NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search

Title

I chose this over the fuller title of Prince Henry of Wales since this is how Harry is almost exclusively known. I realise the formal title may be preferred especially since his brother is at Prince William of Wales. The alternative favoured at WP is 'Prince Harry of Wales', which I do not recommend as there is no such formal title. John Stephenson 10:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Meghan

Quick web search turns up all sorts of contradictory statements about her religion, and those of her family. I think we should say something if we can find it out reliably. Peter Jackson (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

is she a Kadashian, or whoever they are? Incidentally, do we have any articles about *them*? Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I suspect she's just a minor actress who became famous only through being his girlfriend.

Returning to my original topic, it's been announced she's to be baptized and confirmed (in the Church of England). According to [1] she identifies as a Protestant, but the announcement implies she hasn't been baptized, unless maybe in some rather way-out sect whose baptisms wouldn't be recognized by the C of E. Unless we get something really reliable saying she's Catholic, Jewish or nothing (all of which seem to have been suggested), this is probably not important enough for his article, though of course anyone who wants can create one on her. Peter Jackson (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It would be a far, far better world if people of this nature could be completely ignored, but I'm afraid that that is never going to happen. My own interest in her, of course, is zilch. But if she *does* have to be mentioned in some article or other, then best to be cautious and careful about sources and references, of course.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

WP policy is based on "reliable sources". This includes reasonably reputable newspapers, so anything they treat at any length is "notable" and can be included there. So, for example, it's been pointed out there that local newspapers give massive coverage to local sports "stars", who may be virtually unknown anywhere else, but this makes them notable for WP purposes.

We no longer have a policy ("guidance") on what can be included here. It's just anything anyone feels like. We used to have a policy of "maintainability", that we should only have articles we can keep up to date. That would be very few now. On WP, increasing number of articles and decreasing edit rate necessarily imply increasing unmaintainablity.

On your latest edit summary, it's the sort of thing they discuss a lot over there, and you could probably find out something useful. I'd only add that I remember seeing someone here say that our real names policy applies to photos: we need to know, and state, the real name of the photographer. Peter Jackson (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)