Talk:Pippa Middleton/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

"Personal life" should be removed

This article is full of items of trivia, spun from passing mentions is highly unreliable sources, pastiched in by weasel wording and very poor original reseach. I have removed some of the worst offences, only to have them reinstated. You simply can't responsibly do this on a BLP.

The following ought to be removed:

  1. "In 2009, Middleton took up tobogganing on the Cresta Run at St Moritz, with the multi-millionaire Trevor Baines as her instructor". The source (which is not about her at all) actually says in passing "Baines has also taught beginner tobogganists on the Cresta Run in the millionaire-playground of St Moritz – including, he claimed, Pippa Middleton". Even the Scotsman newspaper is not actually claiming this is true, and even if she did taking a lesson, that does not equal saying that an important fact is that she "took up tobogganing" (which implies an ongoing interest) in 2009.
  2. She is also a good shot and in 2008 shot twenty-three game birds in a day in Scotland. Middleton actually said "my modest 23 wasn’t so good actually and I found the partridge quite disconcerting, they are so small,’ - the Daily Mail may call this a good shot, but they are hardly an authority on shooting. Basically, we are stating as a fact, something the subject has denied. In any case, this source is not suggesting that a pertinent fact about Pippa is that she's keen and regular shooter - which is what we are implying.
  3. For several years on Burns Night, Middleton has carried the haggis, accompanied by bagpipes, into a pub called the Old Boot Inn at Stanford Dingley in Berkshire. Trivial in the extreme. A one line example in a tabloid is not a basis for stating this as a pertinent fact.
  4. She was reported in 2010 to be dating the City trader and former England cricketer Alex Loudon. This is borderline. But "was reported" is weasel wording.
  5. After her sister's wedding, The New Zealand Herald reported that she and Loudon were "all but engaged" What the fuck? The New Zealand Herald did not report this, it said "she is reportedly engaged". Which means they are simply repeating something reported in some unspecified place. Hearsay of the worse order. And what does "all but engaged mean anyway". All we've got here is that someone (who knows who, and who knows if they have a clue) said it, and the NZH repeated it. This is waaaaay below verification for a BLP.

Basically, absolutely nothing here stands up to scrutiny, and all of it is unfit for inclusion in a BLP.--Scott Mac 23:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources are not "highly unreliable", and there is no "original reseach". I see nothing "below verification". In dealing with an It girl article, such "trivia", if you insist on the word, are almost inevitably at the heart of it. Little that is about a "serious" career can be said. The subject is notable mostly for fame, not for professional excellence. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
If there's biographical material about her social life, fine. But you can't trawl passing mentions in newspapers, carelessly taken them out of context, and give the impression that proper biographical information exists. This is utterly unacceptable. --Scott Mac 23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Very well, I think you have made some valid points above about what can be relied upon in the sources, but I do not agree that the whole section is contrary to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I shall work up a revised version and perhaps it will address your concerns. If I may say so, the extreme rhetoric of "full of shit" is not helping this discussion. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The 'Sunday newspaper' referred to in this story is the Mail. Bearing that in mind, can we please drop this pretence that for BLP articles, that paper, and anything else like it, is not anything other than completely unreliable. And fwiw I totally support this removal, I hadn't even realised half the stuff Scott has uncovered here. So much for this being a potential GA. MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Scott MacDonald's criticisms under (1) and (2) and have corrected those passages as suggested under a new header, "Sports". I don't agree that the Daily Mail is "completely unreliable" but do accept that references to papers like the Times, the Telegraph, the Independent the Guardian and the New York Times are preferred when available. I think we can leave out (3) for now. As Scott MacDonald implies, (4) needs rewording and (5) needs a better citation. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
You are trying to make bricks without straw. Tabloids record that she want shooting one - so bloody what? You want to turn it into a biographical item! Most of the "sources" are just reheating trivia. If there are not proper biographical sources you can't write a biography - stop trying.--Scott Mac 01:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


Pam Sykes? Who is she? What are her qualifications? Why is her opinion notable? You can't just pick up a nice quote and use it. Can you demonstrate that Pam Sykes's opinions of Pippa Middleton are noteworthy.--Scott Mac 01:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This whole article should've been deleted, but does anybody listen to my wisdom (-it past 2 afds)? nope. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
GoodDay, you have lost that argument.
Scott Mac, thank you for the question about Plum Sykes. In this instance, her main qualification is that she is one of the few British authors who is an insider in the world inhabited by PM (the 'New York Times calls her a "society writer" on the page linked below) so her assessment is an informed one. As to whether it is notable, it has certainly been quoted in more than one place - here are some links to just a few of the pages which quote that passage: Daily Telegraph; New York Times; People; Yahoo; Daily Mail.
I'm taking out the "is full of shit" in this header, I don't think it helps our discussion here. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember that. -- LeoDavid (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a single part of this section that is not discussing the article's content directly. Slapping this template here was completely unjustified. MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

External link

It's amazing that people are opposed to mentioning what was considered "teenage boys drooling over her" or some such — but the external link is a slide-show basically serving that purpose... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}--Scott Mac 08:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
*sigh* Yes, normally, I would, but for some strange reason, I feel the need to ask for permission. Understandable? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Understandable. I was close to doing it myself when I removed the spamblog link that was also there, but felt that it was borderline. I also agree with removing mentioning ski vacations and statements by random multi-millionaires who claim to know her. Hans Adler 09:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Point

I think we have some serious BLP issues here. As it currently stands the lead says Her fame is partially due to public admiration for her buttocks.[3][4][5] Further down it says After the wedding, a facebook-page and a website dedicated to her buttocks were created,[3][4][5] and she was referred to as "Her Royal Hotness"[37][38] Is this appropriate? It sounds like tabloid trash. StAnselm (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is what her current fame is mainly based on: comments on her butt and how hot she is. There is no BLP-issue if all newspapers from UK to NZ report on it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I support removing it from the lead. Having it there puts undue emphasis on a point so minor that it receives only one sentence in an otherwise lengthy article. So a Facebook fanpage for her rear end was created. So what? Trivia doesn't belong in the lead.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. Google Pipa Middleton, and that's what you get: her dress and her butt. There is nothing else that makes her notable as of now (apart from being the sister of Kate). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
A simple Google search on her returns no results highlighting her butt. (I feel ridiculous even typing that.) Her coverage is 99% being Kate Middleton's sister and her role as maid-of-honor and probably 1% (if not less) talking about that Facebook page as an amusing bit of trivia that, in the end, is entirely irrelevant. Per WP:LEAD#Relative_emphasis, it doesn't belong in the lead.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what google you are using. I see this. "Royal Hotness" and butt are right there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that she's getting press for her appearance, but that first search listing proves my point: even in an article talking about her looks, the minor reference to her butt's appreciation is simply the Facebook page (and what doesn't have a Facebook page at this point?). A more general mention about getting press for her physical attractiveness is what belongs in the lead based on the coverage, if something like this has to go in the lead. Not to mention, I see two other editors that have removed the claim from the lead, so I'm obviously not the only one that thinks this is an issue.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Good; so change it to something about her dress and her looks if your concern is merely with the word "buttocks". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, so I took out "buttocks." Will re-arrange the refs accordingly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I was changing it myself, but unfortunately I edit so slowly that there always ends up being a conflicting edit.  Mbinebri  talk ← 03:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The page is so lively that it seems to have taken on a life of its own. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it about trivia, how is shooting an X number of gamebirds in one day and carrying haggis into a pub important? And how is it part of a "career"? Just wondering... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Those sentences are about lifestyle and not about career. The new "career" header looks to me like the problem. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Better, but I still don't see how... — y'know, I've carried haggis into a pub once (in Scotland, damnit!), like, maybe 20 years ago. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
acxtually not her buttocks, her hips (see hip to waist ratio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.190.133 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this lecherous nonsense from the article. We are a serious encyclopedia writing a balanced biography of a living person. We are not a tabloid newspaper recording this week's celebrity tittle-tattle, much less an aggregate of what teenage boys are masturbating on this internet this week. Try writing for www.chickipedia.com if you want to cover buttocks and hotness.--Scott Mac 18:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How is it lecherous of it's true? If you Google her, pretty much what you get is... her buttocksor her dress. That's the only thing she's notable for. If you don't believe that's appropriate to discuss, then you've basically ruled out the only thing she's notable for.69.96.227.242 (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Greenhplover (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Not "lecherous". Major part of the media-coverage about her. WP:NOTCENSORED Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
It is nothing to do with censorship. It is simply not an important facet of this subject's life that a bunck of folk created a leering facebook page last week. We're an encyclopedia not a reportage of Internet obsessions with women's booty.--Scott Mac 23:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Atleast they're not making her the butt of any jokes. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
No its wikipedia that is the butt of jokes due to addition of such low quality facebook crap asserted as a fantastic uncensored notable encyclopedic addition. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Scott MacDonald and Off2riorob. Commenting on Pippa Middleton's anatomy is sexist, immature, tacky, and what's more unencyclopedic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Scotty Mac but LOL @ " We are a serious encyclopedia writing a balanced biography of a living person." That's the only joke I see here! Ideally people like myself and Scotty Mac would like wikipedia to be a serious encyclopedia sticking only to solid encyclopedic topics but the sad fact is that it is not a serious encyclopedia, why else do we have List of Power Rangers episodes, Pancakes!, Ivy Bean etc which I tried to get deleted, but with no avail.. We should be a serious encyclopedia and remove all of the obvious crap that exists but people like their cruft which makes it impossible to do so. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 $5M offer to appear in an adult film

When a person is offered more money than most families make in their lifetimes for one scene in an adult film because of an appearance in a notable event, that is a notable fact. The fact itself is reliably sourced, and it was included as a two sentance addition to a section in the body of the article. It appears that the fact is notable, that it was reliably sourced, and that it was not given undue weight in the article. The only reason I see it was deleted was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I will not add it again without discussion here, but please gove your reasoning (as per Wikipedia policy) why it does not belong. Thanks! SeanNovack (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it has nothing to do with Pippa Middleton and everything to do with a publicity stunt by some adult film makers. This type of thing happens periodically, celebrities are made these offers (always publicly - with a press release) and there's no reason to believe they are realisticly expected to accept them. If there's a public reponse from Middleton, then you can probably include that. Until then, put it in the article on the film-maker under "publicity stunts".--Scott Mac 12:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
And they have chosen their timing well. The way the tabloid press works, they first write someone up until nobody wants to read about them any more, and then they write them down again. Apparently that phase has already started with the improperly published party pictures. All of this has rarely if ever any connection to the person themselves, although some of the subjects have an interest in being in the media. (This one probably not so much, as her relatives may not be amused.) Hans Adler 12:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
This content is self promotional soapboxing and coat-racking onto a living person that is far away for anything to do with this offer - add it to the Vivid article as it is about them not this subject. Its a disgusting suggestion for an addition to this WP:BLP. - and from someone who has reviewer status.Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not hell-bent in getting this included and would be fine if it were not. I was asking a legitimate question about Wikipedia policy from an established editor and administrator about something that appears at first blush to be completely legitimate (leaving aside the subject matter and just going by policy). I've already stated that I wouldn't re-add it and that I was looking for the reasoning why it was being removed. From the bitey tone of some of the responses and summaries I'm reading though, I strongly suggest people take a very deep breath and assume good faith, especially with established editors that are not frequent contributors to the article. SeanNovack (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
You are far from the first editor adding tabloid rubbish to this article, and some of it is actually still in the article. So patience is wearing a bit thin. Not your fault, of course, but it explains what happened. Hans Adler 13:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It isn't about good faith, it is about poor judgement. We are handling BLPs, and we need seasoned editors, admins and reviewers to have care and good judgement about what goes in - otherwise we smear living people with gossip and salacious trivia. I think we are just all a bit taken aback that someone with reviewer rights thought for a moment that this was suitable material.--Scott Mac 13:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Be aware that this is being reported in very reliable sources on this side of the pond, the Chicago Sun-Times [1], Minneapolis StarTribune[2], New York Daily News [3] and many others. This may well be "tabloid rubbish", and "self-promotional soapboxing", but it is getting a lot of ink in reliable sources over here. I've already had comments on my talk page about this and now my reviewer's status is suspect because of a reasoned question? I asked for specific Wikipedia policies and still haven't received an answer. WP:BLP has strict rules, yes, but when that many reliable sources report an event I feel the response I've received is a serious overreaction. My addition was factual and completely NPOV, and yet somehow it is judged as "disgusting" and dismissed as "poor judgement". Like I said, I could care less if it is there or not, but people really need to tone it down. Quote specific policy, not opinion. SeanNovack (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
This isn't about a reasoned question, if you had asked here first that would have been preferable indeed. - You added it to a BLP and published it via Wikipedia to the WWW - you though it was a correct thing to add to a BLP - it clearly wasn't and it had to be removed....nuff said. Sadly your comments are a reflection of one of the current mistakes users have the idea about wikipedia that they can add anything they find that has a citation. All leading to the reasoned thought that if you would add this yourself you would also accept such additions from unconfirmed accounts to other articles about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
What belongs in an article is not determined solely by policies, but by good judgement. It isn't a case of "everything verifiable goes in unless someone can show me a rule against it". The demand for a rule here simply demonstrates your inability to make good calls. But if you want a policy, see WP:NOTNEWS. Just because something is reported in a newspaper doesn't make it encyclopedic. And the fact that 50 other newspapers pick it up doesn't change that. See WP:OTTO. Newspapers regurgitate stories that sell - and seven days later everyone forgets them. Now, if Pippa responds to the offer, then the story might have legs. But that's highly unlikely. for now, this is a story about publicity seeking and opportunism by the film company, the identity of the celebrity used is incidental, and will change next month. --Scott Mac 14:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
First off, thank you for that policy quote. Simply including that policy in your original reversion edit summary would have saved a lot of questions. Second, and with all due respect, what belongs in an article is based on consensus and policy. I believe I asked politely for a policy, as opposed to making a demand. I'm trying to stay polite, but I'm brushing up against a lot of very hot tempers and again I urge everyone to tone it down. Scott, your continued personal attack on my "poor judgement" and my "inablilty to make good calls" is not appreciated. If I made a mistake, then by all means I'm happy to admit that and move forward. I did not edit war, I asked for comment. I did not insult, I urged restraint. I can certainly accept, given the policy that you cite, that there is a valid reason for not including this fact and to be frank I don't care enough to argue it. Thank you for that. However, the way in which you handled this situation was ham-handed at best, and I would expect an administrator to know better. Calm down. SeanNovack (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone with reviewer rights should not have to be asking such questions with regard to BLP. I am calm, but I'm seriously considering whether you should have those rights.--Scott Mac 15:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll just add my voice to those here saying that this content should definitely not be included. As Scott MacDonald says above, it's nothing to do with Pippa Middleton; it belongs in the Vivid Entertainment article if anywhere, not here. Now, if she were to actually accept the offer, that would be notable and worth mentioning; but I think it's safe to say that's not even remotely likely to happen. Robofish (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Scott Mac on this matter, but I agree with him more than Off2riorob and Robofish do. As Scott Mac says, "otherwise we smear living people with gossip and salacious trivia". If Robofish were right and this material "belongs in the Vivid Entertainment article", it would still be gossip and salacious trivia and PM would still be smeared. If SeanNovack did make a mistake, it seems clear it was made in good faith, but given the suggestion by two other editors that the material can be included elsewhere in Wikipedia I am surprised by the focus and depth of criticism aimed at SeanNovack. To say "Someone with reviewer rights should not have to be asking such questions... I'm seriously considering whether you should have those rights" is surely to threaten the loss of reviewer status. Aimed at someone who has done his best to discuss the question and to listen to others, this strikes me as pretty aggressive. For the avoidance of doubt, my own view is that this affair is no more than a stunt and is best not included anywhere. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't a threat. His reviewer right has since been revoked.--Scott Mac 00:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I find that very harsh treatment. It still seems to me to have been a threat, except that it was one which was carried out. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Moonraker. I appreciate the sentiment. It was a good-faith edit and I was shocked at the animus it produced to the point that I made an AN/I report on it [4]. I volunteered to surrender my reviewer rights if the community judged me in the wrong. My report boomeranged and so those rights were revoked. SeanNovack (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Sean, and I withdraw the criticism of Scott Mac in my last post. Still, the whole thing is unhappy. There is a humourless intensity here which in my view does far more harm than good. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. It was that exact sentiment that I was hoping to address in the AN/I. Put simply: I was asking for reasoning/clarification on why my edit was deleted, others here thought it was self-evident and that I was in the wrong for asking. The situation obviously blew up quickly, and after the AN/I rather than continue to try to beat a dead horse I thought it better to simply drop it. Losing reviewer status isn't going to cause me to slit my wrists, and I don't live and die by what is on Wikipedia.
I felt the fact was notable. If you read my exact edit [5] it fit into the section nicely, given the fact that the sentence before addresses job offers she would be "getting hurled at her" because of her appearance in the wedding, and this offer was made for that stated reason. Having seen the fact reported in several reliable sources I decided to add it in, but I was very sloppy in my sourcing and didn't pay attention to the fact that I was putting in a redirect from the CNN site that went to some gossip site (I also saw it in my daily perusal of the Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis StarTribune, FOX News, New York Daily News, Kansas City Star, as well as the aforementioned CNN).
I made a mistake, and it can be argued (though I disagree) that it was in adding the fact in the first place. Usually there is a policy of editing boldly (as I said: the fact that it is "being reported" is verifiable in multiple reliable sources and the language was written in an NPOV way that fit the section around it, thus satisfying WP:BLP) and if there is an issue discuss it - which I was happy to do rather than edit war. I will accept the fact that on an article that has had significant vandalism it would be more prudent to ask on talk before making an edit, but I feel there was a serious overreaction here.
I'll pay better attention to my sourcing in the future, and when working on BLP's I'll be sure to address potential edits on the talk page before adding them. That's my take-away. My hope is that the people who edit here regularly will in the future be more likely to engage and explain (Which is how this thread did in fact start, but quickly degenerated. I'd have appreciated a simple "you may want to check that source". It was my mistake and my responsibility, but when a person has their fly open it's polite to mention it to them) rather than make pronouncements about an editor's judgement. I can't do anything more about that, but at least I know which editors to avoid in the future. SeanNovack (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
When someone quotes the WP:NOTNEWS policy, they are always wrong. They are always misapplying it. The Sun-Times article cited is a reliable source, giving biographical information:
While a friend of Pippa’s says she was understandably “freaked out” by the alleged pitch for her to pose nude, she is also likely to decline any and all commercial offers — strongly influenced by advice from Buckingham Palace.
“She will never knowingly do anything to embarrass her sister or Prince William,” said someone-in-the-know.
That's not a statement about an adult porn producer, that's genuine biographical information about the subject of the article. And it invites more penetrating questions, such as how does Buckingham Palace discourage her from commercial involvement?
I say SeanNovack was right to include this reference. And I say that in what I've followed of the Great Pending Changes Debacle, I have never seen any statement before this that reviewers are required to throw out perfectly good Sun-Times articles because they sound unflattering. I've seen statements in that discussion ranging from "PC is a quick check for vandalism" to "do what you can to keep out libel". Due in part to the failure to establish exactly what PC is for, it has since been inactivated per an RfC, and so I don't see what it had to do with this discussion.
I would further say that Wikipedia should continue to include all reliably sourced information, including Fair Use reproduction of the topless photos discussed in a recent AP wire.[6] We are academic researchers looking to set down the available facts about every topic, and we should cover the facts as diligently about those associated with British royalty as we would about those associated with Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. We are not sycophants looking for favor from wealthy Western elites. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The idea that we publish topless paparazzi photos under the fair use clause is so far outside the acceptable range (even ignoring the obvious fact that they are extremely unlikely to fall under fair use in the first place) that I can only interpret this comment as asking for your reviewer status to be revoked because you hope to turn this into momentum against pending changes. As I am not an admin I can't help you with that myself. Why don't you ask Jimbo? I think he will be very happy to oblige you. Who knows? With some luck you might even be indeffed as an obvious BLP time bomb. Hans Adler 20:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll leave the indeffing to Jimbo, but the above post is either a troll, or an amazing sign of cluelessness. Reviewer rights removed.--Scott Mac 21:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Let's be clear - you have crossed the Rubicon here. Without any policy in place about what reviewing is supposed to be, you claim unilateral authority to decide who has these rights based on what they believe policy should be. You have taken a free encyclopedia that was supposed to work without censorship and without bureaucracy, and you're trying to turn it into someone's public relations agency.
Just for mathematical completeness, is there someplace where someone can contest the removal of reviewer rights? Wnt (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
As noted above, Wnt, I agree with Scott Mac about this issue, but it seems to me your main "offence" was to make a reasoned argument for a different interpretation of policy. The removal of reviewer rights looks like a punishment for holding a point of view which is open to discussion, and not for an action in mainspace. I see no reason why you can't complain at ANI, but per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party I suggest the first thing is to open a conversation with Scott Mac on his talk page to establish what has happened and why and to ask him to reconsider. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pippapedia

There was a large double-page spread about our subject in the Evening Standard today in which they compiled lots of facts in what they called their Pippapedia. There's lots there including some nicknames like Panface and P-Middy. I like the cheese on toast bit myself. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Good god. It's like parody of a Wikipedia biography. Fences&Windows 23:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

removable

I still don't understand why some of this stuff is in here. I'm guessing it's considered "harmless" as it doesn't mention buttocks or porn... so I list it

  • A skier, in March 2008 she joined her sister Kate and Prince William for a skiing holiday in Switzerland.
She went on vacation!!! Really?
Source: look.co.uk
  • She has also tobogganed down the 1,212-metre (3,976 ft) Cresta Run ice skeleton racing track at St Moritz
Source: FHM (wtf?)

What makes look.co.uk and FHM good sources for this BLP? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup, these should go. They are not reliable sources.--Scott Mac 08:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Question how is FHM not considered a reliable source? I'm not saying I'm a subscriber or a fan...--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture Scandal

I see no reason why my two sentences about her picture scandal need to be removed, especially since they are well sourced from The Telegraph, Fox News, and CNN and contribute to the article maintaining a neutral point of view in that it doesn't only portray Pippa in a positive light. Per Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm#Neutral_point_of_view "The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources)." The information I presented in my edit seen here was well sourced and fairly represents (without bias) significant information that has been widely covered by reliable sources, and thus should be included on the page. --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep it out. We're not a gossip rag. It isn't encyclopedic...it is just gratuitous sensationalism. It is an insignificant view so that the jackals you named can sell copy....they make money from it which is why they are carrying it. We are not the news. This wouldn't be in a respectable encyclopedia which is what we strive to be.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
What does WP:NOTNEWS have to do with this? I am not asking for an entire article devoted to the scandal - just a few well-sourced sentences about the scandal. If major news sources such as The Telegraph and CNN are covering it, it is obviously more than just "gratuitous sensationalism" - you could argue that about any negative thing said about a person in any news source. However, the info is well-sourced and highly covered and in the interest of maintaining a neutral POV on this article, I see no reason why such information should be discluded simply because some people don't like it. (Please note: In the interest of WP:AGF I want to clarify that I am not saying that you specifically just don't like it, but that seems to be the basis of arguments against this information's inclusion - that people don't like the information so they don't think it should be included, regardless of the quality of sources or the maintenance of neutrality on the articles). --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep it out. It is trivial, tasteless and detracts from the article as if there is some sort of scandal. Nasnema  Chat  06:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep it out. Not encyclopedic, not least because it's a natural consequence of the situation. Of course the "prince marries commoner" story is followed by paparazzi photo stories about the commoner's family. Some related reading: Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, for its interpretation in this context, von Hannover v Germany. These pseudo-newspapers are breaking the law because it pays. But as they are routinely doing so it's not even worth noting except perhaps as an example in an article that discusses the problem. No particular relevance to the subject. Hans Adler 09:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact the photos were published may have no particular relevance to the subject but a widely reported official complaint to the Press Complaints Commission ([7], [8]) by the Middleton family and any judgement (and potentially law suit) that follows (and is reported in reliable sources) could be considered noteworthy and relevant - Basement12 (T.C) 11:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No. That's no more relevant than getting a parked car destroyed by a drunk driver or anything similar, i.e. not encyclopedic at all. Once they get to the last instance or something it might be worth mentioning, but not now. Hans Adler 14:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that greatly depends on whether the drunk driver is four national newspapers read by millions. But I do agree (and was trying to make the point before) that inclusion or not depends on the outcome of/fallout from the complaint - Basement12 (T.C) 14:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Charter '08 was illegal, but we still cover it. Wnt (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Bad example- Charter '08 could be considered as an historically significant move against a repressive regime (I emphasise the word could) which brought reaction from a number of governments across the world. If Barack and Angela start commenting on photos of a scantily clad Pippa Middleton then we may as well give up on writing an article on her as the world is almost certainly doomed - Basement12 (T.C) 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Include, but rework. The edit includes sources that say some interesting and biographical things, such as that MI5 may already be involved, and that the purple party bra picture might have been worth $10 - $50K. There can be no doubt that these pictures are relevant to Pippa Middleton, how she is perceived in society, and above all... how she regards her 'friends' in the future. Unfortunately, a lot of things are said as rumor and speculation - we want to restrict what we say to those things which are presented as true by a reliable source. And it is necessary to avoid ambiguity, such as the term "topless photo" where what is meant is a picture in a bra or bikini. There is a real topless photo going around, which looks like it's by someone with a really long lens who caught her changing on a yacht, but it's important to make that as clear as can be accomplished using reliable sources without WP:OR. We don't want something that gives the impression she got drunk and showed off her lovely figure at a party. Wnt (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the guideline for biographies of living people says that they should be written conservatively and an important principle is do no harm. So somebody might have a long-distance shot of her topless. Big deal! PatGallacher (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about a long-distance shot of her topless. This is about photographs of her in a bra leaked to the press by friends, which the Middleton family responded to by taking legal action, resulting in the removal of the images from circulation. The do no harm principle states "The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources)." [emphasis added] This information is reliably sourced by The Telegraph, BBC, CNN, and Fox News. I see no policy-based reason to keep it out. It doesn't matter if it reflects negatively on Pippa or anyone else; the fact is it's a big deal because the Middleton family responded, legal action was taken and the pictures removed. Multiple reliable sources confirm this. Where is the policy-based reason for keeping it out? Because even the page about avoiding harm backs up my position here. --Zoeydahling (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Zoeydahling, you say "It doesn't matter if it reflects negatively on Pippa or anyone else", but it does matter. If something "reflects negatively" on someone, then it damages his or her reputation, and if it does that while they are alive it is defamation. (That's one reason why the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy refers to "living persons": the dead are not protected by the law.) As the policy says, "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." That policy does not exclude true and accurate reporting of a subject's own negative actions, but the information we are talking about here seems to fit fairly neatly into what the policy says. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not necessarily defamation just because it reflects negatively on someone. The problem is that here obsessive monitoring of a person turns totally innocuous things into something that is presented as a scandal by certain popular media, even though very obviously it is no such thing. There is nothing wrong with saying that George W. Bush was responsible for torture and for wars that were unrelated to their official stated purposes. Although slightly more personal and not directly related to politics in the strictest sense, it's also very much OK to say that the doctoral thesis of Germany's previous defence minister was shamelessly plagiarised. But it's very wrong to invade someone's privacy for no good reason at all, and there is absolutely no excuse for an encyclopedia to follow the unconscionable mass media that are doing so. Hans Adler 09:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your later comments, Hans Adler, although in this discussion I think it's more a question of interpreting policy than of moral correctness. Your "not necessarily defamation just because it reflects negatively on someone" is wrong in the UK context, although it would be correct under other legal systems. The lead of the English Wikipedia article on defamation says today "the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image." I find that muddled, but "a statement... that may give an individual... a negative image" is broadly correct in English law. The essence is "damage to reputation", and in England that can be caused by as little as a gesture. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Reading a bit further in the article, the UK has actually the normal restrictions in place: "Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). [...] A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth." The lead of that article also says: "Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person." That's precisely what paparazzi and the media are doing here. And while they are making money with it, we are not and have no justification to risk proceedings against the WMF for publishing unencyclopedic stuff. Hans Adler 00:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia would have no chance of claiming any privilege. In practice, if you are sued for defaming someone in England, claiming justification of any kind carries a high risk. You need to satisfy the jury that the person who claims to have been damaged is in some way at fault. If you can't do that, you end up paying two lots of costs, as well as damages, of course, which are driven up by the adverse publicity of the failed justification. Curious that the defamation article deals with "public disclosure of private facts", which is really another subject, but we broadly agree here. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I never said that Wikipedia was immune to censorship by various means (though the U.S. is waking up to the abuses of international libel lawsuits from Britain, and taking actions to exclude them). The issue is, if there's some valid belief that the article must be censored, then it should at least be done so openly, not misrepresented as some natural consequence of Wikipedia policy or journalistic ethics. The regime may want a "spontaneous demonstration of support"; I want the international observers to see the machine guns at our backs. But before we conclude that things have gone that far, I think we should ask why it is that the American media - even the British media - seem willing to report on these things, if they are supposed to be "libel"? Wnt (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep it out. It is neither scandalous nor encyclopedic. It does not reflect poorly on her (perhaps a reason to include it) but on wikipedia. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it does not reflect poorly on her, but it does reflect what life is like for someone in this situation. Isn't that the whole purpose of biography, to let people know how it is to be there? Wnt (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Not for living people, and certainly not for barely notable living people. From the lead of WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: [...]." Regard for the subject's privacy doesn't just mean that we don't install a webcam in her bathroom. It would be pointless to regulate that in the policy as it's criminal anyway. Hans Adler 20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Hans Adler that we need to apply the BLP policy so that we do not treat living subjects as the tabloids do. Perhaps the key words are "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". As ever, I part company with him on "barely notable". We do not measure notability in degrees, notable is notable. In any event, the BLP policy must surely apply to the treatment of all living people, whether they are notable or not. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The main point I wanted to make with "barely notable", and which I didn't make well, is that while many politicians and pop stars have a symbiosis with the tabloid press and feed it information just to be mentioned more often (even if it's sometimes negatively), we have no reason to believe this is the case here. The subject's privacy is being invaded by the press just because she is reasonably attractive and her sister married someone important. Hans Adler 21:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep it out of little significance and in violation of WP:BLP. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It may be helpful to international contributors to address this not in terms of the law of libel but the legal protection of personal rights. In the US such thinking is necessarily framed by the US Constitution, and the 1st amendment right to freedom of speech (borrowed of course from the English 1698 Rights Act). In Europe the balance of judicial interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights has tended to place higher importance in this context on the article 8 right to privacy and family life. To get right away from Pippa Middleton, take the hypothetical case of a film star whose (ex) sexual partner seeks to sell a story (with recordings to verify it) about her sexual preferences. The attitude in the US is that freedom of speech is paramount, and that it is up to her to buy him off. In Europe priority tends to privacy; though countries vary the French courts would not permit it and that is the current approach in the British courts. No matter how boring, inadequate, and unsatisfactory our activities in the bedroom the courts say that is between us and our partner. And if a woman chooses to sunbathe topless, if she has a reasonable expectation of being hidden from public gaze photographs ought not be published. It's no good talking about rights as an absolute concept here. Wikipedia needs to be sensitive to the conflicts (and the temptation to say the servers are in the US so US law rules will not do in an encyclopedia that is and aspires to be international). It isn't enough to say that Wikipedia is only covering the controversy if in doing so it is necessary to explain what the story is about. The BLP principles of proportionality and balance are needed, and the question of whether it really belongs in an encyclopedic biography of the person. AJHingston (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's the part I'm having a problem with. It seems that everyone is responding to the idea that we include that pictures of Pippa were released in the press, with no acknowledgement that this is not a matter of talking about the pictures; it is a matter of talking about that the pictures were released and her response to it.

Look at Kate's article: "Catherine's status as the undeclared girlfriend of William brought her widespread media coverage in Britain and abroad and she was often photographed on her daily outings. On 17 October 2005, she complained through her lawyer about harassment from the media, stating that she had done nothing significant to warrant such publicity.[37]" This sentence has remained in Catherine's article and is from 2005, before she and William were even engaged, so it's hard to claim that she was any more of a private figure than Pippa, who has appeared in one of the most watched weddings in the world. Either way though, the article includes that inappropriate pictures were taken of her, the Middleton family took action, and the picture-taking was reduced. How is this any different from posting in Pippa's articles based on a number of reliable sources that inappropriate pictures of Pippa were released, the Middleton family responded with legal action, and the pictures were removed from circulation? Once legal action was taken I believe that we are well-justified in mentioning it in her bio.

Other examples of even more extreme cases might be seen in Tiger Woods, where allegations of infidelity are posted based on claims in the National Enquirer. It was later backed up by reliable sources and Tiger responded, thus making it worthy of an entire section of his article. You might also look at Rob Lowe's article, which talks about his sex tape scandal. Now it may have just been gossip had it been reported in tabloids, but it was widely reported in reliable sources, and then Rob made a statement about it. Once a person makes a statement or takes legal action of some sort in response to a controversy, it is no longer a matter of the press invading their privacy. It becomes a matter of verified public interest and something that in the interest of WP:NPOV should be covered, since we are not here simply to portray Pippa, or anyone else in a simply positive and/or negative light. We are an encyclopedia, and should cover all facets of the subjects of our articles.

And based on the examples I provided, I am having a hard time with the argument that it's just press invasion of her privacy and shouldn't be included in her article. It is past that stage. The Middleton family has taken legal action. Precedent for this type of inclusion has been shown above. It seems like no one here is responding to the entire issue at hand; just that they don't like that pictures of Middleton were released, and in spite of the repercussions, they believe that it does not deserve mentioning on this page. That just reeks of bias to me and I would appreciate if the people who believe that this story does not deserve inclusion would address the legal repercussions resulting from the pictures, not just the pictures themselves. Because as I read through the comments, the rationale for removing the sentences about the pictures seem to stem only from people’s personal views about the pictures. Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's trivia, so it would at most be suffered in a biography, but never required. In BLP articles such trivia should not be suffered at all, per WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." The point where we start to mention such trivia is where they actually affect the subject's life. In this case the sources would support saying that there is currently a media circus about her that invades her privacy, and I guess the article should say that. But the details of this media circus are entirely unsurprising and have no place in a conservatively written biography. Hans Adler 03:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
And how do you determine what trivia is/is not? Once something becomes widely covered by a variety of reliable sources, doesn't that take it away from the realm of trivia? And once something so drastically infringes on someone's rights that they take legal action, that results in information (in this case the pictures) being taken out of circulation, doesn't that take it out of the realm of trivia? Who gets to decide what is trivia here? With a number of sources covering the scandal and the subsequent legal action, coupled with the precedent set in numerous articles, including that of her sister's, how is this a case of non-notable trivia? BLPs should be written conservatively, but they should also offer an unbiased, neutral view (per WP:NPOV) of the major points of the subject's life, and with the information I have provided above, I hardly see how this could be anything but relevant and worthy of inclusion. --Zoeydahling (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Excessive details about the personal lives of subjects who don't go out of their way to make these details public, and which stand in no reasonable relation to the subjects' importance, are always trivia. WP:BLP is very clear that we don't victimise victims further. We don't routinely exacerbate privacy violations by reporting about them. For that they need to reach an encyclopedic dimension. The general problem with the Middleton articles is that somehow every scrap of information looks noteworthy because compare to everything else it isn't really worse. That's because the Middleton's aren't actually notable and the articles are policy violations. It's not an excuse to fill them with privacy-invading trivia. Hans Adler 03:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
We are not talking about "victimis[ing a] victim" here. We are talking about reporting on a scandal that Pippa was involved in and required legal action. This information would be included in any article that you "deemed" notable. So is the issue here that you don't deem this article notable and therefore don't think editors should be making relevant edits to improve it? Because that seems to go against the entire spirit of this encyclopedia. Pippa has survived two AfD noms and a merge nom. Obviously the consensus is that she is notable. I see no reason why we should treat her article and any scandals about her that warrant legal action any differently from any other person who is deemed notable enough to have an encyclopedic entry here. I am still waiting for a non-WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument in favor of one that addresses why this is inappropriate in response to my documentation of reliable sources and precedent across the wiki that says it is in fact appropriate. --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
To the very limited extent that this is a 'scandal', the subject of the article has nothing to do with it. By making a privacy violation more public and eternalising it, we are victimising a victim. We are making it easier for journalists to blackmail subjects and pressure them into giving exclusive interviews. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to support an unethical and borderline illegal industry in this way. Hans Adler 10:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
If it has nothing to do with her, why did she respond with legal action? And why is it okay to include a similar statement in Catherine's article but not this one? Catherine was a private citizen when the incident mentioned in her article occurred. Per WP:DONOHARM: "The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources)." You are arguing that we leave out a significant view that required legal action based on your own personal bias, as shown above, that you do not believe that Pippa deserves an article. But the consensus here was that she does deserve an article, is a public figure, and thus we must represent any relevant information about her without bias. The fact that her family took legal action in response to this scandal and that we report on said legal action is not victimizing a victim, but working toward an unbiased encyclopedia that fairly represents the information available about the subjects. Tl;dr: WP:BLP does not trump WP:NPOV when the info is relevant and well-sourced, as it is here. --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep it out. It is neither scandalous nor encyclopedic - Its nothing to do with this person - it not important in the life of a notable person who has released scantily clad pictures of them - add it to Zuma Press - Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
In what way does this have nothing to do with Pippa? The pictures were of her and her family took legal action to have them removed. Which part of that equation does not involve Pippa? And again I ask, how is this any different than the similar sentiment that has long existed in Kate's article about invasive photos taken of her when she was a commoner and the resulting legal action. Is it your claim that that is not relevant to Kate? Or that any lawsuits involving photos of any subject have nothing to do with the subject and therefore should be removed? Because I see no policy support for that claim. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction? --Zoeydahling (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
people are losing sight of a core principle of wiki, in that it should be encylopedic. Would you see that kind of info in Britannica? Nasnema  Chat  00:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
You are looking all around for policy but we are also requested to use experianced editorial control. Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Would you see articles on Pokemon characters in Britannica? That boat has sailed, long ago. I mean come on, we have how many hundreds of thousands of people making how many thousands of edits --- if all we came up was a few thin little volumes of things that seem "dignified enough for a snooty British encyclopedia", then it would be one of the most inefficient wastes of human time ever perpetuated. And of course, there are some who want to see just that happen. I prefer the "sum of all human knowledge" standard. Wnt (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That would also include your own genitals. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Our article on the human penis is prominently illustrated by a derivative of an image by someone who uploaded his "own work". So yes, that would also include "your own genitals". Wnt (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to say keep it out. This is a less clear-cut case than the ridiculous 'porn story' above, as the Middleton family have actually responded to it by taking legal action; but I still think it's pretty trivial and of likely of no long-term significance to Pippa Middleton. Wikipedia biographies are, in theory, for life, not just for the time being; as such, we have to consider 'does this content really belong in an encyclopaedic biography?'. In this case, I say no. Lots of celebrities have had pictures taken of them in states of undress (heck, we have a whole stupid article on Nude celebrities on the Internet); there's nothing particularly special about that, and unless there are some further consequences (like a major court case), I don't think it belongs here. Robofish (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The BBC is now covering a similar story about a complaint made by the Middleton family about bikini pictures taken of Pippa that resulted in a legal complaint [9]. This is clearly past the point of trivia or "protecting an innocent" as WP:NPOV and WP:BLP both state that information that is reliable and well sourced should be included, even if it reflects poorly on the subject (as one might argue that "scandalous" pictures would). Furthermore, the EXACT SAME type of information is included on Catherine's page here long before she was even engaged to William, so one could easily argue that her notability at the time was equal to or less than Pippa's notability now, yet the information was included. We really ought to be consistent, and either include it here, or remove it from there.

Per WP:BLP "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."; Per WP:NPOV "This page in a nutshell: Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." It seems clear that failing to include information that is well-covered in various reliable sources and discusses an important aspect of Pippa's public image ought to be included. In fact, I am thinking as more information comes out, that perhaps we should have some sort of "In the media" or something similar section that can cover these scandals (or perhaps a better way to disseminate the info throughout the article? I'm open to suggestions), as well as the information that she's become the most talked about Middleton family member post-wedding [10][11][12], and her status as a fashion icon [13], and maybe even all the commentary about her butt (which I don't necessarily think that it should or should not be included, that's up for debate, but is just a thought if we are starting such a section since it is clearly covered in a number of reliable sources, with commentary on her figure and how she keeps in such great shape, etc) [14][15]. Overall, I think we need to address these issues since (as per my links above) Pippa is clearly a well known person, surpassing her sister in media coverage, and no longer constitutes a "private figure." As such, we must abide by the clearly stated policies in WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and represent her in a way that is unbiased and accurately reflects the viewpoints of the reliable media sources that cover her. --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm obviously missing something, but everyone seems to be discussing the (frankly innocent) old pictures of Pippa behaving as a perfectly normal (at least by British standards) young woman. What *I* think is more mentionable are her family's complaints of the paparazzi stalking her everywhere she goes, poking cameras in her face. I suspect this is a much bigger issue, frankly than some harmless old dredged up photos (albeit one commonly faced by celebrities). Does it deserve a mention in the article? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.165.114.250, 21 May 2011

I feel it is offensive to the Duchess of Cambridge and Prince William (and completely inaccurate) to suggest, as this article does, that Pippa upstaged Catherine on her wedding day. That is quite absurd and probably just the ramblings of some randy male reporter. I therefore ask that you quickly remove that sentence. 86.165.114.250 (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Which sentence? I can't see that the article says - or even implies - that she upstaged her sister anywhere. RichardOSmith (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe they are talking about the last sentence in the first paragraph about the Royal Wedding on the page: Some reports of the wedding suggested that Pippa Middleton had "stolen the show". --Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and that's pretty well cited, I don't see a problem. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. That sentence merely notes that some press reports made that claim - which they did. I see no indication that the article itself takes any such view, as the reporting IP claims. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the edit requester - its just a trivial press comment - "stole the day", its just a celeb style trivial nonsense. So far away from being notable encyclopedic biographical detail as to be laughable. Off2riorob (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Removed - a couple of columnists, each a continent away, trying to "sex up" their stories on Pippa made the remark. So what? Further, they didn't even say what we are saying they said. The Australian one opines she came "came dangerously close" to upstaging the bride. The NY one used twitter sources and also reports ""Anyone who doesn't have the hots for Pippa Middleton is insane..she is #fine," - I mean really? This is BLP material for an encyclopedia NOT.--Scott Mac 10:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Notable?

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

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

Her age

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

Whereas

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

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

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

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

Gungate

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

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

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

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

Sources

This article cited thepeerage.com and wargs as sources several times. These are self-published sources WP:SPS that have been specifically discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSN here [17][18][19] and determined not to be reliable sources. Moreover, Self-published sources cannot be used in a WP:BLP per WP:BLPSPS. The citations have been removed, but not the associated text, and tags added requesting that better sources be found where the improper sources were formerly placed. Information that is not sourced to a Reliable Source may be removed. Fladrif (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Coat of Arms inclusion

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

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

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

Reverted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the???

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

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

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

Engagement rumors

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

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

nickname

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

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

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


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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pippa_Middleton/Archive_2&oldid=1142443897"