The Wikipedia monster gleefully tears down the future Queen of England

[AndyTheGrump]

This is all your fantasy framing.

You wrote the thread title. I didn't.

[AndyTheGrump]

... what they really need is a new, mostly-unrelated royal scandal and/or weird incident to push this one off the public's radar screen.

This latest nonsense is an inevitable consequence of the whole slim-down-the-monarchy thing. The media needs stories to feed the royalty-obsessed. With less going on, what little there is (or in this case, isn't) gets hyper-focussed attention.

As for sexism, the media and royalty, what's new? Nothing. Nothing at all. Queens consort have always been reproductive organs in fancy clothes, one way or another, as far as the institution goes. Those of us who are old enough to remember the speculation about Diana's virginity, prior to the marriage, will know what I'm referring to. And the establishment of the time gave out enough knowing winks to let everyone know she'd been 'investigated'. It isn't just a media-sexism thing, it's inherent in the whole damn system. And yes, on an individual level one can have a certain amount of sympathy for anyone who has to go through that sort of crap. Not, in my case however, enough sympathy to ignore the underlying causes, or to forget that Kate bought into this of her own free will. She is a victim of the institution she is helping to preserve. The 'monster' in Kraken's lurid thread title isn't Wikipedia, it is royalty itself, and the freakshow that surrounds it. The freakshow it needs to draw in the crowds that justify its continued existence:

We have to be seen to be believed.

Elizabeth II.

[Vigilant]

Question of the day: Will Crowken ever write something that, when read, doesn't make the reader regret choosing to read it?

[AndyTheGrump]

Question of the day: Will Crowken ever write something that, when read, doesn't make the reader regret choosing to read it?

I dunno, watching him mansplaining to feminists how they are doing it all wrong is quite entertaining, to a bystander at least. Though it does rather make me look back to my earlier days with fondness, when that sort of behaviour would have been dealt with through the judicious administration of a Doc Martin to the genitals. Modern feminism has become rather too mainstream, and rather too tame...

[Kraken]

This is all your fantasy framing.

You wrote the thread title. I didn't.

And I'd do it again!

Sheesh.

There's a world of difference between creative flair and pure delusion. But you know that. Just like you know you can't even remember a similar incident to this one.

For the sake of my readers as you put it, pick a lane. You can hardly call me ludicrous while passing off my opinions as your own....

Not just any aspect of her private life mind you, but arguably one of the most deeply personal things that the mother of the heir to the Throne Of England could ever have. The Crown worn by Elizabeth the first and second and Victoria. All three in their own times famously having to deal with the inherent conflicts between being the wife and mother of a nation and an actual wife and mother, or not as the fickle hand of fate may dictate.

......

Kate is a public figure, a celebrity of sorts (just not in the way a minority of morons might wish). Her image and how it is handled, is an encyclopaedic topic. Good and bad. It warrants documenting in its own right. There's certainly something to be said for the idea this frenzy has its origins in an information vacuum. 

Queens consort have always been reproductive organs in fancy clothes, one way or another, as far as the institution goes.

......

This latest nonsense is an inevitable consequence of the whole slim-down-the-monarchy thing. The media needs stories to feed the royalty-obsessed. With less going on, what little there is (or in this case, isn't) gets hyper-focussed attention.

Although thankfully people can see clear daylight between our views soon after....

And that poses serious problems for anyone who has a very real need for privacy. But you would expect an encyclopedia to handle that with sensitivity. A certain seriousness.

And yes, on an individual level one can have a certain amount of sympathy for anyone who has to go through that sort of crap. Not, in my case however, enough sympathy to ignore the underlying causes, or to forget that Kate bought into this of her own free will. She is a victim of the institution she is helping to preserve. 

It certainly takes a special kind of feminist to blame a woman for the consequences of her falling ill and keeping the details of her rather obviously highly likely to be reproductive related illness private. She got married, so now she deserves the world and Wikipedia telling her kids she's really a robot and their dad is shagging the maid. And while we feel bad for Kate, remember, don't feel too bad, she did bring it on herself. And let's all at least be thankful we got some kickass memes out of it.

Take that, Princess!

Are you EJ Dickson in disguise?

Whatever Kate is going through, and whatever the true explanation for her absence may be, she deserves the respect and privacy that is afforded to any other human being going through difficult times. But that’s not tantamount with representatives for the Royal Family outright lying to a populace they think is stupid, and now that they’ve been called out on that, there’s no reason not to call them out for their very existence

[Kraken]

Absence and Mother’s Day photograph of Catherine, Princess of Wales (T-H-L) is the most accurate encyclopedic title. TheSpacebook (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2024

The word encyclopedia has truly lost all meaning.

[Bezdomni]

RIP "in-circle training"

World Book

Space Book

[Sennalen]

I agree with you about what policy should say, but it doesn't.

WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL allows speculation if it's verifiable, and in this case all the main points of the article are cited to reliable sources, so this isn't a valid reason for deletion.

WP:NOTGOSSIP allows the inclusion of information "[in] which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest," and readers are certainly interested in Kate's whereabouts, so this isn't a valid reason for deletion.

The clauses at WP:NOT (T-H-L) don't have to explicitly state that each type of article is forbidden. What closes the loop is the second prong at WP:NOTABILITY (T-H-L) - if an article runs afoul of any form of "what Wikipedia is not", then it no longer benefits from the GNG presumed notability conferred by the existence of reliable sources.

[Kraken]

I'm intrigued to see that there appears to be not a single word on Wikipedia about the England national men's football kit Nike flag controversy (T-H-L). Despite the fact this is the thing that has seemingly bumped Kategate from the headlines. Like Kategate, its 90% disposable news froth, 10% important issues. There's a kernel of encyclopaedic relevance that merits documenting for posterity.

Not a word in England national football team (T-H-L) (the famously not sexist Wikipedia will get around to making sure people know that's the men's team article in due course I am sure, not), Nike (T-H-L) or even Flag of England (T-H-L), much less a whacking great standalone article. If I'm honest I was surprised Wikipedia doesn't even have an article for the England national football team kit (T-H-L). It's kind of a big deal in its own right. Oodles of history and controversy.

Unlike Kategate, on current evidence, and with a full week of steam already, you can say with absolute certainty this will satisfy the WP:LASTING criteria of the event notability criteria, because this kit is slated to be used in 85 days time in a major tournament. Like Kategate, it certainly has the same depth and breadth of coverage, including international coverage and analysis peices breaking it down for your convenience.

So it's a legit controversy. A major cultural touchstone. The leader of the leftwing party that is the presumed winner of the next United Kingdom general election (T-H-L) has felt the need to make it plain Nike have done us dirty.

So you know it's a real thing for him to risk trying to appear like he's a man of the people, a man of conviction, a patriot. All things he sucks at, being an establishment leftie and the most unconvincing straight white man of pure English blood since Adam swerved Eve for Steve in the Garden of Stephen. At least I think that's why our Patron is St. GEORGE THE CRUSADER, cos we invented the Bible or something. Who knows these days. When Wikipedia is your educator you kind of lose touch with what's real and what's not.

Anyway. The Man of the Left. Speaking to it himself, and also rolling out Emily Thornberry (T-H-L) no less to state "You wouldn’t expect Nike to go off and have a look at the Welsh flag and decide to change the dragon to a pussycat,”....."You wouldn’t expect the England flag to be changed like this. You wouldn’t expect bits of purple in the French Tricolor. Why are they doing it? I don’t understand.".

My my Emily. Quite the change of tune from you eh? A Rose by any other name. The internet never forgets. Amazing these clowns ever won a single election in the modern era. Yes indeed. Risky business. But not something that can be ignored. A matter of honor.

Unlike Kategate, there is a clear topic (should you want to go wild and document every little thing in RS) and no living people are harmed by Wikipedia documenting the event. At least no specific people. Nike executives are getting ripped to shreds, but it can be fairly be said they brought it on themselves far more than Kate somehow brought this conspiracy theory nonsense on her own head. It can be fairly said the controversy is a marketing strategy in of itself. Brand management.

No gossip needed to document this. No hearsay. Only facts. Very little speculation, and nothing that would require giving succor to conspiracy theory nutjobs. Culture warriors for sure, but in the UK at least, these terms are not interchangeable quite yet. Nutty is nutty. Angry is angry. Both can be found on the socials. Angry nutty is safely in an institution, because no, you may not have Free Speech outside of your American provided social media that is far out of the reach of the British Establishment, you dangerous loon.

So what gives?

Not. A. SINGLE. Word.

Kinda debunks the myth Wikipedia is obsessed with football and dominated by men. It does seem to confirm Wikipedia is sexist, but also disinclined to criticize woke if it doesn't need to. If the left wing press are doing fine on their own dismissing the controversy as just so much gammon crap.

It's almost like Wikipedia loves to tear down the female symbols of our Great Nation when they make the slightest mistake, or no mistake at all. Yet when an American Corporation strikes at the very heart of our most male of national symbols in some warped dual attack on both our flag and national sport (with all due apologies to the far more successful Lionesses), there not be a lick of interest.

How curious.

[greenday61892]

Doesn't it get tiring being so vitriolic toward so many things and spending so much time putting that into so many words?

[Kraken]

Doesn't it get tiring being so vitriolic toward so many things and spending so much time putting that into so many words?

You would think, but no. This is me in pretty much neutral. I can reel off posts like that in my sleep. A man without an opinion is a man without a soul. And I got soul, brother. Not sure what's so vitriolic about it. Have you an example? It may just be my sense of humor not finding the right audience.

[Konveyor Belt]

Breaking: Princess Kate announces she is undergoing treatment for cancer

A lot of posts in here are going to age very badly I think.

[rnu]

Requested move 21 March 2024: ongoing / permanent
There are ten, yes ten, main options and eight variations up for discussion for a total of 18 options (so far).

[Kraken]

Breaking: Princess Kate announces she is undergoing treatment for cancer

A lot of posts in here are going to age very badly I think.

And there you go. The primary reason for BLP I would say.

"But, most importantly, it has taken us time to explain everything to George, Charlotte and Louis in a way that is appropriate for them, and to reassure them that I am going to be OK," 

I happened to be with my cousin today who has kids this age and is booked for removal of a major tumor, and only after that will she get the news every parent with cancer dreads. She's no Princess, very far from it. A tough kid from a terrible background with major issues just trying to get the support she needs to live, never mind deal with this shit, and not even out of her twenties. I might be the most dependable relative she has, me! So man alive, she's a real Trooper. And you know what? There's still not a damn thing you can tell me that would make me think she was any more or less deserving of privacy and respect than Kate. It don't matter if you've got ten or ten million people wanting to know your business while your world's falling down around your ears. A vulture is a vulture. A Princess comes in many forms. She's raised four children so far, the cancer means that's it. Computer says no. Her only boy is a real killer. The one who has had to endure the most at this difficult time. The casual sexism that says boys must endure. Must. If he makes it, he'll make a killer for real. A real force of nature. One of the British Army's finest Angels of Death. And in the finest tradition of the baddest dudes on this planet, the SAS, he kills for his mates and his Queen, nothing else. Certainly not for the shit pay or the Prime Minister of the day. Present difficulties with, uh, brand image of both organizations, notwithstanding. Nobody's perfect. And by the grace of [deity of choice or blank void] that Queen will be Kate. One day the fucking vultures will thank their lucky stars we cracked the Code and found out how to marry democracy and monarchy, and why. Or not. Probably not.

What is dead can never die!

[Midsize Jake]

...It don't matter if you've got ten or ten million people wanting to know your business while your world's falling down around your ears. A vulture is a vulture. A Princess comes in many forms. She's raised four children so far, the cancer means that's it. Computer says no. Her only boy is a real killer. The one who has had to endure the most at this difficult time. The casual sexism that says boys must endure. Must. If he makes it, he'll make a killer for real. A real force of nature. One of the British Army's finest Angels of Death. And in the finest tradition of the baddest dudes on this planet, the SAS, he kills for his mates and his Queen, nothing else. Certainly not for the shit pay or the Prime Minister of the day. Present difficulties with, uh, brand image of both organizations, notwithstanding. Nobody's perfect. And by the grace of [deity of choice or blank void] that Queen will be Kate. One day the fucking vultures will thank their lucky stars we cracked the Code and found out how to marry democracy and monarchy, and why. Or not. Probably not...

Are you okay?

[Dan of La Mancha]

On the bright side, at least there's a clear topic now.

The article has been brought to AfD again, but I think there's a good chance it will simply be renamed Cancer of Catherine, Princess of Wales (T-H-L), and then it will be forever undeletable.

[Kraken]

Are you okay?

I thank you for your concern but I'm fine. Really.

A man without an opinion is a man without a soul. And I got soul, brother.

A Man is truly lucky if the worst he has ever seen is his kin with cancer.

[Dan of La Mancha]

IgnatiusofLondon (T-C-L) has a lot to answer for.

After creating the article, then sending it to AfD, then voting to overturn the AfD result, then starting a move proposal, he admitted early today that he did all this as "a small protest against censorship in the main article". In other words, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

It's almost like this whole episode is some kind of elaborate trolling to test how ridiculous Wikipedia can be made to look.

Not far wrong, it seems.

[rnu]

[...]
A Man is truly lucky if the worst he has ever seen is his kin with cancer.

That's only true because of the overwhelming statistical probability that it happens. It is lucky not because it is not horrible, but because you have to be really lucky for it not to happen. I hope your cousin is going to be OK.

[Kraken]

On the bright side, at least there's a clear topic now.

The article has been brought to AfD again, but I think there's a good chance it will simply be renamed Cancer of Catherine, Princess of Wales (T-H-L), and then it will be forever undeletable.

?

Not sure where you got Cancer of Catherine, Princess of Wales (T-H-L) from, but that has to be the single least appropriate article title that Wikipedia has ever seen. Hopefully 99% of active Administrators would delete that shit on sight.

Where is Kate (Is She Dead Yet)? however, is trending hard to delete it seems. The two primary drivers of this COATRACK having seen the light. Sad that it took a cancer diagnosis, but better late than never I guess.

Holdouts persist of course...

Keep, the article passes our notability requirements for a stand-alone article. It seems that many of the delete comments are actually objections to the name which isn't a valid deletion rationale, neither are the arguments that the page needs cleanup or is otherwise deficient in ways not related to notability... WP:NOTCLEANUP. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't valid deletion rationale either. I literally just got another push notification from CNN about the topic, we are so far over the GNG bar it isn't even funny. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

So.....what is the topic?

If you don't have a name, you dont have a topic.

And if you don't have a topic, what are you even doing here?

Defending the honor of Wikipedia?

[Dan of La Mancha]

Not sure where you got Cancer of Catherine, Princess of Wales (T-H-L) from, but that has to be the single least appropriate article title that Wikipedia has ever seen.

Aside from "Where is Kate?", you mean?

Just because it's completely inappropriate doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.

[Vigilant]

Cut down on the loco weed, crow.

[Kraken]

And now it turns out the PoW is/was being treated for cancer, the media harassment comes into relief for what it was, and Wikipedia as a gleeful fellow traveller. I hope people feel suitably ashamed. Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage: I am genuinely ashamed for all the people who took part in the witch hunt; not in the press and on social media, but here on Wikipedia as well. We now have an article dedicated to analyzing the movements of a person who has been diagnosed with cancer during the period of her treatment. This is clearly a WP:BLP issue. Keivan.fTalk 19:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's truly sad that editorial decisions on Wikipedia have to be reduced to such emotive terms before they take effect. For lack of a suitably descriptive policy I guess. But seriously doubt. Because COATRACK is some Biblical shit. You can't really ignore it. You can only deny it.

So here we are.

What can be done?

Nothing.

A man cannot go against his nature if given the freedom to be his uncivilized self.

A man must be who he will be.

The rest is for the Gods to decide.

Am I a God?

Yes. And no.

I'll have to rewatch every Ghostbusters (T-H-L) film to be sure.

BRB.

[Zoloft]

I am considering locking this topic.

[Konveyor Belt]

I am considering locking this topic.

I think the subject of the topic will continue to be relevant in the near future as various discussions play out onwiki and it would be nice to have a place to talk about that. If it appears to be an unproductive thread thus far, there's really only one user in here responsible for that and I humbly ask that you consider locking him instead.

[AndyTheGrump]

Can we at least change the thread title to something less ridiculous?

[Kraken]

Can we at least change the thread title to something less ridiculous?

Is there a single other person disputing it's underlying relevance, creative flair aside?

[Kraken]

I am considering locking this topic.

I think that would be a mistake. This is still very much a live and massive controversy on Wikipedia. The community is clearly coming around to the realization they did something seriously wrong here. Whether through being too casually inattentive to serious policy (NPOV, BLP, COATRACK) or just plain irresponsible or even institutionally misogynist or anti-Monarchist. I like to think the Malcontents as ArbCom have called us, have played a not insignificant part in all that. No thread, no part.

[Kraken]

The result was no consensus‎. This is a procedural close. The closure of the first AFD is being reviewed right now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 21#Where is Kate? (T-H-L). Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What happened to WP:NOTBURO and IAR?

There was very little pushback to the admittedly unusual situation of a second AfD parallel to a review of the first, given the specific circumstances I imagine. And this would certainly be an ironic close given the first AfD itself was clearly out of process but quickly became widely accepted.

Comment The second AFD was a hot mess and I think it is chaotic to launch a new AFD while the previous AFD is being debated. After this DRV is closed, which can happen early, you know, depending on its outcome, the second AFD can be reopened or, even better, a fresh discussion launched. But it was disruptive to have multiple open discussions on the same article happening in different places. This is not bureaucracy, it's just having an order and process to decision-making and not letting emotion override policy. Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Until Liz got involved there was an emerging consensus at the DRV given the cancer announcement to procedurally close the review and resist the first AfD or have everyone go have their say in the second Afd. So at best, at best, Liz has simply said, yes, that's a good idea, let me just record that in the minutes for procedure's sake. We must have order. And that may not even be what she means, who can tell? Shall we have a review of her review of the review? I'm running out of forms and stamps here.

This whole thing has been a hot mess from the very beginning. You can't polish a turd. It is a turd. It will always be a turd. You just have to let it roll down the hill and hope it hits a patch of glitter, and then pat yourselves on the back for being such brilliant glitter poo creators. Because who doesn't love glitter?

Up until this close, this second AfD was trending heavily to delete, especially if you consider the keep but totally rewrite votes as deletes, which you arguably should when there is a glaring BLP issue and there is still absolutely no consensus on what this article should be called (this being because there clearly shouldn't be an article!).

And lest we forget, this whole thing is also still featuring an increasingly absurd RM debate (thankfully now closed I see, but only because events have changed, not because it was a total farce). Until then it was a debate that just refused to admit the obvious (there is no topic here) but thought notifying a bazillion WikiProjects might help find one.

And yet strangely there is also the increasingly insightful BLP/N debate that is trending to admitting their grave mistake and burying the whole thing deep underground as the huge embarrassment it has become.

And the tallk page itself is unsurprisingly now one long stream of damning condemnation. And yet it also features stuff like this....

This was a major phenomenon, perhaps akin to reactions to the Titan submarine disaster. It took on a life of its own apart from the primary subject. To say the cultural reaction to this was not notable in and of itself (whether people acted tacky or not) seems rather absurd to me. SecretName101 (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

How do they not see it? People love to pretend the huge interest/reaction to the Titan story was all about deep sympathy and amazement at the feats of man when it comes to almost impossible situations. But come on.

The vast majority of the interest was driven by people laughing their asses off that a rich eccentric got turned into a tin of spam due to his bizarre idea that he thought he could build a submersible in his garage to go say hello to Kate Winslet. In reality, it was a tragedy, people died due to that man's utter stupidity, but the reaction is not en encyclopedic topic. Not for Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia of Gawking maybe.

Even the event itself may not merit more than a line in Wikipedia when looked at from a sufficient distance. Stuff like this happened all the time in the Victorian era. They were really quite a mad bunch, probably because of all the Mercury. But we haven't recorded every little thing for posterity. And what there is, isn't on Wikipedia. It's on lightweight fluff platforms. Idle curiosity, not serious academia.

The latest proposed title 2024 health issues for the Windsor family (T-H-L) (to roll in the King's health issues too), raised at AfD2 not the RM, makes it really obvious this is a massive case of WP:RECENTISM.

I truly think everyone involved over there knows what the score is and what will eventually happen. There's just this very weird institutional reluctance to change and do the right thing, for the sake of dogma or tradition. One powerful individual just needs to get a grip and act decisively for the common good, even if it comes at great personal cost. Hopefully the irony is pretty clear.

A fair few Wikipedians are now trolling Wikipedia itself (and so by extension, themselves!) given how absurd this all looks. And it would be funny, if it wasn't so tragic and didn't have that terrible spectre of adding even more pain onto Kate and her family for every second it is allowed to continue.

It should never have been allowed to happen, is the reality. It was a COATRACK.

There needs to be an investigation and lessons need to be learned. And that just doesn't happen over there. It is Wikipedia. And this entire thing, is very Wikipedia.

[smallchief]

Somebody should write a Wikipedia article on the human psychology behind the "Madness of Crowds." It seems to me these recurring weird events are driven by a similar characteristic of human mentality. Kate, lynchings, race riots, genocide, January 6, conspiracy theories, tulip mania, the Middle Age crusades, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, flying saucers, etc. all seem to have the same roots. What underlies the madness of crowds and feeds mania, I don't know. I'm no psychologist.

[Kraken]

I often extol the virtues of writing for the enemy for Wikipedia editors. The technique of writing from the perspective of your debate opponent to see if neutrality can be achieved. It challenges your assumptions and checks your bias.

So here is my very best effort at finding the notability here (this being a mooted LEDE)....

Absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales

In early 2024, the prolonged absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales (T-H-L) (commonly referred to by her maiden name Kate Middleton) from public life due to abdominal surgery on 16th January and subsequent cancer treatment, had various unintended consequences for the British Royal Family (T-H-L). At the time of her absence, Middleton's father in law was King Charles II, her husband Prince William being heir to the throne, with her eldest of four children, Prince (lol, I've totally forgotten the little Lord's name, some monarchist I am!) aged (12?) being second in the line of succession.

Middleton initially only revealed she was undergoing significant abdominal surgery, without going into details. There was to be a prolonged period of absence from her public duties and public appearances in general, while she recovered. The desire for privacy soon created an information vacuum into which speculation, gossip and conspiracy theories emerged. An unusually large number of media stories were written.

In an effort to assuage concerns, being a keen amateur photographer, the Princess published a family photograph to commemorate Mother's Day (16th March). Kate admitted this was a mistake and apologized, given the public interest had quickly led to the discovery of long standing issues with photo manipulation in her photography. This led to broader questions about the integrity of Royal media communications, and photojournalism in general in the digital age.

Various commentators claimed these mistakes, the lack of information perceived as part of the long running never complain, never explain (T-H-L) public relations strategy, had damaged the trust in the Monarchy. Particularly as it struggled to recover from the death of the very popular Queen Elizabeth II and various recent scandals involving senior members leading to a much reduced stable of "active" Royals under the King, who had also recently announced he would be withdrawing temporarily for cancer treatment.

Others were supportive of and sympathetic to Kate. Polling showed that public trust had not been diminished, despite the wide dissemination of conspiracy theories via social media and mainstream media. Attitudes shifted dramatically when Kate further revealed in a video address on 22nd March that the primary reason for her lack of candour was due to the fact her surgery, thought not to be cancer related at the time, had revealed cancerous cells that required preventative chemotherapy, and she needed time and privacy to inform and reassure her young family.

TBC?

Obviously a draft needing a copyedit or more, but you get the drift.

I'll be honest. I lost total faith in that as an article summation half way through. It really is garbage. It is news. It is recentism. It is heavy on speculation and gossip. It is a relatively random collection of unfortunate events, but without the entertainment value of Jim Carey. It is not the stuff of an encyclopedia.

There are kernels of information which could be extracted and sent to the relevant articles as a valid piece of an encyclopedia, once due weight is applied. News stories eventually replaced by book sources.

But there is no topic here.

I mean, just look at the title. Absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales (T-H-L).

It meets all the Wikipedia title criteria as I understand them. Years are redundant. "public life" is assumed. As would be "controversy". That concise yet explanatory title is the only logical option that fairly reflects the alleged (presumed) notability here.

But it should be quite clear therefore, that this topic is a massive departure from normal Wikipedia convention. It rather makes it sound as if this is equivalent to Disappearance of Amelia Earheart (T-H-L) (not even an article!). Which it obviously isn't. Like, not even a little bit.

It makes it very clear that the presence of this article as a potential benefit to the encyclopedia, which isn't obliged to slavishly satisfy every base urge of the often quite disgusting "reader", is massively outweighed by the ongoing potential and actuality of real harm being done to Kate, her family and the Monarchy, by hosting a COATRACK.

A vehicle to give UNDUE weight to criticism of Kate specifically as a person, for a series of innocent mistakes and misteps committed at a very difficult time, but which in the round, will have limited long term impact. Minor changes to media and communication strategy. Evolution not revolution. As any serious Royal commentator would know.

It clearly overplays the criticism of the monarchy in general and is a non-neutral boon to the not exactly popular but always craving publicity Republic movement. Is this more serious and damaging than Megxit (T-H-L), for example? Or Andrew FFS? Clearly not. It isn't even close.

In short, she's not a criminal or a scandal laden politician. She doesn't deserve this. That she might is the stuff of the FRINGE in the UK. We broadly support the monarchy, despite what Wikipedia would have you believe. It's right there in the article as a reliably sourced fact. Once you get past all the news media froth.

We aspire to respect their privacy while having a natural curiosity, and sadly a free press (and a free country) comes with a well known cost. Things an encyclopedia are supposed to rise above. As a primarily UK topic, then per long standing Wikipedia policy, the interests and attitudes of the UK should prevail when assessing harms and weights. Americans, butt out! Go harass your own weirdo leaders if you must. Your Night Of The Living Dead President and his comic orange nemesis. But they're men, so......where and when it even occurs on Wikipedia (and why), is really quite different.

[Bezdomni]

Where is Kate? (T-H-L): 89.5K (less than 6 weeks)

The desire for privacy soon created an information vacuum into which speculation, gossip and conspiracy theories immerged.

Haitian crisis (2018–present) (T-H-L): 89.1K (nearly 6 years)
Gang war in Haiti (T-H-L): 76.8K (360K+ displaced)

As Morissey once whined,
[...] some isles are bigger than others,
[...] some isles are bigger than others,
some isles' mothers are bigger than other isles' chimères...

[AndyTheGrump]

As a primarily UK topic, then per long standing Wikipedia policy, the interests and attitudes of the UK should prevail when assessing harms and weights.

In the interests of fairness, I'm going to apply the same (alleged) policy to Wikipedia's coverage of North Korea, and to their biographies of the Glorious Leaders and monarchs-in-all-but-name Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and Kim Jong Un. Clearly all the foreign-origin gossip about them has to go, and we must base content solely on what DRPK sources have to say about them!

[The Blue Newt]

As a primarily UK topic, then per long standing Wikipedia policy, the interests and attitudes of the UK should prevail when assessing harms and weights.

In the interests of fairness, I'm going to apply the same (alleged) policy to Wikipedia's coverage of North Korea, and to their biographies of the Glorious Leaders and monarchs-in-all-but-name Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and Kim Jong Un. Clearly all the foreign-origin gossip about them has to go, and we must base content solely on what DRPK sources have to say about them!

I dunno. We do this for [insert incendiary topic here]…

[rnu]

As a primarily UK topic, then per long standing Wikipedia policy, the interests and attitudes of the UK should prevail when assessing harms and weights.

In the interests of fairness, I'm going to apply the same (alleged) policy to Wikipedia's coverage of North Korea, and to their biographies of the Glorious Leaders and monarchs-in-all-but-name Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and Kim Jong Un. Clearly all the foreign-origin gossip about them has to go, and we must base content solely on what DRPK sources have to say about them!

Well, Wikipedia did wish Kim Jong Il a happy birthday this year. (This was before it commemorated members of the Waffen-SS.)

[rnu]

The Atlantic: I Hope You All Feel Terrible Now (archive)

[Kraken]

As a primarily UK topic, then per long standing Wikipedia policy, the interests and attitudes of the UK should prevail when assessing harms and weights.

In the interests of fairness, I'm going to apply the same (alleged) policy to Wikipedia's coverage of North Korea, and to their biographies of the Glorious Leaders and monarchs-in-all-but-name Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and Kim Jong Un. Clearly all the foreign-origin gossip about them has to go, and we must base content solely on what DRPK sources have to say about them!

Looks like you're in good company......

On 14 March, Phil Chetwynd, AFP's global news director, said that the controversy had raised "major issues" for the agency's relationship with Kensington Palace, whose future output would be reviewed rigorously before publication. Chetwynd said that the palace was "absolutely not" a trusted source, and that the kill notices issued were more typical for photographs from the state news agencies of North Korea and Iran.[60][61][62]

There's Wikipedia happily comparing Kate to the state media of North Korea. It's attributed, sure, but since there is no counter-point, then for the purposes of the neutral point of view, it is the view of Wikipedia.

The source is impeccable. The man making the comparison is unquestionably qualified to make such a comparison.

We can maybe question whether we trust a news agency funded by the French state to be an impartial judge of the integrity of the British Royal Family. But hey, let's let bygones be bygones. We are all friends in Europe. The French would never ever want to do anything to harm Britain's standing in the world.

So, it's all good, right?

Well, no.

Here's a couple of pertinent questions that would certainly be getting asked in the editorial offices of Brittanica before they considered whether this was a worthwhile view to include in their content.

1. Why would anyone compare Kensington Palace with the North Korean government? Has it really not occurred to these people that Kensington Palace are not part of the UK government, and they sure as shit aren't our state broadcaster.

2. Even if you would be minded to trust Kensington Palace to the same degree as you would trust the UK government or the state broadcaster, what's the precise issue with this photograph? What was the nature of the communication. It was a family snap.

I think we all know what's going on here. The only reason this comparison would be entertained, was if you had bought into the conspiracy theories. If you thought this photo was faked either to cover up the fact Kate was seriously ill or even dead. An act a reasonable person would have every right to suspect was something the state broadcaster of North Korea might do. But to the best of my knowledge, is not something that can be reasonably said the British Royal Family might do. Because it's fucking insane. Koo koo. WP:ABSOLUTEBOLLOCKS. Weekend at Bernies.

So sure, go ahead and stand by such sources if you want. And by extension, what Wikipedia is using them for. To COATRACK conspiracy theories.

Maybe one day this asshole will consider the ramifications of his words and issue a clarification/retraction. But the damage is already done.

[rnu]

[...]

On 14 March, Phil Chetwynd, AFP's global news director, said that the controversy had raised "major issues" for the agency's relationship with Kensington Palace, whose future output would be reviewed rigorously before publication. Chetwynd said that the palace was "absolutely not" a trusted source, and that the kill notices issued were more typical for photographs from the state news agencies of North Korea and Iran.[60][61][62]

[...]

I think the comparison is actually valid. Except that it doesn't really illustrate the point Chetwynd seems to be trying to make. It illustrates the disproportionality of the kill notice and the subsequent events. Someone touched up a family photo, call the police! While the kill notice was apparently supported by policy that policy certainly wasn't written for touched up family photos. It was presumably written for things like the mugshot of O.J. Simpson that Time edited to make his skin look darker:

Or the case where Swiss tabloid Blick manipulated a photo of the Mortuary temple of Hatshepsut (T-H-L) and colored water red to illustrate an article about the Luxor massacre (T-H-L) and called it "Blutspur des Grauens" ("blood trail of horror"):

Or the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy (T-H-L) where a journalist altered a photo from the 2006 Lebanon War (T-H-L) to add more smoke:

Photo manipulation in the news is a serious problem and with advances in AI it will only become worse. But treating a family photo of all things as the poster child for manipulation is beyond ridiculous.

[Alalch Emis]

I like my comment in the DRV. I'm going to literally repost it here. It goes like this:

Procedural close. New AfD overtakes. This is moot. The new AfD is not speedily closable. It is new, but it is well underway. The suggested alternative of closing the AfD and directing interested editors to this deletion review would be an imperious action that would lead to unnecessary conflict and confusion, and open the door to various grievances. There are no such problems when a DRV is closed: The editors who frequent this venue can see the bigger picture. The editors pouring in to comment in the AfD can not see the bigger picture. The excess energy that exists now can not be contained by procedural arguments. It's more effective and efficient to let everyone share their thoughts based on the new information in the new AfD than to discuss how and why the AfD was procedurally closed and on what basis. And if the AfD is not closed, there is no basis for this DRV to continue. I thank the closer of the AfD that was reviewed here for his close.—Alalch E. 21:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

How would you rate it on a scale of one to ten?

[Elinruby]

What is dead can never die!

I don't usually bother to argue with monarchists, but you are taking this *way" too seriously.

She signed up for this. Also,. Some people and especially some tabloids should be ashamed of themselves. It's just a huge waste of air.

[Mojito]

I like my comment in the DRV. I'm going to literally repost it here. It goes like this:

Yes, I'd agree with that approach. The situation is evolving, so it's a moot point whether the previous AfD was closed according to proper practice (which is what a DRV discussion is limited to). Just let the people press on with a new AfD based on the current situation.

[Kraken]

you are taking this *way" too seriously.

It's a serious issue. A woman has been hounded into offering up her deeply personal medical history and details of her private and family life at a deeply difficult time. All for having committed the crime of wanting privacy due to serious illness.

She signed up for this.

Did she though? This is unprecedented. Whatever she supposedly signed up for, she could not have foreseen it would include this. The very idea anyone lives their life thinking, well, if I get seriously ill and have to tell my kids I have cancer, what's the worst that could happen to compound that situation, is laughable. That she would ever foresee the answer being, oh yes, people might try to claim I'm already dead or I am just upset my husband is having an affair and generate hundreds of memes so she better plan her media strategy for that now, because that shit would be taken so seriously, even Wikipedia would be all in, is beyond insane.

This she brought it on herself angle (or the current variant, it's not our fault it's her media advisers) is what it is. People trying to shift blame away from themselves. It's interesting to see that with so many people still arguing this is a notable topic, now that the RS coverage is pretty much only about how shameful people have been, Wikipedia editors seem to have lost all interest in breathlessly updating this monstrosity of an article.

especially some tabloids

I don’t know if this is an American thing or just lazy presumption, but I noticed this in an npr piece too. This scandal is not the fault of the tabloids, whose part in it would have been easily ignored if all that's what this was. The likes of the BBC and the Daily Telegraph are not tabloids. Instagram, X and TikTok, are not tabloids.

It is social media and the so called reliable media working together, to tear down Kate. For clicks. Concoct and disseminate disgusting "theories" and giving air time to this idea that there's somehow something wrong with Kate or the Royals having not made a public appearance or comment even though they knew fine well she was temporarily out of public life due to serious surgery and would be returning in due course.

I gave a specific example upthread where a so called tabloid newspaper (the one famously banned by Wikipedia for having fabrication and salacious gossip as their entire business model) was actually doing the right thing, presenting the facts and calling out the scum who were really behind this. Wikipedia's part in all this is is gleefully take all that so called reliable media to build a COATRACK on which to hang these harmful ideas.

You may think it is because Kate Is a Royal. But it's pretty damn clear this was more about Kate being a woman. It wouldn't have happened to William had the roles been reversed. And by the looks of it, it's specifically because she's a pretty strong woman who knows her own mind and has shown a willingness to depart from protocol if the protocol is an anachronism. While also being respectful of tradition and being a dutiful wife and mother when that's the appropriate thing to do.

These themes are written through the very fabric of this thing. When William unexpectedly pulled out of an engagement (because as we now know, his wife was about to undergo emergency chemotherapy) without giving any explanation, he didn't get very much if any shit for being a pretty crap Practice King. Nobody slammed his press office. They readily accepted he has the right to withhold information from his future Subjects. Even though he has no say on National Security and other issues that lend itself to strict privacy in matters of state, and wouldn't even as King.

Nobody questioned his role. But it was used to question Kate. To harm Kate. To speculate about Kate. What had she done to prompt this unusual behavior in the Prince? And even if the explanation was that he is having an affair and had to rush home to have one hell of a massive argument with the mother of the second in line to the throne who might be considering leaving the dirty love rat, how can we make this about her, not the fact the future King is having an affair?

If you're OK with that, don't complain when these dynamics affect you some day. If they aren't already, you being a Wikipedia editor who quite clearly knows her own mind but seems not to get your own way too much.

The likes of Stephen Colbert (T-H-L) is rightly getting slammed for his part in using his platform spreading the malicious affair rumours that formed a part of these whackjob theories. You know what's not happening? Nobody is calling out his "press office" or CBS for their silence when approached for comment now. He's allowed to rise above it. He's allowed his quiet time and space. Go figure. There's also seemingly not a single word devoted to this in Wikipedia in either his main biography or his show article.

It's considered his job to hurt Kate for the prurient entertainment of Americans, even though as far as I knew he had left his former role as a deliberately satirical comic presenter. Someone along a character so wasn't supposed to be taken literally. Someone whose job is to push the bounds of comedic decency. Colbert is supposedly now a serious late night talk show host, whose jokes are meant to be funny and broadly palatable.

Hence why it's a bit unfair for John Oliver to be getting flack, someone who is anything but serious, unless he is literally signposting the serious bits. He'll still apologize I am betting, if only because as a Brit he'll now know what he has done.

Colbert? Let's see what his pay masters (or tax lawyers) decide is the best strategy. The one that best protects his brand value and makes him look good. All the things Kate would get slammed for doing, even though most seem to accept all that Royalty is now, is a brand. Funny how shit works out. Is it their different jobs, or their different genders? And don't even rule out leaning in or doubling down, I'd say. Privelage.

It's clear anti-Monarchy sentiment played a huge part in all this too, even though they are a FRINGE part of UK culture. You can tell because what little editing being done now, is to remove evidence of their culpability. Edits such as this to remove content that is apparently now UNDUE......

The satirical magazine Private Eye ran a spoof cover, featuring an inserted Prince Andrew in the edited photograph.[72]

Being sourced to itself, rather than any third party commentary, this was a clear and obvious breach of UNDUE all along. But it's been on Wikipedia since.....oh how could anyone have predicted it!....mere hours after it was published. This shit doesn't happen at Kate's actual biography, because at least there Wikipedia has enough serious editors willing to do the right thing and conversant enough in basic policy to protect her from the harm Wikipedia is capable of.

But as we know, and incredibly doesn't seem to be a matter Wikipedia Administrators are interested in, the Where is Kate? article only came about because one very inexperienced editor (although it's looking increasingly likely he's an anti-Monarchist sock-POV pusher) was very frustrated by the fact experienced editors were suppressing the speculation in the main biography. So much so he had the bright idea of creating a COATRACK and then immediately proposing it for deletion to establish that it should exist. A rather brilliant and effective strategy, one that recognizes one of Wikipedia's fundamental weaknesses when it comes to enforcing BLP. Namely how easy the mob can rule under certain conditions. Even easier if it plays into the causal sexsim and anti-establishemt biases of the community.

Editors who are often silly little boys playing at being "editors" and Wikipedia doesn't even want to check if they're over 13 because that would be a terrible invasion of privacy. And it's totally unnecessary because we are good people who do the right thing. Trust us. We have checks and balances. Policy. Administrators. We even have an ArbCom, and they're always banging on about how they will back an Admin to the hilt if they stick their neck out and enforce BLP even if it greatly displeases the mob. Doing the right thing is paramount. Our brand.

Now their shame is clear and their agenda pretty obvious, it is only now that basic Wikipedia policy is being applied to this article, in limited ways. And even then, not specifically to prevent Kate from being harmed by this deeply offensive cover being considered relevant by a resource that her kids generation are being told Is a good place to get help with their homework.

It gets applied now, when their culpability is clear. But not when it would have stopped the thing from being brought into existence, so that others could do something like add this clearly UNDUE material and drive huge amounts of traffic to a very niche publication edited by a famously anti-Monarchy journalist whose open contempt for the never complain, never explain strategy is well known in the UK.

But hey, let's ignore the little details like that which paint the broader picture here, and focus on the truth. Kate has totally acted like the North Korean government. True fact. Reliably sourced. The AFP no less. Not a tabloid, last I checked. Duly included in Wikipedia by their diligent editors. Attributed, but not countered or balanced, so hey, it must be pretty close to the neutral view, right? She is totally Kim-Jong Kate.

I'll say it again, because it is 100% true. If they can't protect Kate, they can't protect anyone. Your only protection, is to be a literal nobody. Joe Who. As long as you're not the sort of nobody who gets so offended by social media trolls and highbrow media suggesting your future Queen is dead and has been replaced by a Host, you go and grab your camcorder to prove to the world this is horseshit.

Silly Joe. For his trouble, Wikipedia lit his real name up like a Christmas Tree, for a whole twenty four hours. And there are super reliable sources out there right now suggesting he is a stooge. Part of the conspiracy. Everyone is in on it. Because the monarchy are lying to us! And they have always been lying to you. You just didn't know it, you poor downtrodden fool. Come brother. Viva la revolucion.

Well, yes, they did lie to you. And know we know why. A perfectly sensible, reasonable, rational, and above all humane, reason. One that could and should have been apparent, had the reliable media and Wikipedia done their jobs, enforced their policies, and held fast against the forces of woo.

The ordinary people of Britain saw it for what it was. The people Wikipedia likes to look down on and deride their choices when exercising their free will in how they consume a free press. People who might indeed like having a laugh on social media without thinking about the consequences.

But who have no real ability to prevent those consequences in the first place, should it occur to them before the sick truth emerges. Because they're not the ones with the real power in this world. Just like the monarchy has no real power, and even our own Prime Minister has no real power over the tech giants. And Wikipedia is quite clearly, so very clearly, a technology company in that respect.

The FRINGE has become the mainstream. Their stock in trade, their economic model. Acceptable in the highest Salons. The American disease grown in the labs of Silicon Valley is now a global pandemic.

And who stands firmly behind the principles that underpin this new world? Self regulation. The wisdom of the crowd. Anonymity over decency. Trust in things that have not earned it. Question all authority. But do not question the motives of those who question it.

Is it Wikipedia?

I think it just might be.

[AndyTheGrump]

So, the TLDR is that it's everyone's fault except the Daily Mail?

P.S. Totally not vacuous tabloid drivel. From the world's only respectable newspaper:
From very similar styles to the same bodyguard and Hollywood pals, all the connections between Meghan Markle and the Kardashians as Harry goes skiing with Corey Gamble, Kris follows American Riviera Orchard on Instagram and Kim makes a jibe at Kate

[Elinruby]

you are taking this *way" too seriously.

It's a serious issue. A woman has been hounded into offering up her deeply personal medical history and details of her private and family life at a deeply difficult time. All for having committed the crime of wanting privacy due to serious illness.

She signed up for this.

Did she though? This is unprecedented. Whatever she supposedly signed up for, she could not have foreseen it would include this. The very idea anyone lives their life thinking, well, if I get seriously ill and have to tell my kids I have cancer, what's the worst that could happen to compound that situation, is laughable. That she would ever foresee the answer being, oh yes, people might try to claim I'm already dead or I am just upset my husband is having an affair and generate hundreds of memes so she better plan her media strategy for that now, because that shit would be taken so seriously, even Wikipedia would be all in, is beyond insane.

This she brought it on herself angle (or the current variant, it's not our fault it's her media advisers) is what it is. People trying to shift blame away from themselves. It's interesting to see that with so many people still arguing this is a notable topic, now that the RS coverage is pretty much only about how shameful people have been, Wikipedia editors seem to have lost all interest in breathlessly updating this monstrosity of an article.

especially some tabloids

I don’t know if this is an American thing or just lazy presumption, but I noticed this in an npr piece too. This scandal is not the fault of the tabloids, whose part in it would have been easily ignored if all that's what this was. The likes of the BBC and the Daily Telegraph are not tabloids. Instagram, X and TikTok, are not tabloids.

It is social media and the so called reliable media working together, to tear down Kate. For clicks. Concoct and disseminate disgusting "theories" and giving air time to this idea that there's somehow something wrong with Kate or the Royals having not made a public appearance or comment even though they knew fine well she was temporarily out of public life due to serious surgery and would be returning in due course.

I gave a specific example upthread where a so called tabloid newspaper (the one famously banned by Wikipedia for having fabrication and salacious gossip as their entire business model) was actually doing the right thing, presenting the facts and calling out the scum who were really behind this. Wikipedia's part in all this is is gleefully take all that so called reliable media to build a COATRACK on which to hang these harmful ideas.

You may think it is because Kate Is a Royal. But it's pretty damn clear this was more about Kate being a woman. It wouldn't have happened to William had the roles been reversed. And by the looks of it, it's specifically because she's a pretty strong woman who knows her own mind and has shown a willingness to depart from protocol if the protocol is an anachronism. While also being respectful of tradition and being a dutiful wife and mother when that's the appropriate thing to do.

These themes are written through the very fabric of this thing. When William unexpectedly pulled out of an engagement (because as we now know, his wife was about to undergo emergency chemotherapy) without giving any explanation, he didn't get very much if any shit for being a pretty crap Practice King. Nobody slammed his press office. They readily accepted he has the right to withhold information from his future Subjects. Even though he has no say on National Security and other issues that lend itself to strict privacy in matters of state, and wouldn't even as King.

Nobody questioned his role. But it was used to question Kate. To harm Kate. To speculate about Kate. What had she done to prompt this unusual behavior in the Prince? And even if the explanation was that he is having an affair and had to rush home to have one hell of a massive argument with the mother of the second in line to the throne who might be considering leaving the dirty love rat, how can we make this about her, not the fact the future King is having an affair?

If you're OK with that, don't complain when these dynamics affect you some day. If they aren't already, you being a Wikipedia editor who quite clearly knows her own mind but seems not to get your own way too much.

The likes of Stephen Colbert (T-H-L) is rightly getting slammed for his part in using his platform spreading the malicious affair rumours that formed a part of these whackjob theories. You know what's not happening? Nobody is calling out his "press office" or CBS for their silence when approached for comment now. He's allowed to rise above it. He's allowed his quiet time and space. Go figure. There's also seemingly not a single word devoted to this in Wikipedia in either his main biography or his show article.

It's considered his job to hurt Kate for the prurient entertainment of Americans, even though as far as I knew he had left his former role as a deliberately satirical comic presenter. Someone along a character so wasn't supposed to be taken literally. Someone whose job is to push the bounds of comedic decency. Colbert is supposedly now a serious late night talk show host, whose jokes are meant to be funny and broadly palatable.

Hence why it's a bit unfair for John Oliver to be getting flack, someone who is anything but serious, unless he is literally signposting the serious bits. He'll still apologize I am betting, if only because as a Brit he'll now know what he has done.

Colbert? Let's see what his pay masters (or tax lawyers) decide is the best strategy. The one that best protects his brand value and makes him look good. All the things Kate would get slammed for doing, even though most seem to accept all that Royalty is now, is a brand. Funny how shit works out. Is it their different jobs, or their different genders? And don't even rule out leaning in or doubling down, I'd say. Privelage.

It's clear anti-Monarchy sentiment played a huge part in all this too, even though they are a FRINGE part of UK culture. You can tell because what little editing being done now, is to remove evidence of their culpability. Edits such as this to remove content that is apparently now UNDUE......

The satirical magazine Private Eye ran a spoof cover, featuring an inserted Prince Andrew in the edited photograph.[72]

Being sourced to itself, rather than any third party commentary, this was a clear and obvious breach of UNDUE all along. But it's been on Wikipedia since.....oh how could anyone have predicted it!....mere hours after it was published. This shit doesn't happen at Kate's actual biography, because at least there Wikipedia has enough serious editors willing to do the right thing and conversant enough in basic policy to protect her from the harm Wikipedia is capable of.

But as we know, and incredibly doesn't seem to be a matter Wikipedia Administrators are interested in, the Where is Kate? article only came about because one very inexperienced editor (although it's looking increasingly likely he's an anti-Monarchist sock-POV pusher) was very frustrated by the fact experienced editors were suppressing the speculation in the main biography. So much so he had the bright idea of creating a COATRACK and then immediately proposing it for deletion to establish that it should exist. A rather brilliant and effective strategy, one that recognizes one of Wikipedia's fundamental weaknesses when it comes to enforcing BLP. Namely how easy the mob can rule under certain conditions. Even easier if it plays into the causal sexsim and anti-establishemt biases of the community.

Editors who are often silly little boys playing at being "editors" and Wikipedia doesn't even want to check if they're over 13 because that would be a terrible invasion of privacy. And it's totally unnecessary because we are good people who do the right thing. Trust us. We have checks and balances. Policy. Administrators. We even have an ArbCom, and they're always banging on about how they will back an Admin to the hilt if they stick their neck out and enforce BLP even if it greatly displeases the mob. Doing the right thing is paramount. Our brand.

Now their shame is clear and their agenda pretty obvious, it is only now that basic Wikipedia policy is being applied to this article, in limited ways. And even then, not specifically to prevent Kate from being harmed by this deeply offensive cover being considered relevant by a resource that her kids generation are being told Is a good place to get help with their homework.

It gets applied now, when their culpability is clear. But not when it would have stopped the thing from being brought into existence, so that others could do something like add this clearly UNDUE material and drive huge amounts of traffic to a very niche publication edited by a famously anti-Monarchy journalist whose open contempt for the never complain, never explain strategy is well known in the UK.

But hey, let's ignore the little details like that which paint the broader picture here, and focus on the truth. Kate has totally acted like the North Korean government. True fact. Reliably sourced. The AFP no less. Not a tabloid, last I checked. Duly included in Wikipedia by their diligent editors. Attributed, but not countered or balanced, so hey, it must be pretty close to the neutral view, right? She is totally Kim-Jong Kate.

I'll say it again, because it is 100% true. If they can't protect Kate, they can't protect anyone. Your only protection, is to be a literal nobody. Joe Who. As long as you're not the sort of nobody who gets so offended by social media trolls and highbrow media suggesting your future Queen is dead and has been replaced by a Host, you go and grab your camcorder to prove to the world this is horseshit.

Silly Joe. For his trouble, Wikipedia lit his real name up like a Christmas Tree, for a whole twenty four hours. And there are super reliable sources out there right now suggesting he is a stooge. Part of the conspiracy. Everyone is in on it. Because the monarchy are lying to us! And they have always been lying to you. You just didn't know it, you poor downtrodden fool. Come brother. Viva la revolucion.

Well, yes, they did lie to you. And know we know why. A perfectly sensible, reasonable, rational, and above all humane, reason. One that could and should have been apparent, had the reliable media and Wikipedia done their jobs, enforced their policies, and held fast against the forces of woo.

The ordinary people of Britain saw it for what it was. The people Wikipedia likes to look down on and deride their choices when exercising their free will in how they consume a free press. People who might indeed like having a laugh on social media without thinking about the consequences.

But who have no real ability to prevent those consequences in the first place, should it occur to them before the sick truth emerges. Because they're not the ones with the real power in this world. Just like the monarchy has no real power, and even our own Prime Minister has no real power over the tech giants. And Wikipedia is quite clearly, so very clearly, a technology company in that respect.

The FRINGE has become the mainstream. Their stock in trade, their economic model. Acceptable in the highest Salons. The American disease grown in the labs of Silicon Valley is now a global pandemic.

And who stands firmly behind the principles that underpin this new world? Self regulation. The wisdom of the crowd. Anonymity over decency. Trust in things that have not earned it. Question all authority. But do not question the motives of those who question it.

Is it Wikipedia?

I think it just might be.

Huh.

I didn't read that and while I am delighted to be your writing prompt of the moment, I refute your whole everything on the basis that there should not be a monarchy in Britain.

Since the whole concept is Looney Tunez to begin with I stop listening around whether or not the monarchy is being mistreated. It can bugger off if it doesn't like its standard of living. Yes, it sucks to be Kate at this moment. These things can all be true but when it comes to Kate I stopped listening already, so.

[Kraken]

So, the TLDR is that it's everyone's fault except the Daily Mail?

No. And it is a startlingly obvious no, but whatever.

The Wikipedia editors who took the view Kate didn't do anything to bring this on herself and deserves the same protections of UNDUE/BLP that COATRACK provides any other living person, did sterling work here. But they're in the clear minority, and couldn't hold back the people who think differently.

Had they been allowed to cite that Mail piece as a factual representation of reality in Britain as a whole, maybe things would have have different. This being a really rather logical use of the most widely read mass market newspaper in Britain, you would have thought. In a Wikipedia article relying entirely on news sources.

A paper that, unlike the left wing anti-Monarchy Mirror, whose name appears frequently in Where Is Kate?, doesn't have in its history a scandal like printing faked images of British soldiers (the Queen's soldiers) allegedly committing attrocities, on their front page. And was pretty unpopular even before then. And certainly is now.

The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday are top of the table among the paid-for newspapers that have their ABC circulations published, with circulations of 705,311 and 600,311 respectively.

Their next rival in the public table, the Daily Mirror, is several hundred thousand behind on 234,492.

So I thank you you bringing it to my attention. Even if you're still not willing to explain why you randomly brought it up or what point you were trying to make. But clearly you hadn't read it and were making assumptions not backed by the evidence in pursuit of a FRINGE view, so maybe that's point enough as far as your participation in this thread goes.

To anyone who truly still don't understand the nuance of policy here, consider this extract of Where Is Kate?

A senior social media editor at the Daily Mirror developed a conspiracy theory that Catherine's 2016 Vogue cover was used in the manipulated Mother's Day photograph.[100] This theory attracted 49 million views and was rejected by disinformation expert Elliot Higgins,[101] who labelled it "absurd".[102]

That's Wikipedia doing the right thing, isn't it? Debunking shite.

Well, no. This is what COATRACK is all about.

The very idea Kate is either seriously ill or dead and here's the proof: her Mother's Day photo is fake, is absurd on its face. It's exactly what you would expect from an editor at the Mirror.

If this COATRACK didn't exist, this "theory" would be getting exactly the right weight it deserves in an encyclopedia. Zero. It is entirely irrelevant that Newsweek (source 100) chose to write a story explaining it. The clue is in the name. News Of The Week.

But no. It's happily been stuffed in there, under the pretext "Where is Kate?" is a notable topic, and that is all that matters. And once it's on there, that is what allows the subtle but really rather obvious harm when you see it. Reference 102 isn't an interview with disinformation expert Elliott Higgins. He merits two paragraphs in that opinion piece from the Independent's digital brand inews.

What's the thrust of that analysis? The headline and sub seems pretty clear....

Kate Middleton’s photo saga is a reminder not to always trust online images

The Princess of Wales photo saga should help convince education authorities of the importance of teaching media literacy in schools

What?!?!

So somehow even though the narrative genesis here was some ludicrous hack and his absurd conspiracy theory, even that somehow ends up being something that Kate is due criticism for. Look! Even though we can all see all she did was touch up a family snap she only felt compelled to release because of some pretty sick vultures, Kate is the reason your kids are stupid and she must be stopped!

Are. You. Fucking. Kidding. Me?

This is exactly what COATRACK is there to prevent. It is literally the mechanism writ large. Take one thing and turn it into something else.

As a mere opinion piece, one of many, under the watch of sensible editors, it likely never even gets near Kate's main biography for that biased headline alone. Even though clearly that bio will need to say something about this Mother's Day photograph. Better sources exist. And Wikipedia is compelled by BLP to use the highest quality and most appropriate sources in a BLP.

It wouldn't be so tragic if you didn't then realize this source does have something worthwhile to say on the alleged notable topic here....

Historically the UK press has adopted a sense of ownership of the Royals that has led to toxic treatment of individuals, most obviously the late Diana, Princess of Wales. But the current “Royal Rota” of correspondents is not the cluster of reptiles that some imagine and is showing greater caution.

For American outlets who see the Royals as an object of fun, the new responsibility of the British press is suspicious. Jezebel website wondered why the “notoriously voyeuristic and nasty UK tabloid machine hasn’t really batted an eye over Kate’s disappearance”, while “there are large swathes of the internet that believe her disappearance from the public means she’s incapacitated, even dead”.

Setting aside the conspiracy theories, what I find compelling is that the Royal Rota seems to have no more knowledge of the reality of Kate’s situation than the rest of us. This leaves an information vacuum that is being filled with wild speculation, including that of press colleagues.

.....but because that isn't why Wikipedia editors wrote this article, to condemn lunatics and the mainstream media giving them airtime, it doesn't occur to them that this is what they should have been using this source to support.

If there is a story here, an encyclopedia topic, that is it. Americans have lost all sense of decency and media responsibility, and while Britain has learned from its mistakes, America wants to adopt them and amplify them, to feed the social media beast they created and foisted on the world. And Wikipedia is properly on board with that, because of all its biases, a lack of global perspective, to the point it doesn't even know what's going on in Britain, is their biggest systemic bias.

This fucking garbage article has been written by a hoard of Wikipedia editors who love gossip, hate women and hate the monarchy, and are at best only playing at being serious writers of a scholarly work. Feel free to prove me wrong. I don't know you can.

[nableezy]

Usually when people say "say less" it means they already agreed with you or they’re happy with what you said. But here the meaning is literal. Say less.

[ltbdl]

This fucking garbage article has been written by a hoard of Wikipedia editors who love gossip, hate women and hate the monarchy

i'll pass your kind words along

[AndyTheGrump]

Kraken, why did I bring up the Daily Mail? Because I knew you'd come up with the most ridiculous crap to defend its vacuous tabloid gossip. And in doing so, show just how selective you are with your deranged rants.

The Daily Mail, let's remind ourselves, has a front-page header like this:


A whole damn section specially for 'royals'. And clearly not 'news', since that would go in the the news section. Nope. 99% vacuous gossip. Sure, being the Mail, they like to pretend they are engaging in serious reporting while they witter on about whatever nonsense they have come up with, or tut-tut about other media peddling the same conspiracy theories they insist on writing clickbait headlines about just to make sure everyone sees them.

There is a serious debate to be had about the way the media handled this story. There is a serious debate to be had about how utterly fucked up Wikipedia was to engage with it. You are however in no position to participate usefully in such a debate, because you are using it as an excuse (or 'coatrack', if you prefer) to rant on about anything and everything you hate , while denying the obvious role the British media - which includes the Mail, whether you like it or not - has to play in perpetuating the nonsense. They - and the Mail in particular - tell their readers, daily, that the 'royals' are special. They tell their readers that anything and everything they say or do, no matter how trivial, is worth writing about. They feed them headlines. They feed them photographs. They feed them gossip. And when they run out of anything else to say, they feed off each other's gossip and conspiracy-peddling, so they can repeat it while condemning their competitors for printing it. The Mail is the embodiment of hypocrisy in this regard, which is presumably why you defend it so vehemently. You have so much in common.

[Kraken]

Usually when people say "say less" it means they already agreed with you or they’re happy with what you said. But here the meaning is literal. Say less.

But you're happy with people quoting a full post of mine just to say they didn't read it? (but obviously did, they're just not willing or even able to defend the rather unpalatable views they seem to have, when applied to the topic of this thread)

Or people posting random links to the Mail and offering so little by way of words to go with it, you literally can't tell what their intended point is, much less if it has any relevance to the topic of this thread.

You're fine with that? Just trying to get a read on why you're focusing on me with this moderator-like opinion. Sometimes it's better to say more, lest people make assumptions about your intent.

[AndyTheGrump]

Sometimes it is better just to shut the fuck up. You should try it sometime.