Talk:Oprah with Meghan and Harry/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

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

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)

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

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