Editing through protection, marking his action as "minor" and giving no explanation for his edit in the exit summary, and ignoring the presence of a prior discussion on the matter, he moved Meghan Markle's Wikipedia biography to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. During the wedding.
Showing incredible insensitivity given these times we now live in, he has effectively used his last vestiges of constitutional authority on Wikipedia (as their old, white, male, privelaged, 'King'), to ensure.....11:15, 19 May 2018 Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) deleted redirect Meghan, Duchess of Sussex by overwriting (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
11:15, 19 May 2018 Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) moved protection settings from Meghan Markle to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle moved to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex)
11:15, 19 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . m Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (Jimbo Wales moved page Meghan Markle to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex over redirect)
11:15, 19 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+56) . . N Meghan Markle (Jimbo Wales moved page Meghan Markle to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex over redirect) (Tag: New redirect)
I made the move primarily because I made the similar move of Kate Middleton to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. It was fun to do so, and in similar circumstances in the future, I hope to do it again. If we can't have a bit of fun in Wikipedia without a lot of hand wringing, we're going in the wrong direction. Now, as to some of the particular arguments for moving it back, I will leave that to everyone else but note that there already appears to be strong consensus to oppose moving it back. I think there are good reasons for that consensus, and not very many good reasons to move it back. One thing I would point to is the question "what is the most notable thing about this person?" and look at the Google search and news trends for her: [8]. As compared to today, she was a virtual unknown before she got engaged to Prince Harry. As Keivan.f said up above, this is not really comparable to the case of Grace Kelly, a legendary actress who married into a minor royal family. WP:COMMONNAMEis an important policy, and yet it should not be assumed that we have to wait until the majority of sources shift, and nor do we usually wait for that. And it is not the most important policy in Wikipedia in any case - in general for articles relating to the peerage, we use the formal title even in (most) cases where the peer is more known otherwise. See, for example, List of elected hereditary peers under the House of Lords Act 1999. Indeed, check out most (but not all) life peers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- a black actress who was well known under a professional name, and certainly famous enough to have a Wikipedia biography that could be described as not totally crap, which is a sure sign of at least above average interest from the Wikipediots, is publicly denigrated as a "virtual unknown" in comparison to the glory of becoming the wife of a Prince
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =712854977
- a black actress who was well known under a professional name, is immediately renamed upon marriage to a white privileged male, to her (presumed) married name. No discussion required. It is not even seen as a significant change to Wikipedia content. It was "fun".
-Wikipedia's desire for consistent naming of members of the British aristocracy is given precedence over how reliable sources refer to, or indeed how a black woman with US citizenship chooses to refer to herself, after nominally becoming part of said establishment.
-When deciding what a black female actress is "known as" in 2018, Wikipedia defers to the official website of the British monarchy as the only reliable source....
All the press coverage of what she will be known as, was of course only taking their cue from this statement.On her marriage to The Duke of Sussex, Ms. Meghan Markle will become known as Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.
It is worth noting that no proof has been provided to support the claim she has even legally changed her name yet, and she is understandably reluctant to speak on the record about her preferences, so we can only really surmise that the mere fact that that circular has appeared, signifies she is not totally uncomfortable with being referred to and being known as the Duchess of an ancient Anglo-Saxon Kingdom, from now on, everywhere and anywhere.
It doesn't seem like a reasonable assumption given the history of the institution issuing it, which reliable sources attest values conformity and tradition over an individual's sense of self-worth, never mind their health and well being. And so surely common decency in 2018 dictates the most diplomatic thing to have done would be to at least wait for more evidence that this is indeed her preference, most obviously through being independently verified in reliable sources. Especially given it is not really in doubt that continuing to refer to her by her maiden name is neither going to confuse readers nor offend her.
Unsurprisingly, the Wikipedian's outrage over this incident is really confined to issues of Jimmy's use of power or their internal rules, and not the wider issues of respect for women or the dignity of self. So much for WP:BLP.
Jimmy has yet to find the time in his busy schedule to respond to this comment......
Hilariously, an attempt by Jytdog to have Jimmy banned from making any more page moves, did not fail because the community evidently thinks Jimmy's unilateral power move in this case is likely to be approved after the event, but because his unique constitutional status means he is above being held accountable in that way, whatever people think of it.......I was the admin who move-protected the article a few days ago based on talk page discussion and the feeling if I didn't, the page would get yanked around all over the place. I wasn't around when the page was actually moved but when I saw it pop up on my watchlist under its new name I thought (half-jokingly): "Unilateral page move, editing through admin protection, no explanatory note on my talk page - must be Jimbo!" Sure enough... Yes, the move was out-of-process (there was no hurry) and yes, anyone else would probably get hauled to ANI, but what's done is done. Nothing is going to happen here except for a trouting (already given). But Jimbo, you might want to ponder what this place would be like if admins could ignore restrictions placed by other admins because "it was fun". --NeilN talk to me 21:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
It does make me laugh that on the issue of proper procedure for page moves, how Jimmy perceives Wikipedia should be managed, is apparently still very persuasive to the ordinary Wikipediots, enough to insulate him from blowback, and so effectively he retains his power to do what he wants, when he wants, in the name of principle. And yet when he tells everybody that he thinks WP:CIV is still paramount and people like Bishonen and Eric Corbett are toxic, they act like he's mad, and when he acts on those principles using his Admin powers, which he last dared to do a long time ago now, they fight back, hard.Hatting by Andrevan, a Wikipedia constitutional crisis certainly won't be solved on WP:ANI and this is a noticeboard used for admin issues day-to-day. This ban proposal is disruptive because it is unlikely to obtain consensus, and is unenforceable even if it did, absent some ArbCom ruling to the contrary. The Supreme Court of Wikipedia is the only entity that could feasibly check its benevolent dictator. So don't revert the hat, thanks! Andrevan@ 05:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
What's worse than Wikipedia still having a King who can do want he wants? The fact that Wikipedia still has a King, but he can only do what he wants if it only affects the lives of people outside the Kingdom. People like Meghan. And indeed any women who may not agree with the inherent assumptions this immediate and undiscussed move pose. Although the assumptions to be found in the ensuing, post move discussion, are hardly very enlightened. But the news Wikipedia isn't a very woke, women friendly place, isn't news at all. Partly because, ironically, people like Eric Corbett and Bishonen are still respected to the point of being untouchable.
As a final note, it is worth noting that wannabe Jimbo, Guy Chapman, confidently cleared Jimmy of any wrong doing because....
Much like Jimmy, Guy's evident ability to retain the rights and privileges of rank on Wikipedia, is markedly different to the rest of the hoi poloi, even the other Admins. Notably, Guy also used this 'OMFG it is her official name, screw common usage or personal preference' attitude to force another woman to have a strange and unusual name attached to her Wikipedia biography. Maybe he just gets off on exerting this power over women.As of right now she is, officially and formally, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex
........
Every now and then we have a situation where someone needs to just cut the crap and deliver the correct outcome
........
Jimbo lives in England. So do I. And, crucially, so does the Duchess.
I guess what we're learning here is that Wikpedia isn't a progressive democracy which respects women or minorities at all, it is the last outpost of the Empire, more English in words and deeds than even the English.
If you can't edit Wikipedia with same evident powers and influence Jimmy and Guy have, or Bishonen or Eric Corbett have in very different ways, why on Earth would you do it? It certainly isn't fun. You have to question the sanity, morals and indeed self-respect of people who willingly put themselves in this position, where they are very far down the pecking order of a site which supposedly has no such thing. Which is why I regularly do.
