Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

A fact from (Almost) Straight Outta Compton appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 April 2021 ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that an article headlined " (Almost) Straight Outta Compton" led to Prince Harry's communications secretary issuing a public statement denouncing "racist" and "sexist" commentary about Meghan, Duchess of Sussex? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/(Almost) Straight Outta Compton.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British Royalty Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. California: Los Angeles / Southern California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance). Media Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

In this article, I started changing "Meghan" to "Markle" per WP:SURNAME. However, now I'm not sure whether we should use "Meghan" or "Markle", and "Harry" or something else. What's the proper guideline, and should the article be internally consistent? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 17:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Great question! It's proper form to use first names only for royals after their first introduction on the article. I've expanded it slightly to clarify her normative developments. No Swan So Fine ( talk) 19:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

User:No Swan So Fine : It is respectfully acknowledged that you created this page a few days ago, but please look at Meghan's main page before changing edits by other Wikipedians ... These editors: @ Bettydaisies: @ Keivan.f: @ Martinevans123: are very familiar with related articles, and may care to kindly assist with expanding (Almost) Straight Outta Compton. Sampajanna ( talk) 00:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

You don't have to write to me so obsequiously! I of course concur with WP:OWN, none of my edits have suggested otherwise. Regards, No Swan So Fine ( talk) 08:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

User:No Swan So Fine : Why use unnecessarily big words when smaller words would work just as well? For example: You don't have to write to me so obsequiously! What exactly are you trying to say? WP:GF is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Also, why include an exclamation (!) mark? Separately, in the (Almost) Straight Outta Compton Revision history, you wrote: (RV most of recent changes, her extended name helps guide the reader through her normative developments in rest of article.* [1] Again, what exactly are you trying to say? Sampajanna ( talk) 13:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

I am proud of my vocabulary, and my ability to write snappy prose. I've written thousands of articles, and contributed more than 100 DYKs, so I feel some justification in my writing ability. I used the exclamation mark to make it clear that I had written it in a light hearted manner, and that I was not chiding you. A full stop could have been interpreted as more aggressive. I considered using a smiley emoticon, but disregarded it, because I was worried you would see it as patronising. In any instance, my reply has led to further conflict on yet another talk page about the Duke and Duchess. If the other editors you pinged wished to edit this article, they would, but at present it is only you. You write to me as if I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia and its community. I used the word 'obsequiously' in a light hearted manner because I felt that your use of 'respectfully acknowledged' and 'Respectful request of article creator' was unnecessary when we assume good faith, as I have always done on Wikipedia. I am physically anxious when I interact with you. I have never sought conflict in my many years on Wikipedia, and am used to writing and editing in a pleasant community of friends. You are one of the most aggressive editors I have ever interacted with. To introduce her as 'Meghan, Duchess of Sussex' then refer to her as (nee Markle) to tell the reader of her former name, then refer to her as 'Markle' when we are discussing her at the time of the article, then 'Meghan' when wee are referring to her at the time of the wedding and interview shows the evolution of her name over the last four years. Best wishes, No Swan So Fine ( talk) 15:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

User:No Swan So Fine wrote : " I used the word 'obsequiously' in a light hearted manner because I felt that your use of 'respectfully acknowledged' and 'Respectful request of article creator' was unnecessary when we assume good faith, as I have always done on Wikipedia." From a quick search that I have just done of the word ' obsequious' online : Obsequious people are usually not being genuine; they resort to flattery and other fawning ways to stay in the good graces of authority figures. An obsequious person can be called a bootlicker, a brownnoser or a toady." User:No Swan So Fine further comments : "You are one of the most aggressive editors I have ever interacted with." Such could be literally taken as a personal attack against me. Wikipedia encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. ^[1] Sampajanna

I have nothing further to say. No Swan So Fine ( talk) 11:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Does it need to be explained in the article that Prince Harry is of the British royal family, especially when his name is linked to his own Wikipedia article? An alternative description, which has been previously submitted and changed, is 'British Prince Harry'. Sampajanna ( talk) 19:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes, because without assinging the precursor 'American' to her initial description it could be read that he married a fellow aristocrat. 'PH of the British royal family' is just straightforward and accurate. He could be a Prince of Denmark for all the reader knows. No Swan So Fine ( talk) 19:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Just to mention that "Prince Harry of the British royal family" is technically an incorrect term, since one cannot be the prince of a family. It's the country's name that should appear in this case, like Prince of Denmark as you said, or Prince of the United Kingdom, etc. The phrase British Prince Harry also works really well. Keivan.f ^Talk 19:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Cool :) No Swan So Fine ( talk) 19:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

User:No Swan So Fine has just very promptly changed the lead to read "towards the Anerican Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (née Markle), prior to marrying the British Prince Harry." I have since changed it to "towards American Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (née Markle), prior to marrying British Prince Harry." Sampajanna ( talk) 20:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes, it just feels far too vernacular to omit 'the' as a prefix No Swan So Fine ( talk)

@ No Swan So Fine: Your opinion is acknowledged. 'Anerican' is a simple typo for anyone to make. Otherwise, her nationality is also included in the first sentence of the body ('Origin' section). Sampajanna ( talk) 20:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Thats alright :) Thanks for all your help so far. No Swan So Fine ( talk) 20:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

User:No Swan So Fine You wrote (above): "Yes, it just feels far too vernacular to omit 'the' as a prefix". 'The' is actually a definite article, not a prefix. Sampajanna ( talk) 20:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

@ No Swan So Fine: Also, I noticed that you have nominated a fact from this page to appear on the main page's "Did you know..." section. What caught my attention was the source saying that the palace issued a statement defending Meghan against sexist and racist claims. Do you think this should be mentioned under Oprah with Meghan and Harry#Veracity and context of claims because I think in her interview she said she didn't receive any protection from the palace against the press and this contradicts that claim. Keivan.f ^Talk 20:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

That's a decision that I'm comfortable for others to make. No Swan So Fine ( talk) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Great, I'll look into the source and see what I can add. Keivan.f ^Talk 20:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Well, looking at the original statement it seems that Harry was behind the statement, in other words palace issued it on behalf of Harry not the whole family. So I guess it's better not to change anything on the interview article at this point. Keivan.f ^Talk 20:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

I apologize if I've already commented here but I would just like to point out that this and some random person's Twitter depiction of Harry and Meghan's child as a monkey are the ONLY potentially racist media items I have seen about them since she was made famous in 2016 after announcing she was dating Harry. I have not seen any other article that even remotely has racial undertones in it (and this is why the 'racist' articles they had to use in the interview were doctored because they didn't actually have any evidence of racist media items). People are literally being called racist for saying anything negative about her. That is not racism, I'm sorry. It's just silly that this page exists when other royals have suffered much more abuse (e.g. Kate, Fergie, Andrew even though he deserves it, DIANA). 173.35.240.92 ( talk) 16:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply

@ 173.35.240.92 : This article was created to coincide with the Oprah with Meghan and Harry interview in March 2021. Read what you like into that. Otherwise, have a look through the various discussions further up this talk page. Sampajanna ( talk) 22:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC) reply

This post comes very close to violating WP:NOTFORUM. This article is about the "Almost Straight Outta Compton" headline and story specifically. It does not matter if you have not seen other examples of racist stories. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 00:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC) reply

I'd also like to add that I've seen interpretations of this article since it keeps being brought up again and again by them as 'evidence of racism' when from everyone I've heard who is actually from the UK and understands the context of UK culture, this article was at worst classist, not racist. 174.115.15.87 ( talk) 22:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC) reply