now. Tyler Perry provided security protection in 2020, not 2036. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You’re talking about security after moving to the US. Meghan claimed that she was told when she was pregnant that her child would not be offered security. That is false, considering that they had round the clock security while working for the firm. The issue of whether or not they should have been given security after moving to another country is another matter that is up for debate. Though as you said, one would presume that the royal family would have at least contributed to some extent, using their own private wealth and not the taxpayers money. Keivan.f^Talk 10:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

If someone wants to start a neutral "veracity of claims" section, that'd be fine. But what was said is what was said. And anything important said belongs in the "content" section. SecretName101 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I started such a section, but it could use expansion. SecretName101 (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Running time and edits

The article states the running time as 120 minutes, evidently in reference to the original US broadcast. Is this excluding commercial breaks? ITV have scheduled 110 minutes for the UK broadcast. Does this mean the UK version is actually shorter due to edits, or is this a reflection of different amounts of time spent in commercials? I would suggest the running time should reflect the combined duration of the full-length broadcast excluding commercial breaks, not the full duration of the broadcast slot with breaks included. Beorhtwulf (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I watched the show from beginning to end in the United States. It ran two hours including regular commercial breaks so the actual content was much less than 120 minutes. Oprah said the whole interview was about 3-1/2 hours, so "more to come" perhaps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

By coincidence, I just saw a clip of Oprah's statement on this five minutes ago. She said that the original interview was three hours and 20 minutes, and that it had been edited down to one hour and 25 minutes. So, 35 minutes of commercials in the U.S. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That's correct. The whole interview was an hour and 25 minutes (the one broadcast on March 7, excluding the extra footage). I changed the running time to 85 min in the infobox. Keivan.f^Talk 07:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sampajanna removal of information under the claim of WP:Advocacy

@Sampajanna: You removed information citing WP:Advocacy. When does adding factual information and context to an article equate to "activism"? SecretName101 (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: When your recent pattern of posting in relation to racism is clearly anti-British. Sampajanna (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy.

Example 1: Veracity of claims

User:SecretName101

Meghan stated that, when she was pregnant, officials told her that they did not want her child to be a prince, and that her child would not be titled "the same way that other grandchildren would be". Archie did not receive use of a courtesy title at birth. At the time of their son Archie's birth, it was originally reported that it had been Meghan and Harry's decision not to have him use a courtesy title. Rules established by King George V in 1917 limited the "prince" or "princess" titles for children of the monarch, grandchildren of the monarch in the male line, and the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. If Harry's father, Charles, ascends to the throne (he is the heir apparent), Archie would conventionally be entitled to the title of prince, as he would then be the grandson of the monarch. Harry's brother William's eldest son, Prince George of Cambridge, was granted the title of "prince" because he is directly in line for the throne, but in 2012, the Queen issued her own decree that all children of William's would get titles of prince and princess. She did not make any similar decree to grant Archie such a title.

References

Example 2:

User:SecretName101

British tabloids, whose practices were heavily criticized in the interview, were negative in their coverage of the interview. The United States media reacted generally favorably towards the interivew.

@SecretName101: Note very carefully the countries that these reporters are in and their target audiences. Sampajanna (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

References

You are being obscene. I have no agenda against Great Britain in my editing. Facts are facts are facts. There is no anti-British slant there. SecretName101 (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: Obscene? I just noticed your comment here. Are you (still) doing any paid work relating to Wikipedia? Sampajanna (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: No. Years ago I had an internship with a historical society, who asked if I could help them by making a town's articles more historically accurate. So you can _____-off with making whatever kind of an insulting insinuation you are trying to make. And since you are making insinuations about me, I have half the mind to accuse you of a clear pro-British bias (since you are looking on my user page, I'd like to point out that your user page alone demonstrates clear anglophilic leanings) SecretName101 (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: QUOTE SecretName101 : "So you can _____-off" ??? The matter has been resolved with the assistance of other editors, particularly User:Keivan.f. Thanks. Sampajanna (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: Of all my 11 years on English Wikipedia (with 60,000+ edits on this project alone; over 825,000 on all Wikimedia projects) you are proving to be the most abrasive editor I have encountered on English Wikipedia. Shame on you. SecretName101 (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: Are you okay? Sampajanna (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This user believes that a user's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions to Wikipedia.

@Sampajanna: Again, another rude, condescending comment. You have, in the past day or so, wrongly accused me of WP:OWN and WP:Advocacy, when in fact it seems you are the one violating both (you are accusing the other side of what you are guilty). You have severely flouted rules and principles regarding reverts (doing WAY to many of them, and many which were completely wrong to have executed regardless). You have made rude and uncalled for insinuations towards other editors. Your conduct here may be strong grounds for discipline. I would tread lightly and conduct myself more professionally if I were you. SecretName101 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: Please read this very carefully. The matter under discussion was resolved over forty minutes ago (see below).

@Sampajanna: What is not resolved is that you provided no proper apology or justification for your edit warring/removal of content, nor the awful manner in which you have conducted yourself in the comments section. SecretName101 (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely concur with @SecretName101:. If you examine the statistics of this article, @Sampajanna: has at present made 54%(!) of the edits yet contributed less than 8% of the text.[1] Their constant incivility and insinuations on this talk page is deeply regrettable as well. Please, Sampajanna, try and exercise some restraint, perhaps edit sections of the article in your sandbox to gauge grammatical and prose changes etc. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:No Swan So Fine Thanks for sharing your opinions. Data is not so much like gold as it is more like manure, and copious amounts of text dumped on pages in bulk by editors with differing skillsets require an extensive amount of editing. In this case, Oprah with Meghan and Harry, there has been excellent collaborative progress made over the first day or so to get where we all are now. You would well know that, once started, an article can be changed at any time. Therefore, smaller contributions and edits make it simpler for everyone to correct and follow. And, in the end, hopefully less tears flow. Sampajanna (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

To continue the excellent progress and prevent further tears flowing, could you please apologise to SecretName101 for your incivility towards them earlier? No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No Swan So Fine Very droll. Sampajanna (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Separately from the (?) debate occurring above, I don't think its unencyclopedic to include reports on the context of the claims if they're being made in reliable sources.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Bettydaisies : India, Ireland and Scotland are heavily and historically biased against England and the Monarchy under any circumstances. These are not reliable sources. Sampajanna (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know how Wikipedia incorporates historical bias a result of conflict/political dissent in their classification for reliable sourcing - perhaps an administrator could clear this up?--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Bettydaisies : No problem. User:Keivan.f has provided an appropriate solution. Sampajanna (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: Okay, you a crossing a line into Boris Johnson territory of racial/ethno national offense (a la his accusing Obama of anti-British bias claiming, the "part-Kenyan president" had an "ancestral dislike of the British empire") and even Donald Trump territory (a la his accusing Gonzalo P. Curiel of being biased against him as a judge due to his Mexican heritage) SecretName101 (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: Keep it simple. Drop the prose. Try again to express yourself intelligibly. Sampajanna (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: Another rude comment from you. SecretName101 (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: Give it a rest. Again, the matter has been resolved (see below).Sampajanna (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: And what is your problem with PolitiFact (an American fact checking site) and The Guardian (a British newspaper)? SecretName101 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: Please read this very carefully. The matter under discussion was resolved over thirty minutes ago (see below).Sampajanna (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: **sarcasm**Yeah, my bad. How could I have not seen the conversation below, which was begun after the comment you are replying to. My bad for forgetting to use my psychic powers.**sarcasm**
Perhaps you need to read more carefully, signatures clearly mark when posts were made SecretName101 (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: You are the one mixing up the sequence, while I follow up by formatting the page / coding. Scroll down further to this ...

@SecretName101: So the footnote regarding the child's title, which I added back, has sources such as BBC and The Telegraph (both British), as well as The New York Times. We can combine them with your two suggested sources if the info is to be included in a separate section titled "Veracity of claims". Keivan.fTalk 20:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

:User:Keivan.f : Sounds good to me. Sampajanna (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC) Then, scroll up the page slowly for all the times you been advised that the matter has already been resolved. Sampajanna (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I just realized that this discussion was happening. So I think in order to solve the issue, we could use English/British sources as well as sources from other nations. That should provide us with a neutral point of view. Keivan.f^Talk 20:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: So the footnote regarding the child's title, which I added back, has sources such as BBC and The Telegraph (both British), as well as The New York Times. We can combine them with your two suggested sources if the info is to be included in a separate section titled "Veracity of claims". Keivan.f^Talk 20:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Keivan.f : Sounds good to me. Sampajanna (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

I have reported @Sampajanna: at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I hate that I was pushed by someone to report them. It's something I have never done, but nobody has ever acted so poorly towards me on this project before. There is only one other person in all of Wikimedia I ever would have reported (it was on Meta Wiki, and someone else beat me to it). SecretName101 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: Wow. That was fast. I am in another part of the world and not always in front of a screen. You seem to ask for an apology at 23:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC). At 23:54, you report me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Then, post also to the Talk:Oprah with Meghan and Harry page as well, possibly to name and shame me. As this is now a Wikipedia administrative matter, I shall respect SecretName101's privacy by not making any further comment about this administrative matter on this particular talk page. Sampajanna (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: After I asked for an apology, I saw you had already given your opinion on giving an apology to me. "Very droll". No Swan So Fine had asked you to apologize, and that is how you responded. You were granted ample opportunity, as I @Sampajanna: You were granted ample opportunity, as I repeatedly told you you were rude. You never apologized there. You were specifically offered a chance by No Swan So Fine, and responded that way. Don't act like I was "rash" in reporting this matter. SecretName101 (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: And, still, no apology. You could still apologize. You've been reported, but if you knew you were wrong you'd apologize regardless. You clearly don't realize you were acting wrongly. SecretName101 (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I know feelings are running high and there are issues that need to be addressed, however, I ask you guys to continue this discussion on the noticeboard because this is really going off topic now and is not constructive for the article either. Keivan.f^Talk 01:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

RESULT : User:Sampajanna reported by User:SecretName101 (Result: Both warned)*[2] Sampajanna (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:General disclaimer

User:HyacinthBucket55 recently added a disclaimer to the article. However, User:StraussInTheHouse removed it with this comment: please establish consensus for this as it is unusual. See Wikipedia:General disclaimer.

• Perhaps, other editors may care to comment below. Sampajanna (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Hi Sampajanna, thanks for raising this. I left a message on the HyacinthBucket55's (nice username btw) talk page further explaining my reasoning for the undo. Disclaimers are usually reserved for extremely controversial long-term topics as opposed to extremely controversial short-term ones. If we can, as noted below, ensure it's clear that these are claims, if that continues to be the position in most reliable sources, without a disclaimer, we should do so as it rules out the possibility of being accused of taking sides. SITH (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the context of the article and its language already make clear that these are claims brought by Meghan and Harry, and not certified facts. SecretName101 (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Quite. Do we have a transcript of the interview yet? No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine: We do actually. Here's the full transcript by The Sun: 1. We can add it as an external link but I don't recommend using it as a source since it's a tabloid. Keivan.f^Talk 00:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This article is about the interview and its content, not Megxit.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"directly in line for the throne"

I had read that Archie is 7th in line for the throne. Am I wrong? I am an American and haven't studied the matter, so I may be misunderstanding. If so, isn't he also "directly in line for the throne" as well as the others? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: George is "directly in line", as, even if, theoretically, Elizabeth or those before him in the line of succession (Charles and William) had more children, George would remain third-in-line. Meanwhile, Archie will sink lower in the line of succession any time Elizabeth or anyone (with the exception of his father Harry) above him (Charles, William, or William's children) produce offspring, those offspring would rank above both Harry and Archie.
As long as he does not die first or abdicate, George will become monarch as long as the monarchy remains in existence by the point. Whereas, that is not the case for Archie. SecretName101 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: does that clear things up? SecretName101 (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but if I understand correctly, if a gigantic hypothetical meteor were to hit London when Harry was visiting there, and the others in the royal line of succession were also killed, then Archie would become king. Am I correct? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That's correct. If all the people who are in line before him die at this moment he will be crowned king. But, as SecretName101 pointed out, he's not in the direct line. Only Charles, William and George are the main heirs because the birth of other family members will not affect their position. Whereas for everyone else, including William's other children, they will be pushed down the line every time a new baby is born. Keivan.f^Talk 05:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I am well aware that the United Kingdom is very different than the United States, but here it would be considered totally bizarre that someone seventh in the line of succession would be denied a government paid security detail and I guess that denial extends to Harry, sixth in line. Here, we provide security details to many, many high ranking officials, including those far down the line of succession. Is the attitude there that somebody who does not want his family to be subjected to constant racist sexist attacks by the tabloid press is not deserving of a government security detail? I find that incomprehensible. Here's how we do it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

In the US, the line of succession includes a set of people elected by the public to serve in the public office. For example, as you know it yourself, Nancy Pelosi is in the line of succession to become president but she'll be removed from the line once her term as the Speaker ends. The British line of succession is based on blood relation. Just like monarchies in Sweden, Norway, Spain, Denmark, Japan, Jordan, etc. only people born into the family have the right to inherit. On the other hand, only members of the royal family who do public service get protection in return. Children of Princess Anne and Prince Edward do not have this benefit because they are private citizens. In another example from across the continent, Sayako Kuroda, the Emperor of Japan's sister, doesn't have this benefit either because she has married a commoner and put an end to her public life. Harry has chosen to leave. It doesn't matter whether it was racism or his personal wish that drove him away. He left and is not serving the British people anymore, so they don't offer him protection and money either. In essence, he's just like his cousins Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall now, who are 16th and 19th in line to the throne respectively. The only difference is that he carries a title. At this point he cannot ask for British or even Canadian taxpayers' money for protection. What is debatable though, is his father's decision to not help him when he could potentially use his personal income from the Duchy of Cornwall to do so. Keivan.f^Talk 07:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that you would mention Nancy Pelosi since her Congressional district is about 30 miles from where I Iive and she has business investments in my district and I have attended five or six political dinners that she also attended and have observed her security detail in action close up. My wife and I are seated very close to the podium because my wife is deaf. Yes, Pelosi is third in line to the presidency, but we offer comparable security to the sixth and seventh in line as well. Also, eighth, ninth and tenth and so on. I guess the UK has entirely different standards for protecting its line of succession, which is your business, I guess. I hope that it does not lead to catastrophe. The relation to the article is that Harry and Meghan repeatedly emphasized the security issue, and that issue seems to be downplayed in the UK for some strange reason. So, we have Tyler Perry paying for their security out of his own pocket for months as an act of kindness, when many people think that the fabulously wealthy British monarchy should have done so but won't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the two situations cannot be compared. Like what if Pelosi suddenly decided to move to France right now in the middle of her term as the Speaker and congresswoman? I guess it would be unreasonable to give her protection and a salary from the US government then, since in this hypothetical scenario she has just abandoned her post and has left her country. Now this is similar to what Harry and Meghan did. The difference is that Pelosi will be kicked out of the line of succession if she decides to abandon her post, whereas Harry will stay in the line forever because he was born into it. I guess it's not really a problem of what your position in the line is, but what you actually are doing for your country. The monarchy also gets the taxpayers' money, so I guess people would question their motives if they were to pay for a family member who lived overseas or other family members who are private citizens and just live for themselves. Yet again, it is sad to see that they have to get help from a friend whereas Harry's father could potentially help them using his private income at least until they were settled. That bothers me too to be honest. Keivan.f^Talk 08:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Public and foreign political officials in the UK also receive specialised security, and I'm sure there are less publicised arrangements which we know not of. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It may be incomprehensible to you, but consider things from the other point of view: that it might be similarly incomprehensible to British taxpayers if they were expected to pay for the security of a very wealthy celebrity couple who performed no public duties in the UK, and indeed had emigrated. During the interview, a very wealthy man in his 30s complained bitterly about being cut off financially by his family, despite voluntarily stepping down from the public role senior royals perform in return for being supported at public expense with lifestyles far beyond the means of those paying the bills. And as with the claim that their son was denied the status of a prince somehow unfairly, the relevant comparator here is with other members of the royal family. The queen has several other grandchildren and great-grandchildren and they don't all get security details at public expense, just as they don't all have titles. Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is odd to us in the United States, as a POTUS and FLOTUS get lifetime protection here, but Harry, who gave 30-plus years of his life to the monarchy (much longer than any POTUS or FLOTUS serve), is apparently not be seen by the powers that be in the UK as deserving of protection. SecretName101 (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This is no surprise though. His cousins Beatrice and Eugenie get no state-funded protection either. His great-great-uncle Edward VIII also lost state-funded security after he left the UK. It may be odd or unfair, but it is how it is. If they suddenly offer the two of them state-funded protection, then there would be a strong case for Beatrice, Eugenie, Prince Michael of Kent (who also served in the military) and his wife to also get security provided by the government. You might argue that why Prince Andrew, Duke of York is getting protection after stepping back from public life then, but it is important to remember that it is his mother the Queen who is now paying for his security using her private income from the Duchy of Lancaster. As a father, Charles could have done the same for his son using his income from the Duchy of Cornwall, so at the end the blame should not be on the government or the royal family as a whole but on Charles, who unlike his mother, has decided against providing security for his own son. Keivan.f^Talk 20:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: to me it is odd that Trump is still offered public protection when he is no longer serving the public. That is the situation with the Sussexs. They no longer serve the British people so the British people don't protect/serve the Sussexs. Where they are in the line of succession is irrelevant (unless they are in the direct line).
SSSB (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: : "The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the Royal Family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne."

Sampajanna (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Sampajanna, this is another example of the never-ending struggle between "the bare minimum required by law" and the "proper and ethical thing". I thought that a monarchy had more flexibility. I cannot imagine the impact if some extremist kook motivated by Piers Morgan types launched a lethal attack on their California home. I hope nothing like that happens, but still? How would the reputation of your elderly king-to-be fare in a scenario like that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Cullen328 asked: "How would the reputation of your elderly king-to-be fare in a scenario like that?. I guess one could only speculate, and Wikipedia editors would be obliged to write from a neutral point of view. Sampajanna (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Charles "long standing" plans to slim down on the monarchy?

"However, this could be attributable to Prince Charles' long standing idea of a slimmed-down royal family, the mechanism for which has not been announced yet.[49]" So, first, that reference, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56325934, makes absolutely no mention of Charles having ANY plans to slim down on the royal family, nor them being long standing. As a result, this is simply original research being used to defend a specific point or ideology, which is well outside of the scope of the Wikipedia guidelines. I have heard the claim that Charles has plans to slim don on the royal family, but "long standing" is a rather stretch, never heard about it before it came up with Archie, and I am a monarchist citizen of the Queen's. Gonna remove it for the time being, as it is just OR and the source is not relevant. If someone finds an actual source, add it back, maybe using language that does not imply their particular perspective. 142.120.14.1 (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Your claim, that the article does not mention it, is wrong.

"I saw that Meghan mentioned that there were plans to narrow eligibility and I imagine that this is a reference to the Prince of Wales's stated view that the size of the royal family needs to be reduced," said Bob Morris from the Constitution Unit at UCL. "However, he has not so far as I know given details of how it should be accomplished."

And I suggest you search the term to see articles that date back to the period before Archie was even born. As an example, apparently Charles was the one who was against the idea of having his nieces Beatrice and Eugenie as full time royals. That's why they don't have 24/7 state-funded security either. Keivan.f^Talk 02:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Expand lead

We should expand the lead. It currently does not properly summarize the article Anyone want to first discuss what should be summarized in the lead? I'd say:

• A second brief paragraph should be dedicated to discussing some of the topics hit on (can't put enoughemphasis on brief)
• The following paragraph should discuss some summary of the impact/fallout/reception of the interview (including that it received significant viewership and has been widely commented upon)

Any thoughts? SecretName101 (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think "a divulgence of suicidal thoughts suffered by Meghan during her time as a working royal" should be listed in the second paragraph of what I proposed. SecretName101 (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

i think the expansion of the lead is definitely warranted; IMHO the phrasing could be more inclusive, i.e a divergence of a myriad of struggles suffered by Meghan during her time as a working royal, including ____ etc etc, but either way it should list the times proposed. Bettydaisies (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps list the main points in the lead. Sampajanna (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the lead paragraph is short. It doesn’t really summarize the main points. I guess a few sentences on content and a few sentences on reception could be useful. Keivan.f^Talk 03:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• The following WP:LEADDD may be worth considering. Sampajanna (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I've attempted a formal lead, critiques very much welcomed! No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Further edits done now that the interview is not so topical. Sampajanna (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Public opinion and Twitter

The public opinion section of the article contains referenced YouGov polling regarding particular responses to the interview. Is the information mentioning the trending Twitter hashtag 'abolishthemonarchy' useful alongside properly conducted polling data? Using hashtags as part of a trend does not necessarily mean an endorsement of its actual meaning, and mentioning this specific hashtag does not account for others which provided different views. The CNN reference does observe the trend, but perhaps a separate section would be more appropriate to mention this (as well as other social media trends potentially) as at the moment professional polling data alongside a Twitter trend seems incongruous. Just a thought. RedTeme (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@RedTeme: Thanks for starting a discussion on the talk page. I actually agree with you; and the reasons that you provided for the removal of this specific sentence are valid in my opinion. Not to mention that it’s not really reflective of what the whole population thinks, mainly because it may have been used by a specific group who support the couple. And there’s also the issue of method and how the data get collected, which as you said, with a hashtag on Twitter we don’t really have much to work with in terms of method and accuracy. Nevertheless, I wanted it to be discussed on the talk page so that other users might also get a chance to provide their opinions. If everyone is against including it then we’ll simply remove it. Otherwise, it can be moved to another section titled “On social media” or something along that line. Keivan.f^Talk 20:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not public opinion. You can’t use the same YouGov polls that were commissioned by tabloid papers with leading questions. It’s interesting that the polls about how young Brit’s feel about Harry and Meghan have been systemically removed. Why does this page exist? Is it some sort of propaganda tool?this is not encyclopedic at all and will be reported. whoever is in charge of this page does not understand what encyclopedia means. DigitialNomad (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@DigitialNomad: I have looked at some of these polls and the ones I looked at didn't have leading questions. Could you be more specific about which polls concern you?

The problem with polls about young Brits is that we then have to balance that with polls of old Brits (for reasons relating to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE). As the article doesn't talk about polls which target one group over the other, I don't see the problem. SSSB (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

GoFundMe

Should this be mentioned in the article? Anastasia Hanson, who lives 25 minutes from Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's mansion in Montecito, California, says she wanted to help the Sussexes, who are worth millions, through a "very rough time", so she started a GoFundMe to help pay off Harry and Meghan Markle's mortgage. Sampajanna (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Given they don't need it (with an estimated combined value of $100 million) and that the only sources I could find that confirm that they have a mortage are considered unreliable (the sun, mirror, daily mail etc.) and that the fundraiser has since been deleted, I don't see the value of including this information.
SSSB (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• "She was hoping to raise a staggering $10 million (£7.1 million) from strangers, but her fundraising page was removed after collecting only about £80." Sampajanna (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

A GoFundMe page started by an non-notable person, without asking or being asked? No. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think its notable - publications like The Mirror publish a lot of topical articles regarding the royals about non-notable events for clicks.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I think no one considers The Mirror, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Standard to be reliable sources. And the subject is also pretty trivial to be honest. We better not include it. Keivan.f^Talk 18:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Previous Therapy

Most of the "The palace HR department" section is clear original synthesis.

• It discusses events that all happened years prior to the article subject.
• They are only tangentially related to the article subject, and were not mentioned at any time.
• The sources used to support them do not mention the article subject, or Meghan, or the "palace HR Department" in which section they appear.

Their appearance here is therefore "implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". i.e. they are suggesting that therapy was available/provided to previous members of the royal family, that was not available/provided to Meghan. Whether this is true or not, it is not an argument that Wikipedia should be constructing. The examples may be completely different situations that have nothing in common, and cannot/should not be used as comparisons in the context of this article.

It should all therefore be removed unless a reliable source is found discussing the article subject, the claims made, and these prior events in royal family history. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Keivan.f:, you added this on 12th of March and reverted it back in on the 16th. It is your responsibility to "discuss it first" when there is no consensus for its conclusion. Why is this not original synthesis? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: Beg your pardon, but I should remind you that the content was not disputed by anyone but you, and the article was stable at the time, so the responsibility for opening a discussion falls on your shoulder as well. Also, if you have read through the sources carefully, which apparently you didn't, Harry and his mother's therapies were covered in the same source that discusses Meghan's claims of being turned away and the royal biographers used those two examples to dispute her claim. As with whether George VI, Margaret or Charles' should be included or not, I have no strong feeling about it personally and I think Harry and Diana's examples are sufficient to prove the point. The matter seems to be settled. Keivan.f^Talk 17:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a new article going through extensive additions can be considered stable over a period of only 4 days. Nor is there any threshold of how many people need to challenge an addition before there is no consensus for it. Sorry if I seemed annoyed, but you requested it was discussed and I gave you the benefit of the doubt by obliging, which you then didn't respond to.

I did notice the mentions of Diana and Harry, which is why I left in the first mention. But I didn't think the further expansion and cite to the same source was needed. But not concerned about that. Happy this is resolved. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Trump's reaction

The following has been recently added under 'Political reaction': Former US president Donald Trump commented on Meghan after the interview, saying, "I’m not a fan of her. I know the Queen, as you know, I’ve met with the Queen and I think the Queen is a tremendous person and I am not a fan of Meghan." Six months ago, Trump responded when asked: "I'm not a fan of hers (Meghan)." His personal opinion has not changed since leaving office, and unless Meghan has had a recent change of mind, neither has hers. Does the Oprah with Meghan and Harry article need to draw attention to this stuff? Sampajanna (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of problems about addition. It adds little of any note, says nothing that's new or applies to the article subject in particular. But I'd say the chief problem about it is that it is entirely hearsay. Someone says that's what he said. So little better than gossip and of very dubious political significance. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Escape_Orbit : To put it more into context, I added : In response to rumors that Meghan may run for president in 2024, former US president Donald Trump commented: "I'm not a fan of her. I know the Queen, as you know, I've met with the Queen and I think the Queen is a tremendous person and I am not a fan of Meghan." Otherwise, Trump reportedly stated: "You realize if you say anything negative about Meghan Markle, you get canceled. Look at Piers [Morgan]." Sampajanna (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I question the relevance. Even if he had specifically mentioned the interview - his opinion has no bearing on anything other than it might influence the opinions of others. Previous prime minisiters of New Zeland, Canada, the UK etc. might be relevant (depending on content) as they are influenctional people in countries where this monarchy exists, it might be espically relevant if they are campaigning on the issue of the monarchy.

Frankly, I would question the encylopedic significance of Biden's comments on these grounds, but at least he made reference to the topics of the interview.

Simply put, I fail to see how Trump's comments are relevant, espically given he is giving vague opioions on some of the people involved with no reference to the interview.
SSSB (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

SSSB : The following ('Political views' subsection) is extracted from the Meghan, Duchess of Sussex Wikipedia page :

The Queen is constitutionally bound to act on the advice of the government; as such, members of the British royal family are politically neutral by convention. However, Markle was politically vocal before marrying Prince Harry. She backed Hillary Clinton during the 2016 United States presidential election and publicly denounced the opponent, Donald Trump. The same year, when the referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union resulted in favor of Brexit, Markle expressed her disappointment on Instagram. As an eligible voter in the United States, she released a video with her husband encouraging others to register for the 2020 United States presidential election on National Voter Registration Day. Some media outlets took it as an implicit endorsement of the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, which prompted Donald Trump to dismiss their messaging at a press conference.

No mention seems to have been made of Trump's most recent comments added to the Oprah with Meghan and Harry article. Same applies on the Donald Trump Wikipedia page. In fact, a word search for "Meghan Markle" on his page does not produce any results. Sampajanna (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sampajanna: I'm sorry, maybe I'm being stupid, but what's your point?
SSSB (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB: Meghan (and the media) seem to show more interest in Trump, than vice versa. Now that he is no longer in office, perhaps clickbait just doesn't have the same impact anymore. Sampajanna (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

References

US political reaction

Comments by former president Donald Trump have been made in a separate discussion*[3] on this talk page. The relevance of other US political figures has been questioned, especially in relation to hearsay. Also, comments by influential people in countries (where the Monarchy of the United Kingdom actually exists), mentioned elsewhere in the article, might be especially relevant if they are campaigning on the issue of the monarchy.

The following is extracted from the 'Political reaction' subsection on theOprah with Meghan and Harry Wikipedia page :

A spokesperson for US president Joe Biden said he would praise anyone for having the courage to speak out about mental health. When asked about the interview in a press briefing, the White House press secretary Jen Psaki described Harry and Meghan as "private citizens" who were "sharing their own story in their own struggles". Former United States secretary of state Hillary Clinton defended Meghan, saying: "This young woman was not about to keep her head down, you know, this is 2021". Commenting on Meghan's allegations of racism within the palace, former first lady of the United States Michelle Obama said, "it wasn't a complete surprise to hear." Speaking on the royal family, Obama also commented, "I pray for forgiveness and healing for them so that they can use this as a teachable moment for us all."

Based on the above, please consider the relevance and notability of comments ascribed to :

• Joe Biden
• Jen Psaki
• Hillary Clinton
• Michelle Obama

Thanks Sampajanna 13:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

They are entirely relevant, the primary loci of this media circus has moved from the UK to the US No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Not remotly relevant. They do not live in a country where the monarchy exists. They have no involvement in the family and they are not involved in the situation. Their opinions on the subject are no more relevant than the opinion of Yoshihide Suga. This is not an American issue and therefore the opinions of prominate Americans are no more relevant than the opinions of prominate Japanese, Thais or Russians. And to cap it off, I didn't know who Psaki was, and most non-American readers (and possibly most Americans) won't know who she is either without looking her up.
SSSB (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about the wider "situation" doesn't belong on this article, and care is needed not let the article drift into that. But the article is about an American TV programme, conducted by a American media personality, recorded in America aimed primarily at an American audience, about two people, one of whom is American, who evidently wish to live in America. So the opinions of American politicians about the programme are notable because it caused a debate that includes/involves/interests Americans. I would only exclude them if what they have to say is redundant. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how these Obama's comment, or the first sentence of the above quote are about the interview, Obama's comment is about the "situation" and Biden's is about neither, just a broad comment that was inspired by the interview.
SSSB (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: This could be seen as a token comment: Former United States secretary of state Hillary Clinton defended Meghan, saying: "This young woman was not about to keep her head down, you know, this is 2021" Sampajanna (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Whether inspired by the interview or in direct response to it, these comments are about the television interview and the couple, and were made by political figures in a country where the couple now reside. And yes, the United States is not a monarchy, but has ties to the United Kingdom. I guess it would be more appropriate to put comments made by British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand politicians first and put the statements made by American politicians at the end. Keivan.f^Talk 03:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Carolla quote

Philip Cross please explain specifically what is “dubious” about Carolla’s quote and how it is more dubious than most of the other quotes, including two that speak about Diana?

The quote does not imply in the slightest that the existence of racism is exclusive to the UK and US. (It doesn't discuss the UK at all.)

Virtually none of the quotes in the “In the media” section directly deal with race as much as Corolla’s quote and the discussion about racism is what got them the world headlines.

Thank you The Kingfisher (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's utter meaningless drivel presumably intended to be funny. I realise Wikipedia does not have policies to avoid the posting of such material when it is reliably sourced. Philip Cross (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Contributions by 95.148.229.85

This edit: Special:Diff/1022441634 as several problems. Firstly, it established that the exchange of vows was not legally considered a wedding, what is the benefit of listing all the laws and precedents? and secondly it contains huge WP:OR, by stating: "[Archbishop of Canterbury] had an incentive to deny the validity of the legal wedding since his action exposed him to prosecution. There is no evidence that this was why he said what he said, and no evidence that there was even grounds for an nvestigation if he hadn't, let alone prosecution. IP, please clarify the benefit of your additions and make sure that it is all sourced and not WP:OR.
SSSB (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not getting you. I said that a private exchange of vows by a member of the royal family in front of a priest is legally considered a wedding and I sourced that statement. Why do you say my edit "established that the exchange of vows was not legally considered a wedding"? The wording of the licences for royal weddings which are issued from the Faculty Office (which is headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury) plainly states that they are governed by canon law. There is no dispute that under canon law a wedding conducted by an Anglican priest without any other witnesses is valid though irregular, and any priest who conducts such a wedding will be proceeded against for serious misconduct. Therefore, the Archbishop's action in certifying that the legal wedding date was 19 May 2018 exposed him to prosecution, which is what I said. 95.148.229.85 (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You are adding Original Research. The cite you added to Beamish v Beamish does not mention this wedding (being 160 years earlier). It is therefore appears to be your research and conclusion that it is applicable to events here. You cannot be the one to reach that conclusion on Wikipedia. You need a reliable source that makes the connection first, then you cite that source.

Similarly, whether this would influence the Archbishop, or not, is entirely your speculation. If you don't have a reliable source suggesting this, you've got nothing you can add. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I am stating that the article establishes that the exchange of vows was not legally considered a wedding, not your edit, I made a typo. As for the rest, I completely second what Escape Orbit has said.
SSSB (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 You appear not to have read the full citation, which was as follows:

The validity of private weddings under canon law involving a member of the royal family was confirmed by the House of Lords in 1863.

The first part of the cite establishes that under canon law a private wedding before an Anglican priest is legal. The second part establishes that royal marriages are governed by canon law. Quoting from the article:

However, these requirements were directory rather than mandatory and the absence of banns or a licence – or even the fact that the marriage was not celebrated in a church – did not render the marriage void. The only indispensable requirement was that the marriage be celebrated by an Anglican clergyman.

Nor did the Act apply to members of the British Royal Family. Indeed, members of the Royal Family have been consistently exempted from all general legislation relating to marriage since this date, which is why doubts were expressed in 2005 about the ability of Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles in a civil ceremony,

The Act was highly successful in its stated aim of putting a stop to clandestine marriages, i.e., valid marriages performed by an Anglican clergyman but not in accordance with the canons.

The evidence (as stated above) that licences for royal weddings specifically confirm that they are conducted under canon law together with the fact that they are issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury sources the statement that in conducting a royal marriage the Archbishop takes canon law into account.

What is the basis of your claim "that the article establishes that the exchange of vows was not legally considered a wedding"? I asked you that before but instead of backing your claim with sources you make the unsourced claim that this is what "the article" establishes. Which article are you talking about? 95.148.229.85 (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Please read what is explained above. What Beamish v Beamish, and Child and Family Law Quarterly say is totally irrelevant unless you have a source that connects this marriage to what is said there. They themselves cannot make a connection, because they existed years before the events of this Wikipedia article. So you need a reliable source that says this specifically in relation to the events described here. You also cannot then expand upon what they say to speculate how they might apply to the Archbishop's actions without a source. This is what is meant by using original research, and you cannot do this on Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This article ("Oprah with Meghan and Harry") establishes that the exchange of vows was not considered a wedding, that's why I didn't list any sources. The parts of your edit that aren't WP:OR are redundent as "Oprah with Meghan and Harry" (this article) already establishes that the exchange of vows was not a wedding, through sources 70-74 in this revision of the article. In fact, all sources bar one, in the section of the article we are discussing, dispute the legality of the exchage of vows, with the last source in that section simply reporting their claim.
SSSB (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm watching the State Opening of Parliament right now, so just a quick note. Let's say somebody kills someone. Are you saying that they cannot be prosecuted unless somebody proves the original Act of Parliament which criminalised murder (e.g by producing a copy of it and verifying that it is a true copy etc.) and then somehow links the law passed 1,000 years ago (or whenever it was) with the offence committed 1,000 years later? 95.148.229.85 (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

No, we are saying that you cannot say that they could be prosecuted until a reliable source says it first, and you source them saying that.
SSSB (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

So you are saying that someone cannot write the following in Wikipedia:

If murder is an offence under the law a prosecution can be brought for the alleged offence

without (a) identifying someone who has previously said those words (b) proving that they are a reliable source and (c) identifying where and when they said those words? 95.148.229.85 (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Nearly. The "someone" could be legislation. And you wouldn't necessarily have to identify where and when, the source might do this. Fortunately finding a source doing all this shouldn't be hard. This guide here explains "original synthesis" in more detail. Basically, you cannot combine sources to create a new argument not complete in any one of the sources themselves. You cannot say "this source says this [cite], and this source says that [cite], therefore, when taken together, we conclude this. [no cite]" Which is effectively what you are doing when says "A law says this [cite], the Archbishop said that [cite], therefore, when taken together, we can conclude the Archbishop was doing this. [no cite] " --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you are following WP:OR you cannot claim that someone could be prosecuted unless you cite someone saying it first, because your personal interpration of law is meaningless. Your example of murder does not apply here. Your example assumes that the person has been charged with murder, or is being imvestigated for murder, or is somehow connected with murder.

However, you are the only person I have seen who is suggesting that the archbishop may have acted improperly. There is zero evidence that the archbishop could have been prosecuted or investigated for anything (apart from your interpretation of the law) and zero evidence that he only said what he said to protect himself.
SSSB (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Your own comment is "Original research". You say Your example assumes that the person has been charged with murder, or is being investigated for murder, or is somehow connected with murder. I made a general statement of the law but you are claiming I am talking about a specific person. The red flag was raised on the Archbishop as early as 10 March by an adviser to the former Archbishop who, to his credit, refused to marry Camilla and Charles because such a ceremony would conflict with canon law. The podcast [4] refers to the Archbishop having "broken his own church law", and a resultant cover-up, for example at 06:00 in where he says "I don't understand why Lambeth Palace didn't come straight out." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.229.85 (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC).

I made that assumption because this discussion isn't about general statements of law. You're proposed edits aren't general statements on law, it is a specific case. So any example which is a general statement on law is not relevant. You are also taking those quotes completly out of context. He MAY have broken church law, IF certain conditions were met. The podcast identifies that it is unlikely that these conditions were met. The article ("Ophrah with Meghan and Harry") establishes that these conditions were not met. And so, not only is the idea that he could be prosectued original research based on evidence you don't have access to, but there is still no evidence that his comments on the matter were to protect himself from prosecution, also note that his comments don't protect him from prosecution at all. Finally, Lambeth Palace didn't come straight out because there is no reason for them to do so. The legality of marriage is based on legal documents, these documents say much more than Lambeth Palace, or the archbishop could.
SSSB (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

EscapeOrbit confirmed that a statute may be used as a reliable source and the same goes for cases, as they are frequently used as sources in Wikipedia. A statute or case is necessarily a general statement of the law. The argument by you that statutes (or cases) may not be used in Wikipedia because the articles discuss events which occurred subsequent to when the statute was passed is not in line with consensus. You claim that The legality of marriage is based on legal documents, which is a perfectly correct statement, and as statutes and law reports are legal documents your objection to citing them falls away. Now the statutes and cases say that an unwitnessed wedding ceremony before an Anglican priest is valid under canon law and the cited sources say that Harry and Meghan participated in an unwitnessed wedding ceremony, so what is your objection exactly? 95.148.229.85 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many different ways I can put this. A statute is a reliable source only for verifying what the statute says. Whether it applies to the subject of this article is a completely different matter. You may not use it as a source on this article to support anything. You need a reliable source that says; "this statute says this, and it applies in this particular case". Otherwise, it appears that anonymous IP editor 95.148.229.85, is deciding this, and anonymous IP editor 95.148.229.85 is not qualified to interpret the law and publish it on Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Then we return to the original point. Taking a random article, Trivium states

Grammar, logic, and rhetoric were essential to a classical education, as explained in Plato's dialogues.

By definition, Plato knew nothing of what was taught in mediaeval universities, but the statement is unsourced. Using your reasoning, therefore, the whole of Wikipedia is one big original research. 95.148.229.85 (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

But one page using original research is not a reason for others to do so (see WP:OTHER). Wikipedia is one big original research - untrue. Making inaccurate generalisations is just a waste of all of our time. Finally, (before you go on a "deleting as original research" rampage) googling "Trivium Plato" shows that your example isn't original research.
SSSB (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I get 202,000 hits. One of them notes that some studies "began their career in Plato's dialogues", which is something different. Please link to where the words in the article appear in a reliable source. 95.148.229.85 (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I'm done here. If you want to discuss Trivium, it has its own talk page. If you want to debate Wikipedia policy on original research, try the Policy talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Round 2

Here is the most recent overhaul of this section. I have tagged it as it may have been tagged if it was still in the article. There is no point in discussing this further until these issues are resolved. My comments are included in {{tq}} and here is the diff we are discussing: Special:Diff/1022933194.

"Meghan said that they had in fact married three days before their public wedding, with a private exchange of vows on May 16 in front of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Harry supported this by commenting "Yeah, just the three of us". This earlier exchange of vows would not have been an official or legally recognized marriage, both of which require at least two witnesses, had one of the parties not been a member of the royal family. However, Lambeth Palace argued that the Wednesday ceremony was invalid, citing restrictions imposed by statute law without mentioning that these restrictions do not apply to the royal family. There was no response from the couple until 22 March, when a spokesperson intimated to The Daily Beast's royal correspondent Tom Sykes that the second (Saturday) ceremony was either the "official" one or the "legal" one or both. This does not conflict with their earlier statement. Only the Daily Beast itself correctly reported what the spokesperson actually said. The validity of private weddings under canon law involving a member of the royal family was confirmed by the House of Lords in a series of decisions ending in 1861. Moreover, the special licences for royal weddings issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury reiterate, to make it absolutely clear, that they are subject to the canon law and not the statute law. On 10 March George Pitcher, an adviser to the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, discussed the matter in a podcast aired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The synopsis reads "Meghan Markle revealed this week that she and Prince Harry had a secret private wedding three days before their globally telecast ceremony. Both ceremonies were performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. Could the Archbishop have broken his own church law?" Why is including the synopsis necessary? Seems redundent. If there is a specific part of the synopisis that is relevant, mention that. I assume that this is mentioned around claims that Welby broke law? If so, just say: "...aired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. In the podcast the issue was raised that Welby could have broken law x." There is also the issue of WP:UNDUE weight to a minority arguemnt (this being the only case where there is a serious suggesting that law was broken. There is also the fact that you are neglecting to mention that the intervee finds it unlikly that the archbishop was acting illegally. Canon law is not co-extensive with civil law - Williams was not in a position in 2005 to marry Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, she having a previous husband still living.Clarify. What is the relevance with Camila and Charles? Why is living husband relevant? This connection feels like an WP:OR connecion. It is the operation of canon law, papers by several eminent law professors state, which results in these two not being legally married.Already estalished in this paragrapgh, why are we repeating?? See Clandestine Marriages Act 1753.WP:OR relevance Welby has now stood himself down till at least September, after the Sun obtained a copy of Harry and Meghan's official marriage certificate, signed by him, which claims that they were married on May 19, with Harry's father and Meghan's mother as witnesses.I see no grounds for him standing down here... the situation described here is identical to the situation he described in the following sentence Answering questions on 30 March the Archbishop claimed "The legal wedding was on the Saturday [May 19]. I signed the wedding certificate, which is a legal document, and I would have committed a serious criminal offence if I signed it knowing it was false". As is customary for clergy, Archbishop Welby refrained from commenting on the nature of any private meetings with the couple, but added he "had a number of private and pastoral meetings with the duke and duchess before the wedding". In a review of the law on clerical misconduct last year the Ecclesiastical Law Society noted that conducting a clandestine marriage is one of the most serious offences ("Traditionally it covered matters such as drunkenness and neglect of duty, fornication, not being licensed, non-residence, and conducting clandestine marriages") [emphasis added].Adding emphasis is not appropriate, what was wrong with "Traditionally it covered matters such...conducting clandestine marriages" if this is the key point?"

• First Example text comment - a source was added but deleted by you: [5].
• Second Example text comment - how do you know it "fails verification" when whoever added the source [note 5] didn't provide a URL for it?
  • The second source [note 6] claims Current laws only permit couples to marry inside a place of worship or inside a licensed secular venue.... This appears to be an unreliable source because numerous law professors and judgments of the House of Lords say that members of the royal family are not so restricted.
• Third Example text comment - The Daily Beast's royal correspondent is the only person who was present when the spokesman's statement was made and can verify what exactly was said.
• Fourth Example text comment - I have examined all the reports of the spokesperson's statement and none of them (apart from Sykes) repeats it in full. Instead they leave parts of it out, making it appear to be an admission that the Wednesday ceremony was not the legal one. It is a serious matter to say that in Wikipedia's voice when no such admission was made by the couple. They had previously confirmed that the Wednesday ceremony was the legal one.
• Fifth Example text comment - See above.
• Sixth Example text comment - The judgment says over and over again that royal marriages may be conducted in private. It would be onerous to repeat all these rulings - the reader has access to the judgment and can verify this for herself. If the actual judgment is not quoted this gives biased third parties the opportunity to misrepresent it, as we see with the reports of the spokesperson's confirmation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.117.137 (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Second Example text comment - how do you know it "fails verification" when whoever added the source [note 5] didn't provide a URL for it? - if it can't be accessed through the cited reference it is failed verification. If it is in that source, then quote it.
• Third Example text comment - The Daily Beast's royal correspondent is the only person who was present when the spokesman's statement was made and can verify what exactly was said. - So? We don't need to specify that. I have examined all the reports of the spokesperson's statement... - then it is WP:OR, because you have done the searching. However, if he is the only person who heard the statement, you can not possibly know this to be true.
• Citing the marriage act is another case of . The problem with citing the marriage act is also that we (the reader) cannot verify that there are not other laws that set limitiations on royal families. So the claim which this citation is supporting is now WP:OR instead unsourced. This appears to be an unreliable source because numerous law professors and judgments of the House of Lords say that members of the royal family are not so restricted. - again needs a secondry citation to verify this.
• If necessary cite the same document several times over. A non-primary source is needed, otherwise your assertion that these legal documents have any bearing is WP:OR. There is also no evidence of systematic bias in this reporting, because they, like I, cannot see the relevance of mentioning legal rulings.

This also doesn't cover all the {{cn}}s, {{non-primary source needed}}s and other tags I inserted in the above running text.
SSSB (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seventh Example text comment - Here is a source: The editor of The Spectator wrote in the 13th March issue:

Reading this, I remembered noticing at the time an oddity in the ceremony at St George’s, Windsor. It was without the usual ‘just cause or impediment’ bit allowing objectors to speak or ever afterwards ‘hold their peace’. Was the ceremony actually a marriage, I wondered, or a mere service of blessing, like that given to Charles and Camilla in the same chapel, after their registry office wedding?

Fairly obviously, the couple having been married three days before, the provision for objections was of no legal effect and therefore omitted. 89.240.117.137 (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Rejoinder to second Example text comment - You confirm that the text which is supported by the failed verification should be removed. This is the text which reads (in the current revision):

This earlier exchange of vows was not an official religious or legally recognized marriage, both of which require at least two witnesses.

• Rejoinder to third Example text comment - The edit did not say that the royal editor was the only person present when the spokesperson's statement was made. It is immaterial whether he was or was not. What is important is that the reports of the commentators fail verification because there is no evidence that they heard the statement, and if they didn't hear the statement their deductions as to its meaning are pure speculation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.117.137 (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Rejoinder to second bullet point - You say The problem with citing the marriage act is also that we (the reader) cannot verify that there are not other laws that set limitiations [sic] on royal families. Yet the sources you added to support your contention that Meghan "admitted she did not marry on Wednesday" do cite the marriage act leaving the reader unable to verify that there are other laws which grant exemptions to royal families. When these laws were cited you removed the citations.
  • Rejoinder to second bullet point (continued) - The late Stephen Cretney and Professor Robecca Probert have written numerous papers demonstrating that Charles and Camilla are not married. You say Wikipedia may not link to these papers directly but only to some third party saying they have written these papers. This is nonsense. Wikipedia is full of statements which are verified by direct reference to legislation and academic papers.
  • Rejoinder to third bullet point - Why is it necessary to cite the same document over and over? Standard editing practice is to cite the documents which support the proposition once. You say I...cannot see the relevance of mentioning legal rulings. Please read precedent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.133.199 (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • If you have a problem with the sourcing of any of the current text, feel free to fix it, or raise it on the talk page. (On a new thread, as it isn't relevant to this one)
    • It may be true that there is no evidence that Sykes wasnt the only person who heard the statement, but I do not see why this is worth mentioning. The notion that this means Sykes interpretation of the statement is correct is completely rubbish. I also fail to see why it is worth pointing out that Sykes is the only person who (supposedly) published it in full
    • I may have inadvertently removed citations when adding my notes/copy editing. That being said, the sources that cite the marriage act are reliable secondary ones. Of course it is possible they made a mistake. But so could you, a reliable source carries more weight than your personal analysis (which caries virtually none.) I notice I missed that you earlier cited "marriage act does not apply to royals" with an academic paper, that is acceptable.
    • I'm not stating that you need to cite the same documents at the end of every sentence, but you cannot then complain if I accidentally tag something as unsourced if the source is 5 sentences away.
    • If I labeled academic papers as primary sources, that is my mistake. However, there is still the problem of original research. Someone stating "case a reminds me of case b" is not the same as "the precedents established in case b apply to case a". To make this leap would be original research. To this end, past legal rulings and legal analysis of past cases are only relevant if a source exists which connects the analysis/result of those cases (I repeat, a person saying case "a reminds me of case b" does not achieve this.) That being said it might (emphasis on "might" as I am not an WP:OR expert) be possible to avoid this by saying "Comparisons have been drawn to Charles-Camilla case. Analysis of this case showed that ..." I say this because, we are discussing case a, with have a sourced statement that case a is similar to case b. We say case b has these precedents WITHOUT REFERRING TO CASE A. I could be wrong, but that sounds like we are stating facts, and letting the reader connect the dots. But even as I finish that sentence it doesn't feel like it complies with WP:OR.
      SSSB (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Let me open today's proceedings with a note that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have asked the nation to come together at 11:00 this morning, during Mental Health Awareness Week, to support all those who are suffering in these difficult times. Harry, who was the leading light in the campaign and is continuing his work, has worked together with William and Kate. Commenting on the responses which have been made to the points raised so far, 89.240 warns against statements in Wikipedia's voice such as putting words into Meghan's mouth to the effect that the Wednesday ceremony was not the "legal marriage", i.e. branding her a liar because she previously confirmed it was. This sentence in this morning's Metro shows the correct approach:

His comments risk worsening an alleged rift with his father the Prince of Wales and brother Prince William. (page 3).

Note the use of the word "alleged" - that is the correct way of reporting. 95.148.229.85 (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's voice" is stating the facts, my interpretation of how we have presented these facts is that they imply Meghan was mistaken, not lying (i.e. she said what she said because she does not understand what constitues a legal marriage in this country). If you feel differently, I would be more than happy to hear your suggestions on how to improve the text.
SSSB (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@SSSB: please cite a source for your claim. You are the only editor who objects to the inclusion of additional sources and are heavily WP:INVOLVED. 79.73.131.59 (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't object to new sources. Only with the copious WP:OR that comes with them. What claim do you want me cite?
SSSB (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I asked you to cite a source for your claim that Meghan was mistaken when she confirmed that she was married on Wednesday. You alleged that this was because she is American. Harry said exactly the same thing and he is (a) British and (b) as a 36 year-old member of the royal family knows all there is to know about royal marriages and certainly a lot more than you. 79.73.131.59 (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't personally alleged any of those things. Oprah with Meghan and Harry#Private exchange of vows doesn't alleged any of those things. I only said that I thought (I, nobody else) that Oprah with Meghan and Harry#Private exchange of vows implies that they were mistaken, meaning I was not in a position to address your claims that it implies they were lying. Meanwhile, Harry and Meghan themselves stated (through a spokesperson) that they didn't get married on 16 May. Several additional sources in Oprah with Meghan and Harry#Private exchange of vows say they didn't get married on 16 May, including from other people involved in the 16 May ceremony.
SSSB (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I've read the source you cite. Where did the spokesperson say they didn't get married on 16 May.? I don't see that anywhere. 79.73.131.59 (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The source didn't use those exact words. The second paragrapgh states: A spokesperson for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex told The Daily Beast that they exchanged “personal vows,” but acknowledged that this private event did not constitute a “legal” or “official” service. Another source: [Welby said] "The legal wedding was on the Saturday."
SSSB (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I changed the wording because the link provided failed verification. I found a discrepancy between the wording and the wording of the source. Why then did you restore the original wording? 79.73.131.59 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you? Where? Because looking at the above, it looks like you changed the wording, but not the meaning. We aren't quoting the source, so the wording does not need to be the same
SSSB (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course, there is nothing wrong with changing the wording. But if it comes with little or no gain (because the meaning is the same) and the same edit contains a tonne of WP:OR, I am not going to go out of my way to preserve the change of wording, because it has little or no gain.
SSSB (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In my edit of 16:17, 14 May I quoted the source. You now say "We aren't quoting the source..." We were quoting the source but you removed the quotation. Why did you do that? 79.73.131.59 (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

for the reason outlined in my comment at 16:33 today.
SSSB (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think there is "little or no gain" in quoting a source? 79.73.131.59 (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Because the current wording has the same meaning.
SSSB (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

So you have an objection to Wikipedia quoting sources, yes? 79.73.131.59 (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No, if you want to change that to a dircet quote, go ahead. If you're going to add WP:OR (or any other violations of policies) at the same time I will perform a blanket revert (because there is no gain from a direct quote in this case).
SSSB (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

When you removed the direct quote you inserted wording which did not correspond to that of the source. You therefore added "original research". Why do you think that what you add is not "original research" but what other editors add is "original research"? 79.73.131.59 (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

If we are talking about the sentence I think we are talking about, I see no original research. Can you be more specific about which part we are talking about.
SSSB (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

If you don't know what you are talking about it is pointless to continue the discussion. 79.73.131.59 (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you are talking about "...a spokesperson for the couple confirmed that they merely exchanged "personal vows", and the private event was neither a "legal" nor "official" service". The source says "A spokesperson for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex [said] they exchanged “personal vows,” but acknowledged that this private event did not constitute a “legal” or “official” service." Everything that is said in the former is said in the latter. Therefore, there is no WP:OR.
SSSB (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Banned user

Note that all posts in this thread from the IP address 95.148.229.85 were made by a permanently banned user, User:Vote (X) for Change. Their posts should not have been allowed to remain on this page and should have been deleted on sight. --Viennese Waltz 09:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: 79.73.133.199, 79.73.131.59 and 89.240.117.137, who have posted above, are also the same banned user. --Viennese Waltz 10:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Viennese Waltz: if this is the case, then the IP needs to be blocked. You need to consider a WP:SPI, so that the IP adressess can be blocked.
SSSB (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I had already drawn this page to the attention of an administrator who is familiar with this banned user, who has now semi-protected the page. --Viennese Waltz 15:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

"Taxpayers"

Can anyone square the statement in the 'State-funded securtiy' section, "The Duke and Duchess also stressed that they used the money they made from their Netflix and Spotify deals to pay for the renovation costs of their UK residence Frogmore Cottage, which was initially paid for by British taxpayers' money" with the fact that the Sovereign Grant receives no tax money? I understand the article content is sourced. But, the media consistently gets British royal financing wrong. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The soverign grant is paid for by the government. The government's money is taxpayers' money, it doesn't grow on trees. SSSB (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The Sovereign Grant is a paid-back percentage of the Crown Estate's profit that the Queen hands to her treasury every year. The Crown Estate's profit does not derive from taxes. Information on the Sovereign Grant can be found here and here. Additionally, the Queen receives income from the Duchy of Lancaster that is used for state-related royal financing. Frogmore Cottage sits in Windsor Great Park, which belongs to the British Crown.

The media states the renovations were paid for by tax money, but there is no explanation of how that happened. If it is true, it is out of the ordinary for the upkeep of Crown-owned properties and should therefore be easy to prove. But, it seemingly cannot be. Meaning it's more likely that jouralists see "paid for by government" and immediately assume that means the use of taxes. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

What the journalists are trying to say is beside the point. Something being unusual and not being easy prove mean nothing. What is the point is that we follow reliable sources say. If reliable sources state it was tax payers money, then so must we. What is worth noting is that the cited source only says that they paid back the cost of the renovations, it provides no information as to who "lent" the money. We need a source for that. SSSB (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the source doesn't even use the word "tax". I assumed it did because it's being used to support a statement about tax money and other media articles have inaccurately said taxpayer funded the renovations. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The source does link (in the same way we might wikilink) to another one of its articles that does claim it was "cash from the tax payer funded Sovereign Grant". I did some research to find a source that debunks the claim that the soverign grant is tax payers money and found the funding page on the Sussex's website, which talks about the Sovriegn Grant in relation to their cottage. It claims:

"The Sovereign Grant is the annual funding mechanism of the monarchy that covers the work of the Royal Family in support of HM The Queen including expenses to maintain official residences and workspaces. In this exchange, The Queen surrenders the revenue of the Crown Estate and in return, a portion of these public funds are granted to The Sovereign/The Queen for official expenditure."

In other words the Sussex's are claiming that the Soverign Grant is publically funded. It may not be funded by the public directly, but the argument is that the Sovreign Grant is funded by money from the treasury. If there were no Sovriegn Grant that money would be spent on the "public" (whether it be education, transport, the home office, NHS or whatever.)

I suggest we change the wording and cite this source to justify the change. But we also need to be careful not to overcite this source. It is a WP:PRIMARY source and is also likely to contain bias, it is one sided. SSSB (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The Sovereign Grant does indeed come out of the UK treasury... After the profit from the Crown Estate has been deposited. So, the latter becomes public funds, though it is not collected by taxation. Since the amount of the grant is determined by how much the Crown Estate earned--"normally the Sovereign Grant for a given year will be equal to a prescribed percentage--initially 15%--of the Crown Estate’s surplus revenue in the financial year two years prior"[6]--the grant is considered money paid back to the Queen from what she handed over.

I suggest simply changing the end of that sentence to, "the Duke and Duchess also stressed that they used the money they made from their Netflix and Spotify deals to pay for the renovation costs of their UK residence, Frogmore Cottage, which were initially paid for out of the Sovereign Grant," using this source and have those last two words pipe to either Sovereign Grant Act 2011 or Finances of the British royal family#Sovereign Grant; let those articles do the explaining. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

References

This is no longer about Oprah Interview

This entire page needs to start over. It’s no longer a page about the Oprah Interview. To go point by point and add commentary from talking heads on every single point is unprecedented for Wikipedia. On this page we stick to the Oprah interview, if anyone wants to expand on the topic or understand more about any of the topics covered they can google it and find the wiki page for that topic. I will begin the clean up of this page and will lose it after Diana’s Bashir interview page An Interview with HRH The Princess of Wales. Anyone have any comments on this? Please give me other examples where what someone said in an interview is followed by every commentary about what they said ? DigitialNomad (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you please stop comparing every single page related to Harry and Meghan to other pages? That's not how articles are written on Wikipedia. And no, we don't have a policy that dictates pages should not be updated. Pages on a court case, an interview, a documentary, a murder case, etc. can be updated when new facts come to light. For example, Meghan stated that her children would not be getting a title. Considering the fact that has turned out not to be true, excluding that crucial piece of information would be misleading to the reader. And to say if anyone wants to expand on the topic or understand more about any of the topics covered they can google it and find the wiki page for that topic is not a sound reason to delete information here. The reader comes in, reads and absorbs the information on the surface of it and might not even look it up, leaving them with a distorted version of facts. Even the page on Diana's interview (to which I personally contributed) contains information on its aftermath. What do you want this page to be like? "Harry and Meghan did an interview with Oprah. They made these allegations. The end"? Keivan.f^Talk 20:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

See Kevian, this is the problem with these pages, so much is added on here that can be interpreted differently, and every single time your interpretation is what makes it in. This is not a fact checking page, yes you can have a section with aftermath, however it should be brief. It is not wikipedias purpose to fact check what someone has said, mostly because it shouldn’t include so much of what someone has said that it requires extensive interpretation, and adding of different point of views. And the content you’ve added is mostly up for debate in terms of how it’s interpreted. Again I’m going to give you Meghan’s exact quote and not the interpretation of any third party. You said that Meghan said, the kids would not get titles. But that is how you interpreted what she said, her exact quote does not say “the kids will not get titles” what she actually said is: they had discussions about it, and they want… never said it was finalized and that the queen had changed the convention. It was not reported on as if the kids were definitely not going to get titles. So again, if she says there were discussions about it, then why do we need to follow up with how the discussion ended? That’s not the job of Wikipedia. People can read the news today.

“””””” And that was when they were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or a princess — not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol — and that he wasn’t going to receive security.

“You know, the other piece of that conversation is, there’s a convention — I forget if it was George V or George VI convention — that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be.

Right? And so, I think even with that convention I’m talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie”""””

There is no evidence that these discussions didn’t happen, however once Charles became King he didn’t change it. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t discussed. multiple outlets have reported that he planned to change the convention. DigitialNomad (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, unlike the articles on Harry, Meghan, and other individuals, this is not a biography. Not to mention that the whole interview was filled with gossipy salacious stories, claims, rumors, and allegations, and if we are to give them a platform, an equal platform can be given to the counter claims and allegations. The whole interview was about "who allegedly said/did what". It was not a scientific interview on worldwide issues which would require careful examination of each response in return. Keivan.f^Talk 20:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

How can you give opinions of talking heads and anonymous sources an equal footing to what someone says from their own mouth? If this is so how you approach these pages, I find that highly problematic. Is that what you think you are doing? Providing “stuff” to balance Harry and Meghan’s Wikipedia page? Deeply problematic approach to Wikipedia if this is your perspective? That means you can be manipulated into adding stuff on here, someone just needs to be loud enough in the news DigitialNomad (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Your comments about what she said with regards to the titles is fair. Yes, maybe discussions did take place. That doesn't change the outcome that what she feared was going to happen did not happen. And the article does not imply that she was lying about those conversations if that's what your concern is. It merely states that she had her own concerns, but she apparently was not entirely aware of how the letters patent work, and her children eventually got their titles.

There are various people who have been listed with their names here. They are not anonymous. And since the whole interview was filled with allegations coming out of their mouth, allegations coming out of non-anonymous people's mouth or people who worked with them that contradicts theirs can be given equal footing. We should neither believe Harry & Meghan, nor those who challenge their claims. Excluding one side would disrupt the page's neutrality and allow the main narrative to go unchallenged. That is contrary to what any article should be like. It is like having an article on Hitler's viewpoints but excluding the criticism, saying that people who are interested can go grab a book and read about it. And no, before anyone jumps to conclusions, I'm not comparing anyone here to Hitler. I'm giving an extreme example to make my viewpoints clear. Keivan.f^Talk 16:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I have already removed parts which I felt were irrelevant to the main points in the interview. However, parts that discuss or address claims made within the interview should remain. Keivan.f^Talk 20:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Kevian, are you on every single page related and Harry and Meghan? I now see the pattern, your style is to add more? DigitialNomad (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I can genuinely ask you the same question. I cover multiple articles on royalty, and I have other areas of interest. My contributions and creations attest to that. You on the other hand seem to be bent on the idea that removing everything from pages related to Harry and Meghan is the ideal way of maintaining encyclopedic articles. Let me break it to you: it's not. And FYI, it wasn't even me who set up the structure of this article two years ago. This was the work of multiple individuals and everything was added with their consensus at the time. I may have added sentences here and there ever since, but I'm hardly the only contributor to this page. Keivan.f^Talk 15:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

why are you the only one who responded and so passionately too? DigitialNomad (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the page is on my watchlist. And why not respond? You put the matter up for debate and should be prepared to get a response from anyone. Keivan.f^{[[user_talk:Keivan.fTalk]]} 15:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you passionate about these pages? DigitialNomad (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You throw the word passionate around a lot. No, I'm not passionate about anything. I'm interested in the content of a page that I have contributed to. Keivan.f^Talk 16:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Getting back to the Oprah interview, in this interview Meghan, backed by Harry, revealed that they telephoned the Archbishop of Canterbury (hereinafter referred to as "ABC" - "ABCDE" is the Archbishop of Canterbury's daughter Ellie) and asked him to marry them in private days before the event that was watched by millions around the world. He duly appeared and, although cagey about what happened, did not deny that he performed a wedding ceremony. On 8 March 2021 the couple's spokesperson described the ceremony as "a private exchange of vows." The statement was reported in full. On 21 March he made a further statement. Right wing journo Camilla Tominey condescended to reveal that it included the words "legal" and "official" but the headline went further and claimed it was an admission that the couple were liars. Asked about the accuracy of the headline on 22 July 2021 Tominey deflected the question, responding "I don't write the headlines." Were the couple to sue the Daily Telegraph, Tominey and whoever wrote the headline for libel, they would win if the defence evidence consisted of nothing other than Tominey's 22 July comment. If the paper tried to rely on Tominey's paraphrase of the statement it would still lose because that would be hearsay and inadmissible as evidence. On 8 March 2023 the spokesperson made a statement that a decision on whether to attend the Coronation 'will not be disclosed by us at this time.' Again it was reported in full. Under cross-examination Mrs Tominey would have a hard time convincing the jury that while the first and third statements were reported verbatim 90% of the other statement was suppressed for any reason other than that if it was reported it would reveal her claim that the Duke and Duchess had admitted lying to be libellous, and probably criminal libel at that. In a newspaper interview on 30 March 2021 ABC alleged "If I had signed the certificate on a different day, I would have been committing a serious crime." The staff at the General Register Office who routinely sign certificates only after the marriage schedule has been posted back to them after the ceremony must be quaking in their shoes. 89.243.8.4 (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you the user above DigitialNomad? If so, could you please make that clear, and also log into this account when continuing a conversation. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm failing to see how Tominey's comments about the couple's acceptance or refusal to attend the coronation is relevant to this topic. The entire comment is aimed at challenging her credibility I guess. Meanwhile, the rest is primarily about whether the couple should have sued her or the outlet for a specific headline, which is just speculation about what could have happened. Also, there is no mention of the archbishop's daughter Ellie in the interview (not sure how she's relevant), but the archbishop did state that he "would have been committing a serious crime" if he had not signed the certificate on the wedding day. What happens in other cases is not necessarily relevant, because we are talking about the marriage of a member of the royal family and their marriage certificates are traditionally signed on their wedding day. Keivan.f^Talk 21:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

So can you not see that ABC is as big a dissembler as Tominey? The first Marriage Act in 1753 provided that if the archbishop falsifies any record he shall be deemed and adjudged to be guilty of Felony, and shall suffer Death as a Felon, without Benefit of Clergy. So if the ceremony concludes at one minute to midnight and he signs the register at one minute past is he really going to be hauled off to the gallows? Confirming your next point, the very next provision of the statute reads:

XVII. Provided always, That this Act, or any Thing therein contained, shall not extend to the Marriages of any of the Royal Family.

ABC knows that the marriage law for members of the royal family is different from the marriage law for people who aren't members of the royal family because every time he issues a licence for a royal marriage he carefully enumerates what those differences are. Tominey revealed in her 22 July 2021 interview that she had received death threats. This was shortly after it had emerged that she had misquoted uncontroversial remarks of the Duchess, creating the impression that Meghan was a habitual liar. 89.243.8.4 (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Could people please keep discussion on this talk page on topic and refrain from indulging in original research? Unless any of the above can be cited to a source, and that source discusses it in direct relationship to this TV programme, it doesn't belong here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Editing article for neutrality and reliable sources

I agree with some contributors here, I think that this page could do with some editing now that some time has passed and can be made into a better entry.

Hoping others can add some constructive edits, and we can get consensus here if there are disagreements. I am currently working on this, aiming for neutral, verifiable, reliable, and non-tabloid sources.

For example, under the "Veracity of Claims" -- "State funded security section" I have made some edits to this section that are reputative or irrelevant to the discussion of the claims. (I apologise for the messy edit history on the page today, the formatting was terrible while on mobile, but I made the edits and comments as transparent as possible) Cibrian209 (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)