Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2351a56af7426b9

Jump to content

Talk:Rachel Johnson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 6 years ago by TimMonksfiekd in topic Article about Meghan Markel

File nominated for deletion on commons

[edit]
file=c:File:Rachel-Johnson-01-1.jpg|patten=No permission indicated subpage= 

Message automatically deposited by a robot on 07:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC).  Preceding unsigned comment added by Harideepan (talkcontribs)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Article about Meghan Markel

[edit]

I don’t understand why her article from 2016 is deemed irrelevant by the wikipolice. In it in she suggested Meghan Markle was not the right wife for Prince Harry. In the Mail on Sunday, she wrote that if the couple had children, “the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA”.[1] TimMonksfiekd (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm aware of what it says. That doesn't make this particular article significant. Why do you think this is the example of her style that most warrants inclusion, over quoting any other article she's written? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have no objection to other articles being quoted. But this is an example of her attitude, a can’t give a monkeys about the person I’m talking about as long as I can turn a good line, and patronising superiority. It has also been cited as an example of the media that has led to the Sussexes downsizing their Royal commitments. In all, pretty significant. TimMonksfiekd (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Cited by what source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/09/hes-very-tortured-prince-harrys-growing-anger-at-the-press TimMonksfiekd (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. Johnson, Rachel (2016-11-06). "RACHEL JOHNSON: Sorry Harry, but she has failed my Mum Test". Mail Online. Retrieved 2020-01-10.