The Wikipedia monster gleefully tears down the future Queen of England

[Kraken]

I was going to leave this as a single reply in the Crap articles thread, but before I knew it I had a whole topic on my hands. Enjoy!

Where is Kate? (T-H-L)
Tabloid speculation with some conspiracy theory thrown in about Catherine, Princess of Wales (T-H-L) plus an edited photo.
Unsurprisingly the deletion discussion is the most active ongoing AfD (permanent link) with 42 votes in three days (second place has 23 votes in 22 days). Just as unsurprising is that there is strong support for keeping the article (1 speedy keep, 22 keep, 4 merge vs. 7 deletes and 8 "other" votes). I guess we're lucky that it's just one article. I'm actually surprised that the Mother's Day photo hasn't been spun out (yet).

Rather depressingly, this was more than just tabloid coverage. And it wasn't just the (easily ignored) "reliable" internet news, it was legit mainstream TV news who covered it. And since they were forcing me to pay attention, I noted with horror that their coverage came dangerously close (if not actually did) cross the line into entertaining the thought this was more than just a striking example of what boredom and the internet can produce in this day and age.

It's not like it was a slow news day either, any of these days. We haven't had a slow news day in the UK since forever. The nature of the coverage and sheer persistence of it as each new silly talking point emerged, ensures this article is bombproof. And people who care about Wikipedia being a serious encyclopedia would resist with every fibre of their being any kind of merge based deletion. It would certainly be a massive NPOV violation to devote even a sentence about this in the biography of Kate Middleton.

I mean Jesus Christ. The woman has clearly had the kind of procedure that is still deeply taboo, with stuff like endometriosis and early menopause still only being talked about in hushed tones even in these enlightened times. And yet here's Wikipedia giving air time to sheer nonsense. If you randomly stopped a kid in the street and said, "Hey little dude, I haven't seen your mom in a while, is she in a coma?, you would quite rightly be in deep shit.

Americans probably don't realize it, but the monarchy still has broad support here, even after Harry and Andrew. Arguably precisely because it has been slimmed down to a core group, the King and Queen and William and Kate. Princess Anne is a trooper, literally, but it doesn't look like she will be replaced. Certainly not on a like for like basis.

Most people in the UK view this sort of stuff as what it is. Something to talk about for five minutes over coffee, roll your eyes and move on. It doesn't remotely affect anyone's long term view of the monarchy. That's the real problem for Wikipedia here. They're giving air time to FRINGE views, such as this claim her photoshopping her family snaps has destroyed trust in the monarchy.

In its garbage conspiracy theory coverage, Wikipedia devotes ONE sentence to the plain truth of the matter. Right at the very end of the article, where few will venture (a true tabloid technique if ever there was one)....

More than half of people in the UK have seen conspiracy theories on social media about why the Princess of Wales is absent from public life, but it hasn't dented trust in the Royal Family, polling for Sky News shows.
......
It also reveals how more than one in three people (36%) thought the royals released too little detail about her surgery.

Some 41% thought they released the right amount and 5% thought it was too much information.

So if public opinion has any role to play in determining the NPOV, and outside of The United States Of I'm With Stupid it probably still should, this whole article is one massive neutrality violation. It's giving huge airtime and real estate to minority views and the conspiracy theories that spring forth from it.

Arguably the only thing that even connects these two episodes of bad luck for Kate, falling ill at the same time as the King and her photography skills coming to light, is the conspiracy theory that she's been replaced.

The only sensible way forward would be to create Public image of Catherine, Princess of Wales (T-H-L) (currently not even a redirect!) and use that page's scope to try hard to temper the recentist urges of the kind of moron who thinks the serious reporting of utter stupidity is worthy of more than a sentence in an encyclopedia.

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. 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.

One wonders where all the feminists are in this matter. There is no public image article, but there is Fashion of Catherine, Princess of Wales (T-H-L).

Extremely depressing.

There is, courtesy of this conspiracy theory coatrack, now.....

According to E. J. Dickson of Rolling Stone, the controversy exposed broader questions about the monarchy's relevance, consistency, and integrity. In her opinion, the palace's perceived lack of transparency and accountability was deemed inadequate given the extensive international coverage.[69]

The given source is of course the Rolling Stones piece itself, not a secondary source noting it. E. J. Dickson (T-H-L) is of course not (currently) deemed an important enough commentator to have her own Wikipedia biography.

But there she is. Finally Wikipedia found a way to give a woman a voice. They don't seem to care that it is highly likely to be FRINGE garbage, aimed solely at heaping even more misery on a woman who essentially lives her entire life between a rock and a hard place, at the mercy of the tabloids and now Generation Facebook.

And now Wikipedia.

I don't know if Wikipedia still considers Rolling Stone a reliable source in general, but in this particular context, shouldn't it just be obvious that this sort of thing, the true unfiltered content of source [68].....

KATEGATE

The Monarchy Is Dead. Long Live the Memes

With Kensington Palace royally screwing it up, we celebrate the one good thing to come out of Kate Middleton's mysterious absence

BY EJ DICKSON

MARCH 14, 2024
.....
And yet, even though public opinion toward the Royal Family has arguably never been lower, we can thank them for one thing: Kate Middleton‘s disappearance has sparked earnest conspiracy theorizing and wild speculation (including from far-right kooks who have wandered into the discourse days late to share their belief that she died from a “vaccine injury”), but it has also prompted an outpouring of some of the best memes on the internet.
.......
IN THIS ARTICLE: British royal family, Kate Middleton, memes, Prince William, Twitter

>(SUB)CULTURE(SUB)CULTURE FEATURES

.....is the very hallmark of an extremely low quality source for this article.

But here we are. Years removed from all the scandals that supposedly focused Wikipedia editor's minds squarely on the quality of sources and their appropriate use in writing about living people. And yet Wikipedia has quite happily repackaged a source that would be at best of use only to support a page that begins.....

Where is Kate? refers to a series of memes arising in 2024 by sick fucks who ...

.....into a source being used to speak about the "broader questions" and "integrity" of the monarchy, as they tried to keep Kate Middleton‘s private life private.

Its sick.

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.

It was no great surprise to see that at the very bottom of her article, E. J. Dickson outs herself as a Republican....

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

......(as well as a massive hypocrite).

Hence why the most biased and salacious of sources are usually the most unreliable for use in biographical content on Wikipedia. So what went wrong here?

The future Queen of England might be an odd place to start for feminist Wikipedians fighting the good fight. But if you can't do right by her, you arguably can't do right by anyone. Least of all women in positions of real power, if the tabloids see them as fair game and the social media monster does even worse.

Some mignt say this is normal for Wikipedia. Their excuse is usually that initial treatment of a high profile topic is inevitably a horrendous violation of NOTNEWS, RECENTISM AND POV, but over time it gets edited to something resembling an encyclopedia.

To those people I say get real. Wikipedia is directly marketed (and used) as the instant encyclopedia. People are consulting Wikipedia to figure out why Kate "disappeared" right now. The story is still in the news, the latest talking point (per a mainstream radio news bulletin minutes ago) being the attempt to access her medical records. The traditional reason for which would be to sell them to a hack and perpetuate the frenzy. But these days you have to wonder if it's not some Twitter whacko searching for The Truth.

If the "editors" can't manage the very simple task of ensuring the product meets the hype, then they should stop pretending they're a force for good in the world.

This stuff really isn't hard. They don't even have this article under the lowest form of edit screening, Pending Changes. They seem to want random whackos to edit it. Or have half assed editors adding the latest questionable hot takes. They arguably need them all to see Wikipedia as relevant in the social media age. Part of the frenzy.

Trying to keep yourself above the fray by pretending all you're doing is reflecting what reliable sources are saying, and it's somehow their mistake to give this nonsense air time, is a massive cop out. That has only ever been the starting point of the kind of decision making that makes an editor an Editor.

[AndyTheGrump]

Most people in the UK view this sort of stuff as what it is. Something to talk about for five minutes over coffee, roll your eyes and move on.

Indeed. More so, when they see the Daily Mail manufacturing headlines on 'conspiracy theories' out of a photograph of a couple of royals in the back of a car doing nothing at all. link

Oh, and TLDR...

[C&B]

a single reply

[Sennalen]

It looks like it was closed as keep - what a useless AfD thread. "But there are a lot of sources!" shouldn't trump WP:NOT (T-H-L), and no one even mentioned Wikipedia:Notability (events) (T-H-L)

[AndyTheGrump]

Incidentally, I'd like to congratulate Kraken for the Daily Mail parody headline thread title. Absolutely spot on...

[ArmasRebane]

The Where is Kate? article is a perfect example of how some editor's approach to notability being news coverage alone means you're essentially signal-boosting conspiracy theories and giving them more attention then they ought to be with a modicum of editorial consideration (they even have an image breaking down the alterations of the photograph, which hopefully is going to get deleted at FfD.)

In a year the only noteworthy stuff is going to be able to be condensed to two paragraphs that are better covered in context. But everyone loves spinout articles for breaking news that get forgotten when the news cycle moves on.

[Ron Lybonly]

I feel bad for Kate and her family. Not as royals or celebrities but rather as any other human beings deserving of being treated with dignity and compassion during a tough time. Ditto Charles.

[rnu]

BLP discussion: ongoing / permanent

[Kraken]

Indeed. More so, when they see the Daily Mail manufacturing headlines on 'conspiracy theories' out of a photograph of a couple of royals in the back of a car doing nothing at all. link

I'm not totally sure what your problem is with that article?

Both the headline and text seem factual. They corrected identify the "conspiracy theories" that have been circulating and rightly condemn the people and things who have ensured they spread despite being bizarre and hurtful.

The picture shows people waiting to see the King leave the palace, perhaps in greater numbers than usual to show their support for the Royal family at a difficult time. People do that in the UK. People who read the Daily Mail's Royal coverage I'd imagine.

It's a simple hook on which to hang a nice neat report by a trainee journalist hired in 2022, who has put it all in context of what's been happening the last few weeks, neatly and quickly, with proper weight to the things that matter. The truth and the condemnation of the bad people spreading lies for clicks. Good job Katherine Lawton. It's squarely pro-Royal, but it would be hard to be anything else for this story, and the UK newspaper industry is widely respected for its freedom to take an editorial stance. Choice.

It would be better if such reports didn't need to be written at all. But if you had read the post, you'd have seen that it probably was necessary because the so called reliable media (even the BBC) have been acting like this is a real story. Made it hard to ignore, tbh.

If it upsets you, this Mail story, for some reason I can't honestly see, then don't read it. Plenty of other commercial newspapers in the UK. A pity the same can't be said of Wikipedia, which has a virtual monopoly on being the companion guide to the news of the day. Maybe people should swerve it entirely and read the Mail instead?

[Kraken]

BLP discussion: ongoing / permanent

It's one of those articles that makes you think Wikipedia might not be a good idea after all. Bon courage (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

[AndyTheGrump]

Now I'm really confused. Am I supposed to be standing outside Clarence House all day with a flag, on the off-chance that Charlie and his other half drive by, or am I supposed to be eye-rolling and moving on? It must be difficult being a monarchist in these troubling times...

[rnu]

Now I'm really confused. Am I supposed to be standing outside Clarence House all day with a flag, on the off-chance that Charlie and his other half drive by, or am I supposed to be eye-rolling and moving on? It must be difficult being a monarchist in these troubling times...

I think monarchists are supposed to stand outside wherever a royal is while wearing flag clothes (flags are fine too, but I think the flag clothes are de rigeur these days) while reading tabloid gossip about the royals and rolling their eyes. It's all about multi-tasking.

[eppur si muove]

I can remember listening to a radio programme that referred to the most common reasons for surgery as the Five Hs. Hip replacement is the least likely for a woman that age and heart surgery is the next. Which leaves hernia, hysterectomy and haemorrhoids and most people would not want their having those conditions mentioned in the press.

[Kraken]

Now I'm really confused. Am I supposed to be standing outside Clarence House all day with a flag, on the off-chance that Charlie and his other half drive by, or am I supposed to be eye-rolling and moving on? It must be difficult being a monarchist in these troubling times...

I think monarchists are supposed to stand outside wherever a royal is while wearing flag clothes (flags are fine too, but I think the flag clothes are de rigeur these days) while reading tabloid gossip about the royals and rolling their eyes. It's all about multi-tasking.

That Mail story is not tabloid gossip or conspiracy theorizing. I have no idea why it was brought up, and even less why you two have now gone off on this tangent based on what seems to be a very wrong idea about what I set out to highlight.

[AndyTheGrump]

Maybe you should consider conciseness...

[Dan of La Mancha]

It looks like it was closed as keep - what a useless AfD thread. "But there are a lot of sources!" shouldn't trump WP:NOT (T-H-L), and no one even mentioned Wikipedia:Notability (events) (T-H-L)

The trouble with NOTNEWS and NEVENTS is that they don't explicitly forbid this kind of article. NOTNEWS begins with "Editors are encouraged (my emphasis) [...] to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events", and isn't very clear about what kind of events are significant. NEVENTS sits on the fence with "Don't rush to create articles" and "Don't rush to delete articles", which in practice means that once an article is created it's a fait accompli, because AfD voters can say "Let's wait and see if there's lasting coverage."

And even if there isn't lasting coverage, current event articles are rarely deleted or merged after the news cycle moves on, because once the subject is no longer in the news, everybody loses interest, including those who argued for deletion. Look at Queue for the lying-in-state of Elizabeth II (T-H-L). Barely edited since 2022, and still full of trivia like "The main queue route passed more than 500 portable toilets," and "On 14 September, a 19-year-old man exposed himself and touched two women in the queue before jumping into the River Thames." This article doesn't pass the one-and-a-half-year test, let alone the ten-year test, but nobody will ever be motivated to nominate for deletion or even clean it up because who cares? It's old news.

Wikipedia wants it both ways: it wants to be a serious encyclopedia and it wants to be the go-to source for breaking news. But it simply can't be both. Articles like Where is Kate? degrade the whole encyclopedia, because they generate a cultural shift towards the use of Wikipedia as a secondary source, and diminish the importance of accuracy and neutrality over immediacy. The existing PAGs aren't sufficient to prevent the creation of such articles. The only way to get serious about NOTNEWS is to create a hard rule – and enforce it – that all new articles must be based on souces which are no less than, say, thirty days old. That way, the eventualist argument gets turned around – "someone can improve it later" becomes "you can create it later, if it's still important to you then."

The absurdity of Wikipedia's approach to current events is well highlighted in the present case. IgnatiusofLondon (T-C-L) created the Where is Kate? article and then immediately (i.e. ten minutes later) nominated it for deletion on the grounds that it might be a BLP violation, their own stance being a bolded "Neutral." Nowhere in the real world would it make sense to create something potentially damaging in order to have a conversation about whether the thing should exist, but Ignatius's actions are entirely in line with the prevailing attitude at Wikipedia, which is to create first and ask questions later. Until the rules are changed, this kind of thing is going to keep on happening.

[greyed.out.fields]

I was going to leave this as a single reply in the Crap articles thread, but before I knew it I had a whole topic on my hands. Enjoy!


Princess Anne is a trooper, literally, but it doesn't look like she will be replaced. Certainly not on a like for like basis.

</>

Anne - born into a Monarchy Family's Flying Circus - has had more that her fair share of tsuris. But to the best of my knowledge and belief she has never been literally a trooper (in informal British English, a squaddie)

Should you mean metaphorically a trouper?

As I think I mentioned somewhere before, Shoenberg's Verklärte Nacht could possibly seen as an extension of Wagner and Brahms' (owl be it contradictory) late Romanticism, arguably an extension of then rules of composition

And pretty much the same time, Vaughn Williams wrote "The Fantasia" using "modes" and so on that hadn't been seen since Thomas Tallis (T-H-L) used em.

[AndyTheGrump]

Clearly the Royals, who go out of their way to avoid publicity by living in huge tourist-attraction houses and castles, complete with guards in fancy red uniforms and bearskin hats, and have their weddings, coronations and funerals broadcast live to the nation, should have their privacy respected. Goes without saying...

[Sennalen]

The trouble with NOTNEWS and NEVENTS is that they don't explicitly forbid this kind of article.

WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL (T-H-L) - An article about rumors is not appropriate.
WP:NOTGOSSIP (T-H-L) - Articles are not for gossip.
WP:LASTING (T-H-L) - The effects of the event should be lasting.
WP:PERSISTENCE (T-H-L) - The source coverage should span some time.

All should have been raised, and the votes should have been weighted more by argument. I would start the deletion review myself, but people who read policies in detail and apply them faithfully are not appreciated.

[Kraken]

Anne - born into a Monarchy Family's Flying Circus - has had more that her fair share of tsuris. But to the best of my knowledge and belief she has never been literally a trooper (in informal British English, a squaddie)

Literally as in a bloody hard worker. Metaphorically as a nod to her equestrian background and her honorary rank of Colonel of the Blues and Royals (T-H-L), whose lowest rank is "Trooper". Not squaddie (US English: grunt / G.I.). A Trooper being an entirely better class of cannon fodder. Literally in every sense of the word.

[Kraken]

Clearly the Royals, who go out of their way to avoid publicity by living in huge tourist-attraction houses and castles, complete with guards in fancy red uniforms and bearskin hats, and have their weddings, coronations and funerals broadcast live to the nation, should have their privacy respected. Goes without saying...

This is a pretty weak (non-existent) argument for wanting to know what is clearly, blindingly obviously, a deeply personal health matter.

[AndyTheGrump]

Clearly the Royals, who go out of their way to avoid publicity by living in huge tourist-attraction houses and castles, complete with guards in fancy red uniforms and bearskin hats, and have their weddings, coronations and funerals broadcast live to the nation, should have their privacy respected. Goes without saying...

This is a pretty weak (non-existent) argument for wanting to know what is clearly, blindingly obviously, a deeply personal health matter.

It isn't an argument, it is an observation. Marry into royalty, and you get to become the focus of gutter-press intrusiveness and absurd conspiracy theories. Goes with the job. Been that way for a very long time. link Should Wikipedia engage in such nonsense too? No, not if it takes WP:BLP policy seriously. But then we already know it doesn't. Not when it doesn't suit it to. And there are victims of Wikipedia 'biographies' far less able to defend themselves than the future Queen. Victims not followed around by trains of sycophants-royal expounding at length on just how unbearably awful it is to be feudal-relic-tourist-bait.

I'll save my sympathies for the underdogs.

[Kraken]

To echo Sennalen, this could have been prevented with NPOV / BLP by invoking COATRACK. This was after all how it came into being, the abuse of AfD when the nominator was getting pushback in their attempts to turn the main article into a COATRACK.

It's a page promoting conspiracy theory and bias (recentism, anti-Monarchy views) by piggy backing on mainstream news coverage of loosely connected events that are, well, news. And speculative news at that. Not the stuff of a neutral encyclopedia.

Send it to Deletion Review. The AfD was illegitimate, the arguments weren't weighted properly in context, and the closer made a huge error in not seeing how daft it was for people to argue this was a notable topic without having the first fucking clue what the topic actually is.

Is this the topic?

* Reactions to and impacts of Kate Middleton's abdominal surgery (T-H-L)

Ridiculous. Overturn and draftify. Once it becomes clear there is no topic, move forward by creating the long overdue article on the Public image of Catherine, Princess of Wales (T-H-L). A page where it can be given the proper weight and context with the highest quality sources, duly combined with other existing material and that ridiculous fashion spin out.

[AndyTheGrump]

...anti-Monarchy views...

I was unaware that Wikipedia rejected sources on the basis that they were 'anti-monarchy'. Could you perhaps point me to the relevant passage in WP:RS?

[Kraken]

...anti-Monarchy views...

I was unaware that Wikipedia rejected sources on the basis that they were 'anti-monarchy'. Could you perhaps point me to the relevant passage in WP:RS?

Alternatively can you engage with the post rather than putting words in my mouth. If you have a policy based argument for why the likes of that piece in Rolling Stone is appropriate for its usage in that article, let's hear it.

Clearly the Royals, who go out of their way to avoid publicity by living in huge tourist-attraction houses and castles, complete with guards in fancy red uniforms and bearskin hats, and have their weddings, coronations and funerals broadcast live to the nation, should have their privacy respected. Goes without saying...

This is a pretty weak (non-existent) argument for wanting to know what is clearly, blindingly obviously, a deeply personal health matter.

It isn't an argument, it is an observation. Marry into royalty, and you get to become the focus of gutter-press intrusiveness and absurd conspiracy theories. Goes with the job. Been that way for a very long time. link Should Wikipedia engage in such nonsense too? No, not if it takes WP:BLP policy seriously. But then we already know it doesn't. Not when it doesn't suit it to. And there are victims of Wikipedia 'biographies' far less able to defend themselves than the future Queen. Victims not followed around by trains of sycophants-royal expounding at length on just how unbearably awful it is to be feudal-relic-tourist-bait.

I'll save my sympathies for the underdogs.

Who else but Kate Middleton would even need to deal with the problem of Wikipedia thinking it's appropriate to have an article whose title might as well be Reactions to and Impacts of Kate Middleton's abdominal surgery (T-H-L)?

Who else but Royals in general, female Royals in particular, have to deal with that shit on top of everything else that comes with this role?

[AndyTheGrump]

Like I said, it goes with the job. Wikipedia enforcing its policies wouldn't change any of that. And lots of jobs involve dealing with shit: metaphorically or for real. Most of them pay a lot less well.

[Dan of La Mancha]

The trouble with NOTNEWS and NEVENTS is that they don't explicitly forbid this kind of article.

WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL (T-H-L) - An article about rumors is not appropriate.
WP:NOTGOSSIP (T-H-L) - Articles are not for gossip.
WP:LASTING (T-H-L) - The effects of the event should be lasting.
WP:PERSISTENCE (T-H-L) - The source coverage should span some time.

All should have been raised, and the votes should have been weighted more by argument. I would start the deletion review myself, but people who read policies in detail and apply them faithfully are not appreciated.

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.

WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE both say that while evidence of lasting significance contributes to notability, it doesn't work the other way – lack of evidence of lasting significance doesn't make a subject automatically non-notable. So these guidelines don't provide a valid reason for deletion.

I see that NOTNEWS has been tweaked by Bon courage, with a pointer back to GNG – but I don't see how that helps, because this article would survive even the most rigorous application of GNG. (There's an argument being made at the BLPN discussion that the sources are not secondary, but I don't think that holds up; plenty of them are providing secondary analysis of content from other media outlets, rather than reporting anything new.)

Just to be clear, I strongly believe the article ought to be deleted. My point is that there is no policy-based reason for deleting it. Wikipedians need to stop fighting over individual articles and change the policy.

[ArmasRebane]

And the policy will never get changed, because there are people who love the breaking-news aspect of Wikipedia. That's why they get knee deep in breathless Covid or Ukraine coverage.

Beyond that, it's a general issue of Wikipedia that creating content is easy and cheap, curating and editing content is hard, but there's a streak of people (the same people who complain when a prolific waste of time is brought up at ANI for, you know, creating 10K useless stubs or whatever) that believe the former is laudable while the latter is bad, because it deletes people's contributions.

Really the best solution to any of these news pieces is watchlist them and set a timer for X years in the future and then AfD them or (more usefully) just merge them unilaterally. I expect very few would actually get contested, and then you at least have enough road to demonstrate that there hasn't been lasting coverage.

[rnu]

Horse Eye's Back is seriously arguing in the BLP discussion that the article should exist because NOTNEWS encourages editors "to develop stand-alone articles on the most significant current events".

[Kraken]

Wikipedia enforcing its policies wouldn't change any of that.

It literally would. Enforcement of COATRACK means an article whose title might as well be Reactions to and Impacts of Kate Middleton's abdominal surgery (T-H-L) would never have existed.

readers are certainly interested in Kate's whereabouts

Doesn't really need a whole article to tell them she was in hospital and then at home. If anyone knows different, the BURDEN is on them. It is honestly perverse that a whole Wikipedia article was created on the assumption "Where is Kate?" was a question with a surprising and scary answer, up to and including she's dead. It's not reasonable to assume Wikipedia readers are looking for such utter bullshit, or that they are looking for serious commentary about the impact of a prolonged absence on a slimmed down monarchy being included alongside such utter bullshit.

this article would survive even the most rigorous application of GNG.

It doesn't even pass the first hurdle. What's the topic? No topic, no notability. This is why even the keepers were struggling to figure out what it should be called. That's a clear sign the thing is a COATRACK.

Really the best solution to any of these news pieces is watchlist them and set a timer for X years in the future and then AfD them or (more usefully) just merge them unilaterally.

That's not really a solution given pretty much all the harm occurs when reader's attention is focused on the article at the time its in the news. Although I suppose it could be called a kindness of sorts, quietly removing it once interest has dwindled to almost nothing.

[Hemiauchenia]

Horse Eye's Back is seriously arguing in the BLP discussion that the article should exist because NOTNEWS encourages editors "to develop stand-alone articles on the most significant current events".

He's arguing that Catherine is a "political figure", which is an interesting angle. I've always seen the UK Royal family in modern times as essentially Britain's more classy analogue of the Kardashian family, in that their primary purpose seems to be existing as celebrities "famous for being famous" without having any significant accomplishments. At least Japanese emperors Hirohito and Akihito actually published significant scientific work (both were zoologists, Hirohito was an expert on hydrozoans, while Akihito was an expert on goby fish).

[ArmasRebane]

Horse Eye's Back is seriously arguing in the BLP discussion that the article should exist because NOTNEWS encourages editors "to develop stand-alone articles on the most significant current events".

He's arguing that Catherine is a "political figure", which is an interesting angle. I've always seen the UK Royal family in modern times as essentially Britain's more classy analogue of the Kardashian family, in that their primary purpose seems to be existing as celebrities "famous for being famous" without having any significant accomplishments. At least Japanese emperors Hirohito and Akihito actually published significant scientific work (both were zoologists, Hirohito was an expert on hydrozoans, while Akihito was an expert on goby fish).

Yeah, I'd say while the monarchy is political, the actual royal family in the UK doesn't really seem to be outside of the question of whether there should be royalty or not. And it's clear from reporting that what's motivating the coverage is certainly not political considerations.

[Kraken]

Horse Eye's Back is seriously arguing in the BLP discussion that the article should exist because NOTNEWS encourages editors "to develop stand-alone articles on the most significant current events".

indeed.

AfD is not cleanup, there are not BLP issues here which require or even suggest deletion. Whatever you want to call it there is a notable topic here, I know that because CNN keeps pushing notifications about it to my phone... And I don't live in the UK. Whatever this is will be in the history books they write in ten or twenty years. Also not only can we not stop it, we actually encourage it. In fact its rushing to deletion which is discouraged, see Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Don't rush to delete articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

....the event (notable topic) is the controversy around the political figure failing to do photo ops for a few months, not the failure itself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

So what is the title of the article then?

Is it 2023-24 Kate Middleton not seen in public controversy (T-H-L), to use a more familiar Wikipedia naming convention for events.

I know CNN isn't what it was, but I severely doubt they're sending out push notifications titled Where is Kate? Day 35 of this most significant controversy to hit the British Royals in years.

What's the title of the Chapter of the book this nonsense is allegedly going to be talked about in significant depth in ten years time going to be?

This is all just so utterly absurd.

For the record, CNN is currently calling it the "Kate Photo Saga", which conveys exactly what this garbage is. Barely above tabloid mush.

What little sober analysis there is, has obviously been made up to lend some semblance of This Is CNN credibility to what is essentially just another breathless rehashing of gossip and hot takes. The lie that this has totally shattered public trust in the Monarchy Is repeated. How did they come to that conclusion? They don't say. Because they made it up.

It's shit like this which lends weight to the sometimes floated suggestion that Wikipedia should just ban using newspapers as sources in biographies period.

This absolute garbage of a report from a source Wikipedia considers very reliable, sadly counts as proof of in depth analysis. But it would have you believe that Kate or her "comms" advisers have single handedly brought the monarchy to its knees and shattered the previously unbreakable trust between government departments and photojournalists.

Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break.

So I ask agan....what's the topic?

Kate Middleton photo controversy (T-H-L), according to reliable sources.

But wait. That very same source also uses the term...

Case of the Missing Princess (T-H-L)

....and even refers to the.....

Katespiracies (T-H-L)

Some tough editorial choices there. The RM will be fun!



This is why GNG is a presumption. An advisory. A first hurdle. Not the last.

There is a reason there's a Wikipedia guideline somewhere that says if all you can think of to call a Wikipedia article is [something]-gate and nobody is going to prison, then have a sit down and think really hard about what the hell you are doing. Because you're probably violating NOT in a variety of ways.

CNN needs the clicks just like any other commercial news website. Wikipedia doesn’t.

[rnu]

[...]
What's the title of the Chapter of the book this nonsense is allegedly going to be talked about in significant depth in ten years time going to be?
[...]

No idea about the title of the chapter. But I assume the book will be written in an alien (as in extraterrestrial) language and its title will roughly translate to "Why Earth had to go".

[AndyTheGrump]

I'd have to rate the possibility that Caroline gives a fuck about what Wikipedia in particular has to say about this current nonsense at just about zero. With a great many Wikipedia BLP-victims, things that Wikipedia has to say about them actually matter, due to how Google etc use Wikipedia to generate their search-algorithm clickbait. With this story, that simply isn't a factor. The mass media are full of it, because that is what the mass media do. The Wikipedia article is just more of the same. Not looking good for Wikipedia, but otherwise insignificant in volume.

And look at the broader context: much of what royalty does (almost all of it, these days) is stage-managed to suit the media. It's been that way at least since George V's doctor bumped him off prematurely to ensure that his death was announced in the Times, rather than the lesser press. They feed the media beast, and sometimes they get bitten. Beware of the dog...

Wikipedia absolutely does need to take its own supposed policies seriously, but not because of this current idiocy. No, it needs to do so because of what it can do to the ordinary-Joe attack-biography victims who don't crave publicity, and aren't followed around by hordes of fawning Norman St John-Stevas impersonators to explain just how hard-done-by they are when their stage-managing goes awry.

[Kraken]

I'd have to rate the possibility that Caroline gives a fuck about what Wikipedia in particular has to say about this current nonsense at just about zero. With a great many Wikipedia BLP-victims, things that Wikipedia has to say about them actually matter, due to how Google etc use Wikipedia to generate their search-algorithm clickbait. With this story, that simply isn't a factor. The mass media are full of it, because that is what the mass media do. The Wikipedia article is just more of the same. Not looking good for Wikipedia, but otherwise insignificant in volume.

And look at the broader context: much of what royalty does (almost all of it, these days) is stage-managed to suit the media. It's been that way at least since George V's doctor bumped him off prematurely to ensure that his death was announced in the Times, rather than the lesser press. They feed the media beast, and sometimes they get bitten. Beware of the dog...

Wikipedia absolutely does need to take its own supposed policies seriously, but not because of this current idiocy. No, it needs to do so because of what it can do to the ordinary-Joe attack-biography victims who don't crave publicity, and aren't followed around by hordes of fawning Norman St John-Stevas impersonators to explain just how hard-done-by they are when their stage-managing goes awry.

You really should deal in specifics not generics.

1. This thing is a thing because the Palace did not give the media what they wanted. They made a reasonable request for privacy. And to keep going back to your bizarre mention of the Mail, it's seemingly not the so called "lesser press" who are the bad guys in all this. It is social media not doing enough to quash nutbaggery, and the so called reliable media giving it far more credence than it deserved. They are clearly lying about stuff that they could easily check if they wanted (has this thing dented the public trust in the Monarchy? polling says no, unsurprisingly). And they are doing it for clicks. This calls into question Wikipedia's entire approach to so called reliable media. Does it suit Wikipedia to ban CNN or just carry on looking the other way?

2. If Wikipedia can't protect Kate, it can't protect anyone. You do the man or woman in the street no favors at all by pretending otherwise. Wikipedia is the top or near top result for most Kate queries, just like anyone else would be. I'm genuinely amazed it doesn't appear on a search for "Is Kate dead?". I doubt that is by design.

3. Don't assume you know who Kate encounters in public or in private as far as mistaken impressions of Wikipedia goes, and thus what affect that can have on her personally or professionally. By contrast, everyone in those circles if not everywhere knows how to treat things they read in a newspaper.

4. Wikipedia specifically and proactively markets itself as a rapidly updating supposedly neutral encyclopedia. And a big reason for that is they clearly want to be seen as the go to companion guide for people to understand what's behind the stories in the media. By not doing this in accordance with their own policies, they are driving this demand for bullshit as much as social media and mass media. They are essentially giving it legitimacy.

[AndyTheGrump]

If Wikipedia can't protect Kate, it can't protect anyone.

What an utterly absurd comment. Kate has the whole fucking establishment to protect her. The same establishment that happily feeds the mass media. The mass media the social media feeds off. Joe Who, the average Wikipedia-biography-victim doesn't.

[rnu]

[AndyTheGrump]

Where's the shape-shifting lizards redirect? They have to be involved somehow...

[rnu]

engadget: Getty flags another British royal family photo for being digitally altered

The princess' absence from public events since Christmas last year has, as you might have expected, spawned all kinds of conspiracy theories. It even gave rise to a whole Wikipedia article entitled "Where is Kate?" because people around the world are apparently that invested in the British monarchy and can't quite believe that she'd undergone abdominal surgery.

[AndyTheGrump]

engadget: Getty flags another British royal family photo for being digitally altered

The princess' absence from public events since Christmas last year has, as you might have expected, spawned all kinds of conspiracy theories. It even gave rise to a whole Wikipedia article entitled "Where is Kate?" because people around the world are apparently that invested in the British monarchy and can't quite believe that she'd undergone abdominal surgery.

The photo is quite obviously fake. Anyone who's ever tried to take a formal photo of that many kids of that age will know that at least one will be sticking their tongue out or picking their nose at any given moment.

Or maybe lizard-children aren't like that?

[lonza leggiera]

engadget: Getty flags another British royal family photo for being digitally altered

The princess' absence from public events since Christmas last year has, as you might have expected, spawned all kinds of conspiracy theories. It even gave rise to a whole Wikipedia article entitled "Where is Kate?" because people around the world are apparently that invested in the British monarchy and can't quite believe that she'd undergone abdominal surgery.

The photo is quite obviously fake. Anyone who's ever tried to take a formal photo of that many kids of that age will know that at least one will be sticking their tongue out or picking their nose at any given moment.

Or maybe lizard-children aren't like that?

No. But there is the one on the right who's shape-shifted itself into a bowl of roses.

[Ron Lybonly]

engadget: Getty flags another British royal family photo for being digitally altered

The princess' absence from public events since Christmas last year has, as you might have expected, spawned all kinds of conspiracy theories. It even gave rise to a whole Wikipedia article entitled "Where is Kate?" because people around the world are apparently that invested in the British monarchy and can't quite believe that she'd undergone abdominal surgery.

The photo is quite obviously fake. Anyone who's ever tried to take a formal photo of that many kids of that age will know that at least one will be sticking their tongue out or picking their nose at any given moment.

Or maybe lizard-children aren't like that?

Give this mother credit for more finesse than my own mother who used scissors and glue.

[Kraken]

If Wikipedia can't protect Kate, it can't protect anyone.

What an utterly absurd comment. Kate has the whole fucking establishment to protect her. The same establishment that happily feeds the mass media. The mass media the social media feeds off. Joe Who, the average Wikipedia-biography-victim doesn't.

What's absurd is you thinking there's anyone on this platform who would agree the Kate has any special power to get Wikipedia to remove a COATRACK, or that someone in her position wouldn't end up in a far worse position than Joe Who if they even tried.

The moral bankruptcy of your stance, where you've got untold sympathy for Joe Who but Kate Somebody can go fuck herself, is laid bare when you realise the consequences of this COATRACK don't just harm Kate, they lead to BLP violations being committed on the little people too.

From one current source in that garbage article.....

[Living person's name], who shared the video clip with The Sun, told the publication that he is shocked by those who still don't believe Kate is recovering well from her abdominal surgery. He said: "I'm not so much shocked that these comments have continued, I’m just confused how exactly they can continue. This is a video clearly showing her and William. I saw them with my own eyes. It was a completely relaxed situation. What more do you need to lay off her? I thought after this was released they’d go quiet. But these people are so invested in the drama now."

Guess whose name was edited into Wikipedia off the back of this reliable source? Good old Joe Who, that's Who.

If Wikipedia can't protect Kate, it can't protect Joe. Q.E.D.

The really fucked up part being Wikipedia did eventually protect Joe, removing his name a clear 24 hours after it had been introduced. And who was his noble protector? Why, none other than Thespacebook (T-C-L), who has devoted 350 of his 354 edits to Wikipedia on editing and defending the existence of this COATRACK.

[AndyTheGrump]

What's absurd is you thinking there's anyone on this platform who would agree the Kate has any special power to get Wikipedia to remove a COATRACK...

At no point did I even remotely suggest anything of the sort. Stop making shit up. Or find somewhere else to peddle your Deranged-of-Tunbridge-Wells melodramas.

[Kraken]

What's absurd is you thinking there's anyone on this platform who would agree the Kate has any special power to get Wikipedia to remove a COATRACK...

At no point did I even remotely suggest anything of the sort. Stop making shit up. Or find somewhere else to peddle your Deranged-of-Tunbridge-Wells melodramas.

It was a fair reading of "Kate has the whole fucking establishment to protect her. ..... Joe Who, the average Wikipedia-biography-victim doesn't." I would say.

If you meant something different by it, well, this is why I have repeatedly asked you to stick to the specifics of this thread rather than using it as an opportunity to air general views that have only vague and sometimes absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

[AndyTheGrump]

The 'specifics of this thread' are that you started it with a ludicrous title, and ever since have been consistently trying to frame bog-standard media-frenzy and social-media-fuckwittery as if it is some sort of giant plot to overthrow the monarchy. And then make out Wikipedia's minor role in this idiocy as somehow the kingpin of a horrific act of treasonous Lèse-majesté.

I don't expect you to suddenly acquire a sense of proportion. You've clearly never had one. But for the sake of your readers, while you still have any, try to at least pretend that you don't think the sky is falling in. Kate will be fine. Or at least, fine to the extent that whatever medical condition she has lets her be. Monarchies don't fall because idiots who will believe anything find one more idiotic thing to believe in for a week or two. We've been stuck with this lot for something approaching a millennia, if you believe the family trees, and it'll take a hell of a lot more than a single Wikipedia article to dislodge them. If it is the mass media that finally does it, it will be the steady drip drip over decades that is responsible - and it will be self-inflicted. They feed the dog. Sometimes it bites...

[Kraken]

Some tough editorial choices there. The RM will be fun!



This is why GNG is a presumption. An advisory. A first hurdle. Not the last.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... March_2024



COATRACK.

C....O....A.....T.....R.....A......C......K

COATRACK.

[Midsize Jake]

Who else but Kate Middleton would even need to deal with the problem of Wikipedia thinking it's appropriate to have an article whose title might as well be Reactions to and Impacts of Kate Middleton's abdominal surgery (T-H-L)?

Who else but Royals in general, female Royals in particular, have to deal with that shit on top of everything else that comes with this role?

FWIW and believe it or not, there are some left-leaning folks who agree with you, as evidenced by this new piece on Salon.com.

Also FWIW, I agree that the way the media has handled this in general, especially with their breathless "OMG this edited photo means the end of the monarchy!" pieces everywhere you look, has been absolutely atrocious. I think we're finally starting to see a hint of pushback on that now though, which is good, but 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.

[Kraken]

The 'specifics of this thread' are that you started it with a ludicrous title, and ever since have been consistently trying to frame bog-standard media-frenzy and social-media-fuckwittery as if it is some sort of giant plot to overthrow the monarchy. And then make out Wikipedia's minor role in this idiocy as somehow the kingpin of a horrific act of treasonous Lèse-majesté.

I don't expect you to suddenly acquire a sense of proportion. You've clearly never had one. But for the sake of your readers, while you still have any, try to at least pretend that you don't think the sky is falling in. Kate will be fine. Or at least, fine to the extent that whatever medical condition she has lets her be. Monarchies don't fall because idiots who will believe anything find one more idiotic thing to believe in for a week or two. We've been stuck with this lot for something approaching a millennia, if you believe the family trees, and it'll take a hell of a lot more than a single Wikipedia article to dislodge them. If it is the mass media that finally does it, it will be the steady drip drip over decades that is responsible - and it will be self-inflicted. They feed the dog. Sometimes it bites...

This is all your fantasy framing. You would see it if only you stuck to the specifics. The actual points made. Because my sense of proportion is bang on.

I was right to trust my instinct that there was a real story here, not the everyday garden variety Crap article, because it has been proven right. With all due apologies to Joe Who, sometimes you need the draw of a star to focus people's minds. Far from being bog standard, this is a really quite remarkable departure from Wikipedia's regularly scheduled inability to adhere to BLP amid a blizzard of sources. Which of course afflicts high and low born with equal regularity.

Again, you will only really see it if you engage with the specifics. Such as how unlikely it is that you could actually tell me when it was that Wikipedia last did something quite as stupid yet cruel as this. I imagine that if you even come up with an example, it will be pretty far removed from this mess in one or more significant ways. Probably wouldn't even be a COATRACK.

The specifics are relevant because pointing out that article might as well be called Reactions to and impacts of Kate Middleton's abdominal surgery (T-H-L) don't just have merit, they cut to the heart of the matter. You don't want to engage in these terms because that angle of criticism portrays Kate as far too human for your tastes.