Talk:Pippa Middleton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment / Royalty and Nobility (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
 
WikiProject Berkshire (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Berkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject England (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject British Royalty (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Notable?[edit]

I didn't realize the sister of a prince's wife is notable. Does Barbara Bush's sister have a wikipedia entry? Do Michelle Obama's siblings? I don't even think Bill Clinton's brother has a wikipedia entry and he actually has some IMDB credits, people may actually know him from something he actually did in a professional setting. This feels like some 14 year-old girly pop culture at play here. Move for deletion?Admiral Bimbo (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

No. She meets notability requirements as she has received lots of coverage...the other folks you have named haven't.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, and the overwhelming consensus was to keep the article. StAnselm (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, as long as there is an awareness that because you are allowing trends to immediately influence the content on Wikipedia, you are filling it with things that will have no relevance over time, and will in fact be NON-NOTABLE in the near future. Internet "memes," viral videos, things that had a rush of popularity for a few months in time, will not be worthy of an article in the future. Nobody will now what a Dirty Sanchez is in 20 years. Nobody will know who Kate Gosling was, yet these things have articles. Wikipedia has only existed for 11 years. Recorded human history dates thousands of years, yet wiki's volume scale is tipped decidedly in favor of pop culture in it's own time. I don't need to explain what that fact does for the credibility of a reference source that touts unbiased, neutral POV..but it makes it decidedly biased. Not saying this can ever be perfect, but maybe a discussion is needed. What happens 20 years from now when wikipedia is balls deep in articles that nobody even comprehends about things like "All your base belong to us" and "pwned?" Something like "Dirty Sanchez" was not notable enough for wikipedia 5 years ago, so you could only put it on a BS joke site like urban dictionary. Now you can put dirty sanchez on wikipedia BECAUSE it was on urban dictionary. Does no one see the problem there? As long as you cite something, even if the source is total BS, it is now credible enough for wiki. Lastly, there is an abundance computer geeks and kids who contribute to wiki, because they have the time and interest in typing text on computers. It therefore creates a decidedly biased editorial force that slants in favor of these types of things (i.e. "All your base belong to us"). This is definitely NOT notable. If you surveyed the average human they would have no idea what that means. Just because gamers, programmers, and other types who generally live with their heads in a monitor are more liable to edit this site, doesn't mean the content should be biased as a result. An example of this problem is he fact that Quidditch, an article about a fictional sport that has existed for about 10 years give or take, is longer in length than the article for soccer, one of the oldest and most popular ACTUAL sports in the world. If nobody sees a problem with that, I apologize for assuming this was supposed to be an unbiased resource.Admiral Bimbo (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
For a definition of Wikipedia's concept of notability, see WP:N. Once reliable sources exist, they go on existing indefinitely. There clearly is an explosion going on in the number of notable subjects, however notability is defined, but that's in the nature of the world we live in, and too much information should always be preferred to too little. Even when a subject moves out of the limelight, however obscure it may become, someone somewhere will still be interested in it. Moonraker (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Coat of Arms inclusion[edit]

I previously made a change and removed the coat of arms in the article without having read the archive discussion. My apologies for that. Having now read the archive most of the arguments for keeping the image were not whether or not Pippa Middleton had any claim to the arms, but whether heraldry itself was a notable subject for inclusion. Heraldry is greatly misunderstood by the public at large. Many people still believe that a "family coat of arms" exists. A coat of arms can only be used by one person at a time (hence the practice of cadency). Despite some poor journalism from Reuters and copied by other news outlets, the Garter King of Arms is quoted as saying "Every Coat of Arms has been designed to identify a person, school or organization". This matches my understanding that a grant of arms is for an individual and their heirs, not something that "any of the children can use". Compare the entries for Prince William and Prince Harry. Their arms are individually differenced, as are their father's and uncle's. I suggest that the arms be removed from Pippa's entry. Just because you read something in the newspaper doesn't mean it's true. ~ Brother William (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is a grant of arms was made to Michael Middleton (not to Kate) and to Pippa can use the (differentiated) arms based on that. The official royal wedding website says "The Grant of Arms has been made to Mr. Michael Middleton and his descendants in accordance with the laws of Arms, so all of his three children, including Catherine, are entitled to the Arms." StAnselm (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
To find out about the Middleton armorial tree, see more on Heraldry Online Blog, 2011 April. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the coat of arms shown on this page is incorrect. Based on what I see on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lozenge_(heraldry), it doesn't appear to be a lozenge. The captions on the two pages are identical, but the images are different. Jelloice (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)jelloice

Her age[edit]

There seems to be no agreement on this among major publications.

Whereas

These all are professional, reliable-source publications, as opposed to gossip sites or wikia. It's hard to tell the best way to handle this — Us and People are fairly equivalent in terms of resources (Wenner Publications for the former, Time Inc. for the latter). And British newspapers have sources close to home.

The citation for 1983, no date, is the website ThePeerage.com, run by a Wharton MBA in New Zealand, Daryl Lundy (http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/darryl-lundy/). It appears to be a well-regarded and longstanding amateur site. His "1983" is given as coming from one Michael Rhodes, "re: updates," e-mail message to www.thepeerage.com, 8 July 2004." Does anyone know who Michael Rhodes is and whether he is in a position to know? (Also, why would anyone be talking about Pippa Middleton in 2004, over a half-dozen years before her sister married a royal?)

Suggestions? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just for info primary sources indicate a Philippa Charlotte Middleton was born in the last quarter of 1983, but it cant be used as a source! MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Gungate[edit]

Still waiting for better sources. Vanity Fair, Daily Mail, and *sorry The Sun mentioning this. [1] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like tabloid stuff not really encyclopedic unless she is charged with something. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The incident made headlines over the world and contributed to her fame/notority. It should definitely be included here. 174.91.159.131 (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

in the big picture this is not something she has done or anyone will remember as her being notorious for. Nasnema  Chat  06:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

This article cited thepeerage.com and wargs as sources several times. These are self-published sources WP:SPS that have been specifically discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSN here [2][3][4] and determined not to be reliable sources. Moreover, Self-published sources cannot be used in a WP:BLP per WP:BLPSPS. The citations have been removed, but not the associated text, and tags added requesting that better sources be found where the improper sources were formerly placed. Information that is not sourced to a Reliable Source may be removed. Fladrif (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverted[edit]

This is an article about a human being. Details about a dress she wore once are unimportant. Arcandam (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens wrote (in an editsummary): "the dress (and her figure inside it) generated significant media coverage seperate from the wedding itself."

If you think the dress is notable feel free to write an article about it. This is an encyclopaedia, it doesn't really matter if fashionreporters worldwide report on something and think it is notable. Arcandam (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think Daniela Elser's and Anita Singh's opinions about a dress she wore once are important enough to be mentioned in the article about the person? Those two 'journalists' are not even notable enough to have their own article... Their job includes critiquing outfits worn by celebrities, they praise some, they attack others, but it is all unimportant and nonnotable. Arcandam (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:FART. Arcandam (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What that human being wore to an event which catapulted her to the public awareness is relevant. At least one other editor agrees with me - so find another that agrees with you, because you're at 3RR. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
And this editor agrees with Chaheel Riens (talk)
-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
@ Arcandam (talk) Really! You should check your hyperlinks before including them here! The first is "dead" – and the second, not applicable in this context. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The links about Daniela and Anita? That is strange! Which browser are you using? They work here. Arcandam (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The dress is notable. Our founder, Jimbo Wales, has repeatedly expressed support for such content. For example, "I hope someone will create lots of articles about lots of famous dresses. I believe that our systemic bias caused by being a predominantly male geek community is worth some reflection in this context. Consider Category:Linux distribution stubs - we have nearly 90 articles about Linux distrubtions, counting only the stubs. With the major distros included, we're well over a hundred. One hundred different Linux distributions. One hundred. I think we can have an article about this dress. We should have articles about one hundred famous dresses.". Warden (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, in my POV it is not notable but I am willing to accept the fact it is notable in other people's POVs. Arcandam (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What was again the name of Pippa's dress at the wedding? I think we should put a redirect from it to here—or the other way round. Gun Powder Ma (talk)

First catch your hare. Moonraker (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What the???[edit]

OK I understand that this isn't a fourum but can the person who claimed that my last comment is unhelpful to the article please understand that the article is as of now, out of date. Her book has been released now and this should probably be reflected in the article as it claims that it is due to be realsed in the fall of 2012. Maybe an excerpt or two from critics of both sides about her first foray into the world of literature? I think what I've suggested would be a valuable contribution to the article. I accept that I could have worded this request better but there was no need to revert the comment, I was just repeating what has been said about the book with quotes pulled from the book in question. Perhaps if I included some links it might help prove that I was making a serious and what I thought helpful suggestion?

There is tons of this stuff all over the internet if you want to find more sources yourself. 212.250.138.33 (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It was me who reverted. My reasons for reversion are still valid - your comments, whilst in good faith, offered nothing to improve the article, and as worded were forumesque and inappropriate. There's a world of difference between you personally criticising a book, and established review sources doing the same. There's nothing wrong with your above post, I don't ever recall doubting your word over whether the book was out, and the links you've included are from reliable sources, so I've got nothing against their proper inclusion in the article. Although I see there's been a bit of work around her book since then, so they may be superfluous. It's not up to me to find more sources - it's up to the including editor. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd just first like to start off by making it clear that I am in no way looking for any of the reverted material to be reinstated. I assumed you thought I was trolling and that was why my discussion edit was reverted hence the link to the publisher proving the book is actually out now. I apologise for the wording of the reverted edit, I agree I should have been more serious about it instead of treating the subject in a light hearted way and I should have made it obvious that the critisim of the book being, "just obvious" followed by extracts from the book was not my own work but from the BBC. I should have cited the article, it was totally my mistake. I have learned from my mistake and will adjust my writing style accordingly. I have no interest in actively editing Wikipedia articles for various reasons I won't discuss here. The last bit was just an open invitation to someone, anyone really, more interested than myslef in editing articles to improve the article by updating it if they didn't like the sources I provided. Thank you for your response, I have learned a valuable lessson today about Wikipeida. 212.250.138.33 (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hm, strange response - I have to say. Your reply seems to include implications of reproach and criticism - "Thank you for your response, I have learned a valuable lessson today about Wikipeida" coupled with a statement that you have no intention of editing further. If you can take the time to search out references and comment on a talk page, why not the mainspace as well? Everyone can edit Wikipedia, so why not join in and help improve the article(s) yourself?
Anyway I looked for a policy or essay that would state something along the lines of "Don't take an edit personally" but surprisingly enough, couldn't find one. But that's what I'll say here - OK, so I rm'd your original post, and then stated why - don't take it personally. I've removed hundreds of comments and edits from Wikipedia, and other editors have ultimately removed (or changed) hundreds of mine - that's just how it is. I may disagree with the reasons for removal, and argue my case, but I don't take it as a personal commentary (certain scenarios excepted, of course.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I think I've come across badly again. What I meant about learning my lesson was to treat requests for edits more seriously and not request them in what you described as a " forumesque and inappropriate" manner. I admit it was light hearted and almost jocular and that, perhaps, is not the best way of contributing to Wikipedia. Also you've misunderstood my intentions, I did not mean that I have no intention of editing further, I've never had any intention of actively editing an article for various reasons that, as I said aren't really worth discussing here. My only intention on Wikipedia was to contribute sources and point out errors such as formating errors, spelling mistakes etc. I'll be honest, I didn't take the fact that my request to help improve an article by updating it with current information was deleted becuase you considered it "forumesque and inappropriate". I have however taken your accusations personally now. Becuase of these assumptions about my state of mind and character I suppose this is probably the best time to bow out and cease trying to help as it is becoming obvious that I am not wanted here. I'm sorry I've replied to you so late but I took some time out to walk away and mull before coming to a decision and formulating a response. 212.250.138.33 (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Engagement rumors[edit]

I just removed the "Personal life" section with the reported engagement. The source for that statement said: "The pair are set to wed next year, after Jackson proposed during a trip to a posh Indian resort near the Taj Mahal earlier this month, reports Us Weekly." However, the linked Us Weekly article now says: "The 35-year-old stockbroker was rumored to be engaged to Middleton, but a source told Us Weekly in September that these rumors were not true.". Apparently Us Weekly did report on an engagement, but those reports were incorrect, compare the Daily Mail. The article where Us Weekly reported on the engagement seems to have been retracted. We should not report discredited rumors. Huon (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

We should not report rumours on a BLP - not even if it is verifiable that such rumours exist or are being repeated by reliable sources. Rumours are simply not notable.--Scott Mac 16:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

nickname[edit]

She's been nicknamed "Her Royal Hotness" by the press. Shouldn't this be mentioned? How this woman is notable for wearing a dress at the wedding of her sister and working two days a week at her parents' company, I'll never know. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

No, this shouldn't be mentioned. Non-notable tabloidesque rubbish. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

So is Wikipedia. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


As urged in our policy guidelines, I am "being bold" and adding Her Royal Hotness' proper title to this article as it is notable. If you don't like it, bite me. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry[edit]

Do we really need an ancestry section as far as I can see it is not relevant to her notability, cant see any more than just a link to Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge in see also is needed and we can delete the ancestry section. MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I have replaced the ancestry section - Middleton is a well known columnist/celebrity who has an interesting ancestry - with links to very well known prime ministers. Readers should NOT have to go to the page of her sister - Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. - for this information. 125.168.85.156 (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Do note that notability applies to article topics, not to the selection of content for an article. Something that is relevant to the topic and encyclopedic may be included even if it is not separately notable, and is not particularly relevant to the reason that the subject is notable. That does not mean such information must be included of course, merely that it may be. DES (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the issue is one of undue weight. Very few biographical articles have such sections, of course. StAnselm (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
As I removed it once before with no objections my original position still stands that her ancestry has nothing to with her notability or the reason she has a page, out of tens of thousands of biographical articles only a small few have ancestry sections where it is directly relevant and I cant see Miss Middleton being an exception and the link to her family article is sufficient. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pippa_Middleton
en.wikipedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2015-40
107116
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:YVGOVJMYDXVME5Q7RUDEF2Y2RQ4XNURY
<urn:uuid:c6ae1b1c-676f-4085-96da-c03161eff3dd>
2015-10-06T12:37:48Z
208.80.154.224
sha1:AZVZSQ5J4JU6S75D3WLRG3UYJFQ3ASQN
<urn:uuid:492b2af6-9b36-419e-9c9d-db7ba613945a>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pippa_Middleton
response
<urn:uuid:a6ade7cd-21e0-4cdf-8415-75b57e08a988>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-137-6-227.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-40
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf