Talk:Meghan, Duchess of Sussex: Difference between revisions
Line 178: | Line 178: | ||
:::I'm sorry. But we'll go with what the sources say and none of them have included the translation you are suggesting here. <span style="font:'Pristina'">[[user:Keivan.f|<span style="color: #1E7HDC">Keivan.f</span>]]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>[[user_talk:Keivan.f|<span style="color: purple">Talk</span>]]</sup></span> 21:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
:::I'm sorry. But we'll go with what the sources say and none of them have included the translation you are suggesting here. <span style="font:'Pristina'">[[user:Keivan.f|<span style="color: #1E7HDC">Keivan.f</span>]]</span><span style="font:'Pristina'"><sup>[[user_talk:Keivan.f|<span style="color: purple">Talk</span>]]</sup></span> 21:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::{{ping|User:Keivan.f}} I am all for adding the Nigerian traditional title/honours so long as we feel the source is credible. -- [[User:Willthacheerleader18|Willthacheerleader18]] ([[User talk:Willthacheerleader18|talk]]) 01:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
::::{{ping|User:Keivan.f}} I am all for adding the Nigerian traditional title/honours so long as we feel the source is credible. -- [[User:Willthacheerleader18|Willthacheerleader18]] ([[User talk:Willthacheerleader18|talk]]) 01:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
:'''Support''' {{ping|User:Keivan.f}} I found a more credible source. [https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/13/africa/meghan-nigeria-tour-int-latam/index.html/ This article] |
:'''Support''' {{ping|User:Keivan.f}} I found a more credible source. [https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/13/africa/meghan-nigeria-tour-int-latam/index.html/ This article] by [[CNN]] states ''"The Obi of Onitsha, His Majesty Igwe Nnaemeka Alfred Ugochukwu Achebe christened Meghan “Ada Mazi,” which means “the daughter of the Igbo ancestral palace. While, the Oluwo of Iwoland, southwest, Nigeria, Oba Abdulrasheed Adewale Akanbi christened her with the Yoruba name of “Adetokunbo” which means “royalty from across the seas."'' -- [[User:Willthacheerleader18|Willthacheerleader18]] ([[User talk:Willthacheerleader18|talk]]) 01:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Add her new title == |
== Add her new title == |
Revision as of 01:51, 15 May 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Meghan, Duchess of Sussex article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Women in Red: Women in the world (2017) | ||||
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
|
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 83 million views since December 2007. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2017 and 2018. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 20 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
Index
|
|||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Sourcing in regards to tabloid content
This entry seems to be riddled with and deeply influenced by references to opinion, commentary, and editorial pieces often run in publications known for their lack of journalistic integrity (The Telegraph, The Independent, News.com.au for example). If the Daily Mail is not allowed as a source, I'm not certain how these are different. And regardless of the source, opinion and commentary should not be used as sources for a serious encyclopedic entry.
Further, these are largely used to cite rumors or allegations in such a way as to (I suspect intentionally) lend them passive credibility. Similar entries for other members of the royal family do not lend nearly as much space to the detailed discussion of rumors and allegations, nor do they delve as deeply into ultimately irrelevant details about each individual item.
For example, the section "Bullying allegations and Oprah interview" begins an entire heading and paragraph with an ultimately unconfirmed allegation made through a royal commentator from unnamed sources, when in reality the interview was chronologically announced first and the allegations were made in response to that. In a straightforward telling, should then the subheading not simply read "Oprah interview" as this is the primary and factually most important topic of the paragraph under the heading of "Media"? There is zero factual context or details provided for the interview itself, which can be easily and reputably sourced. Why is so much space given to one single poorly sourced accusation, unless the intent is to make that the primary focus of the reader's attention. Should not things like this, if they must be reported, go under a separate "Controversies" heading or similar?
Overall, this entry seems packed full of as many references to rumors and accusations as possible, however big or small, regardless of whether they are correct or not, or even cited from a reliable source. The whole page should be trimmed and edited to be a straightforward description of the facts of the subject's life. Simply including "claimed" or "alleged" or "rumored" is not enough to justify inclusion in a serious historical record.
For example: "Among unfounded conspiracy theories spread on social media, including Twitter and YouTube, were claims that Meghan had faked her pregnancies and used a surrogate mother, or, alternatively, that her children do not exist at all."(Sourced from THREE editorial opinion pieces, for unfounded conspiracy theories. Really? If we did this for every single public figure, then this website would read like a gossip blog and need ten times the server space.) How is this relevant to the facts of her life? Does this kind of thing really belong in her encyclopedic biography? This is just one of dozens of easy examples.
I suggest the editors consider overhauling this entire entry to be truly unbiased and simpler, rather than being a clearinghouse for every editorial ever written about the subject, regardless of who or where it comes from.
Finally, I will note that the entry for the Princess of Wales correctly does not concern itself with the litany of rumors and tabloid commentary on the subject over her many years in the public eye, and instead takes a neutral tone as would be expected for any public figure. I will also note that the sourcing for the entry is largely from reputable sources with almost no references to tabloids or opinion/commentary of any kind. The Princess of Wales "Privacy and the media" section is markedly different in tone from this one and they really should match identically in tone, as they are the same category of public figure. 2603:8000:3B41:B00:A1EB:698B:F696:CD31 (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- The Daily Telegraph and The Independent have a "lack of journalistic integrity"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- They are two of the world's most respected news media and I cannot take seriously any comment that begins by questioning them. While I accept that banning the Daily Mail may be questionable, it definitely is not in the same class as the other two newspapers. TFD (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- "If the Daily Mail is not allowed as a source" The "Daily Fail" is not allowed because it regularly publishes fabrications and "inaccurate scare stories". Can you point to instances of The Daily Telegraph misleading the public?Dimadick (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- They supported the obviously false claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. So did the Daily Fail btw. TFD (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- i think that at the time a lot of news sources supported the weapons of mass destruction claims, as did plenty of politicians, of course..
- So I don't believe that this particular story validates the claim that The Telegraph has a lack of journalistic integrity. Certainly, The Telegraph has a strong right-wing bias. But there is a difference between a newspaper's political slant and false reporting. Most English newspapers are known to have a political bias. Though, when founded, The Independent was actually sold on the basis that it would report the news independently and would not.
- I therefore agree with TFD's comment above.. The Daily Telegraph, and still more The Independent, are generally well-respected for the journalistic integrity of their factual content, even though some will naturally violently disagree with the slant used as the facts are presented.
- These two papers are not generally considered to be in the same category as The Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror and other British newspapers whose content is known as "tabloid journalism" and therefore by definition not necessarily to be reliable. MrsJJHH (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- They supported the obviously false claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. So did the Daily Fail btw. TFD (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= oder |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I only write on an important technicality. You advise Meghan's children as Princess and Prince of Sussex. Being British you grow up with RF information and understand you do not refer to a Princes (Prince Harry) in the terms of their County of which he holds a further Royal Title of Duke of Sussex. It must be understood Meghan only has a title through her husband. Although H&Ms children are none heritage titles,meaning they cannot pass their Prince/Princess titles to their own children, importantly they are ONLY must be known as 'Prince Archie' and 'Princess Lilibet', not of Sussex as you are currently showing.Under Royal rules,by putting 'of Sussex' after Meghan's children's titles you are implying the County of Sussex is giving the children their Royal Titles. The children's titles are inherited from their father Prince Harry. As King Charles' second son as the current ruling Monarch, and as such are British (UK) national titles. A County cannot have Prince and Princess, therefore like Princess Eugeny and her sister they can ONLY be known correctly as 'Prince Archie' and 'Princess Lilbett' and you must remove 'of Sussex'reference. British Royal Titles are very complex but having been employed for many years by the Royal family, I thought ut only right to advise you of this so you can correct this as it stands it does not make sense. If you need further information please say. Dr S. Selwyn. Drsselwyn (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- They are officially "Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex". See [2] and [3]. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- In our British prince article, it is said the the current king was known at birth as, Prince Charles of Edinburgh, so it appears that the "of Sussex", refers to the father, not the county, as in the old custom, Harry would also be known as just, "Sussex". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- titles. 71.7.195.204 (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= oder |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update from "Meghan lived with her father until she was 18 years old." This is FALSE. Change to:" Meghan lived with her mother full time and would visit her father on weekends until she was 18 years old." 209.136.129.146 (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Coats of arms and copyright
A discussion is going on at the Commons concerning the copyright status of several coats of arms that are in use on pages related to British royalty. Please feel free to share your comments and input at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Coat of arms of Queen Camilla.svg. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 18:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
New Royal Title
Can someone update the biography for Meghan's new royal title, Her Royal Highness, Princess of Arochukwu, an ancient kingdom of Nigeria. Purplebrown43 (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- They are not likely to update the title itself, since it is not official. They could write about the trip or write about her Nigerian fans and what popular title they may make for her but would need several solid sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/13/africa/meghan-nigeria-tour-int-latam
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13411201/amp/Meghan-Markle-Nigerias-new-princess.html
- among the titles listed in the news sources, you can see the word « omu » on the sash she was presented with. This is significant
- https://theafricanroyalfamilies.com/2023/08/04/the-omu-of-nigeria-tradition/ Phalangela (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Only the CNN news story counts as a Wikipedia:Reliable source, and CNN doesn't mention this supposed title. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@Celia Homeford: I found this article by Premium Times that gives a detailed account of her visit. It mentions suggested Nigerian names for the Duchess, but I don't see anything about being bestowed a chieftancy's title. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Here's an article, [4] apart from some interesting digs at the Daily Mail, it explains that she was bestowed the title "Ada Mazi", which translates as 'daughter of aristocrat', in a "naming ceremony" in which three chief's participated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- So the title apparently is Ada Mazi (trans. "daughter of an aristocrat"), Omu of Arochukwu if we were to accept Daily Mirror as a source. And the person who bestowed it upon her was Eberechukwu Oji (Eze Aro of Arochukwu), in the presence of Alfred Achebe (Obi of Onitsha) and Ogiame Atuwatse III (Olu of Warri) (p.s. Oba Abdulrosheed Akanbi (Oluwo of Iwo) apparently gave her some gifts per this source but was not there for the conferring of title I guess). If the community agrees on the reliability of sources and its relevance, it can be added under the "titles and styles" section, but it should also be noted that titles of this nature are not among the national honours of the Federal Republic of Nigeria but more likely bestowed by the local chieftaincy system. Keivan.fTalk 20:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ada Mazi means “the daughter of the Igbo ancestral palace”. Unless you don’t consider Nigerian Kings to be Kings? 142.197.97.26 (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. But we'll go with what the sources say and none of them have included the translation you are suggesting here. Keivan.fTalk 21:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Keivan.f: I am all for adding the Nigerian traditional title/honours so long as we feel the source is credible. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. But we'll go with what the sources say and none of them have included the translation you are suggesting here. Keivan.fTalk 21:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ada Mazi means “the daughter of the Igbo ancestral palace”. Unless you don’t consider Nigerian Kings to be Kings? 142.197.97.26 (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support @Keivan.f: I found a more credible source. This article by CNN states "The Obi of Onitsha, His Majesty Igwe Nnaemeka Alfred Ugochukwu Achebe christened Meghan “Ada Mazi,” which means “the daughter of the Igbo ancestral palace. While, the Oluwo of Iwoland, southwest, Nigeria, Oba Abdulrasheed Adewale Akanbi christened her with the Yoruba name of “Adetokunbo” which means “royalty from across the seas." -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Add her new title
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are literal physical evidence in her title ceremony. 142.197.97.26 (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @142.197.97.26: What title are you referring to? I'm assuming you're not talking about Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton, or Baroness Kilkeel. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Omu, Ada Mazi of the Ancient Arochukwu Kingdom Phalangela (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= oder |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change name to Omu Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, Ada Mazi of the Ancient Arochukwu Kingdom 71.163.33.232 (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- See the talk page sections above this one. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Wikipedia good articles
- History good articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- Biography articles of living people
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Actors and filmmakers work group articles
- GA-Class biography (royalty) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (royalty) articles
- Royalty work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class British royalty articles
- Mid-importance British royalty articles
- WikiProject British Royalty articles
- GA-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- GA-Class Los Angeles articles
- Low-importance Los Angeles articles
- Los Angeles area task force articles
- GA-Class Southern California articles
- Low-importance Southern California articles
- Southern California task force articles
- WikiProject California articles
- GA-Class England-related articles
- Low-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- GA-Class United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class Women's History articles
- Low-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- GA-Class African diaspora articles
- Mid-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- WikiProject Women in Red meetup 60 articles
- All WikiProject Women in Red pages
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report
- Spoken Wikipedia requests