Talk:Durek Verrett

Conviction

Convicted of what? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

He has said that he, in his late teenage years, organized a party in an abandoned house that was set on fire, and "the whole house caught fire," so it appears to be trespassing and arson. --Sveinkros (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Should be in the article rather than leaving us to speculate. Or the whole item should go. What is sourced? Saying that he has had a conviction, without saying of what reeks of tabloid journalism. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

What I get from the source in German seems like incoherent rambling. It is also his own story, thus far from reliable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Durek or David?

The article lists Verrett's birth name as "Derek" in the lede, while the infobox claims he was born "Durek". According to the info later in the article, "Derek" is the correct birth name. Anyway, it's a small inconsistency that should be easy to fix.KaldeFakta68 (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

First black person to become part of ...?

"Verrett has claimed that he will become the first black person who becomes a part of a European royal family[57] (ignoring Princess Angela of Liechtenstein)." What about Meghan Duchess of Sussex? 84.148.158.210 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

We haven't seen her referred to as a black person, have we? Her father in white. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

BLP, NPOV?

This seems uniformly negative and it may violate BLP & NPOV policies. It has been referred to the BLP noticeboard. Dgndenver (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

We are not obliged to change the reputation of a living person to make it better or worse than what reliable sources enable us to report. A person with a very well-sourced bad reputation is just that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the lead may need some reworking, but the actual article body seems fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I removed some needless info sourced to blogs ("royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com") and other self-published sources per WP:BLPSPS. Please stick to high quality, reliable sources. We don't need life stories of parents and relatives, even if verifiable. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. If you look into earlier edits, there were pointers to live demonstrations and positive movements and activities he'd been a part of.

If you look at the edits, it looks like a blatant smear and tear-down. ElFartillo (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Ridiculously long article

Can't this man be described in short comprehensive paragraphs instead of all the excessive detail? Makes him look much more notable than he actually is. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a blatant tear-down / smear.

Just looking at the history of edits is enough.

Compare the original article with what this mess is and the direction is overt.

"American Conspiracy Theorist" as the title you've bestowed here says it all.

Regardless of how contentious you believe his Shaman titles to be, he has demonstrated ability and gift beyond what the 'CHOPSKY' can explain. This was provide as evidence through linked media that was once posted in this wikipedia article, and clearly taken down to fit an agenda.

Google any of his shows on The Doctors, Netflix specials, or Good Morning in the UK. He demonstrates gifts that show shamanic ability.

There are countless public articles from notable publications of people documenting their experiences with him. And a range too.

This Wikipedia article simply reads as a highlight reel of all the tabloid trash repeated about him. And edits removing anything showing what he does as positive, like The Mandela Mile or the charity work he was undertaking before he became sick again (kidney failure recovery the last two years).

No surprise that a dark-skinned, bi-sexual person would get so much abuse from small-minded keyboard warriors. I wonder how many have Norwegian names, IP addresses or emails?

I recommend this article be deleted.

It seems whomever is behind a blatant smear campaign is going to be relentless in abusing this page and seeks to pour all their energy to spreading this trash.

Can't imagine what it's doing to the mental health of the guy to see all this crap, and the quality of wikipedia as an information resource. ElFartillo (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The television shows you noted are self-promotional entertainment pieces, so those aren't appropriate sources for Wikipedia. The subject of this article has created a public persona for himself, and repeated stories about his life, which key members of his own family including his mother, aunts, and former boyfriends have stated are fake. I would suggest those fake stories are the trash being spread on social media and elsewhere, not the fact-based content with reliable sources found on Wikipedia. JimminyOzland7 (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

They are not self promotional. Self promotion would imply self-authored or approved editorial. These are shows who have him on as a guest. They edit and control the content. He is on their show and subject to scrutiny, even if gentle.

Tabloid garbage / family members who probably want money and hurt lovers are not credible as they have emotional and financial stakes. Come on. Let’s not be naive.

This is a dance we’ve seen a thousand times before where the famous folks are torn down. Brittney Spears’ family and their BS. The British Royals and the insanity around them.

The only credible sources are evidence and track record. There are countless journalistic pieces in numerous well-respected publications - The UK Times, Vanity Fair… - discussing sessions with him and his TV demonstrations are not entertainment by the definition you seem to be positing. If you mean some of the Netflix shows, sure.

He has credible testimonials from a range of people as well. Some on his website, including Dave Asprey of Bulletproof. 2600:1700:A600:FB80:58C9:8E1D:3942:5572 (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Talk shows like "The Doctors," which was a fully-scripted PR vehicle, could never be considered a legitimate source for anything. It was canceled due to garbage content and promoting fake products with no evidence to support their validity.

As for your disregard of statements by the subject's family members -- their statements on the subject's legitimacy and truthfulness are quite relevant since the subject has based his public persona on being a source of authenticity. Further, the family members' statements are supported by verifiable facts, such as comparing the subject's own publications and interviews with US court records, census records, birth / marriage / death records, and so on, all of which also appear as sources in this Wikipedia.

Lastly, just because a "legitimate" publication like Vanity Fair might repeat someone's personal propaganda in an article doesn't mean it's supported by facts. It's understandable that fans of public figures don't like facts sometimes, especially when the facts don't match up with their idol's PR campaigns. But Wikipedia isn't a place for PR and propping up fake personas, it's a place for facts. JimminyOzland7 (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy.

You claim that The Doctors is not a fully scripted PR vehicle which you haven't supported with evidence. I've been on such shows, and typically a show such as The Doctors would be structured and controlled in editorial, with the therapeutic sections like the bits Durek Verret was part of being organic then heavily edited for time and narrative punch. I'd assume the therapeutic sections Durek Verret engaged in were real and edited for time and to some extent, privacy. Regardless, I too am operating without evidence and purely assumption from experience.

Regarding the family members statements; which family members hold more weight? A mother, older sister and disgruntled ex who are claimed to having traded information for money? Or the siblings who refute those claims? Will you only paste information from the ones that propel your desired narrative or will you post from both ends of the argument? Here's a source for you from two of his other siblings; the sister who gave him her kidney, and a brother, along with details on those people who took money for stories:

https://www.vg.no/rampelys/i/2BM2Pa/dureks-soesken-med-klar-boenn-til-se-og-hoer

It's obvious Serge has a bitter axe to grind to anyone who can read and possesses more than two braincells. I hope whatever his personal issues are, he can resolve. Regardless, this entry is a weak editorial approach to come from a grudge towards a human you've not met and it's achingly blatant.

@SergeWoodzing isn't the only problematic source on this article, though he is certainly and clearly a biased individual and I'd urge the community to be extra cuatious on accepting his edits.

Have a lovely rest of day / week / whatever. 99.113.212.23 (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The "whatever" one-time IP editor (Verrett himself?) obviously has not an inkling about what kinds of personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. Or doesn't care. I've been active since 2008 and have been criticized & opposed many times, even attacked. But I do believe these entries take the cake.

I do not know Mr. Verett and have no personal issues with him. My concern only regards censorship. Anyone with reliably-sourced material covering Verrett in a manner beneficial to him should add them to the article asap. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

My input on this article has been miniscule as compared to that of many other editors, so I don't really know why I am the one being attacked. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

There are sufficient reliable sources under this article, and deletion is out of the question since the man jas been prominent in reliable sources due to his relationship with the princess. No censorship on Wikipedia! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"his techniques for controlling his orgasm to maximize partner satisfaction in his podcast"

Does his partner find satisfaction in his podcast?! The language is incomprehensible. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I have reworded it to make it clearer. --Sveinkros (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Claimed

Sveinkros The use of 'claimed' is usually deprecated, see MOS:CLAIM, as implying doubt, with the Wikipedia guideline recommending the use of alternatives, though you may feel that this subject is an exception. Jontel (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Racial card up his sleeve

I know there are still racist people, sadly. This does NOT seem to me to be a case of racism. 2600:1011:B18D:5525:2884:43FF:FE78:A11C (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a blatant tear-down / smear.

It is quite clear that this page is being used for the sole purpose to smear and tear down. Id like to suggest the removal of much of the negative content or a complete removal of this page given there is primarily only two people contributing and clearly not contributing anything good. TacoBruno (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi TacoBruno, I've had a look through the references and they seem to be from reliable sources. What part do you object to? Knitsey (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

First and foremost there seems to be three individuals doing the bulk of the contributing and its all negative. I would view that as a bias. Just as an example the article linked to "The TImes" references him as a "conspiracy theorist" amongst other things but they are not citing a reference. So unless an article can prove its source even then that article is not reliable. TacoBruno (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The Times article talks about his conspiracy theories, such at the reptilian, which come from his own claims on Instagram. There are details further on in the article about conspiracy theories, including cancer and Dr making money from it, these are his own words. Claiming Chemo doesn't work and 'big pharma' (my own words) are well known conspiracy theories. The claim about women's vaginas, is also a lesser known misogynistic conspiracy theory.

The Times and the other references that mention conspiracy theories are due to his own words. Knitsey (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Where do they reference him saying he is a conspiracy theorist? If a journalist interviews him and he states that then that article is reasonable but that is not the case with that one article. Its either borrowed or an opinion. If its borrowed they should cite it. TacoBruno (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It's the claims he makes that are the conspiracy theories. Knitsey (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia relies, for the most part, on what secondary sources say about the subject. Wikipedia isn't really interested in most of what people say about themselves. Otherwise everyone would be wonderful and perfect. WP:BLP might be a good place for you to start. Knitsey (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

What did he claim and where. Feel free to cite his words otherwise its hearsay and can be dangerous and lacks journalistic integrity. As I go through the articles I am seeing a common thread. Claims with no reference or a reference that leads to a tabloid, the Tattler is not a reliable source. Also how can you explain three individuals constantly placing the negative content? Literally the bulk of this is the same three people who all share one thing in common, negative content. TacoBruno (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The claims are in the references. The references are from what Wikipedia classes as reliable sources. Quite a few people have edited the article.

If you have positive information with reliable, secondary sources the please feel free to add it. As long as it is in line with Wikipedia policy and is a summary of references you can find then follow WP:BRD. If another editor objects then you can come here to discuss it. You might want to take a look at WP:RS. Knitsey (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You used the word "misogynisitc" to reference his alleged conspiracy theories can you cite where that was used or where you got that word from? TacoBruno (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I referred to that particular conspiracy theory as misogynistic, not him. Knitsey (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Well I think that is an example of exactly what is happening with this page. The community is inserting themselves. I am seeing article after article with no reference and the word conspiracy theorist is a dangerous term to use. I am respectfully requesting either a complete deletion of the page or the ability to remove content. Its also painfully obvious that there is a predominant contributor "Sveinkros" and as seen in the above post I am not the first one to notice or ask for a deletion. TacoBruno (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The article has reliable, secondary sources. If you want to add something then provide a reliable, secondary source.

If you've read WP:BLP and WP:RS then you will know what is needed to make changes to the article.

If you're not happy with that then you could always try at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and state the problem there. After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you might want to see what other editors think? Good luck. Knitsey (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a link to start the process of deleting the page? Thank you. TacoBruno (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that you try at the Biographies noticeboard first. Article are generally only deleted if there is a question over the notability of the subject. As Durek Verrett easily passes notability then it's highly likely to fail WP:AFD. Try the Biography noticeboard first. My opinion is just one opinion. You never know, someone may agree with you about the way the article is written. Knitsey (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

The following words in the article could be seen as problematic from a Neutral Point of View (NPOV):

1. "Conman"
2. "Charlatan"
3. "Ravings of a lunatic"
4. "Nonsense, garbage, and dirty talk"
5. "Dangerous"
6. "Manipulative"
7. "Cult leader"
8. "The ravings of a lunatic"

I noticed the heavy negativity in this article years ago, but I'm afraid, I am not too familiar with the subject. If someone else is, I suggest a review and reworking from scratch, then submitting the new version to an admin for review. Light Jagami (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC) —  Blocked sockpuppet of Lustigermutiger21, see investigation.

Light Jagami, those descriptions all come directly from the range of reliable sources that write about Verrett. I invite you to bring forth coverage in reliable sources that describe Verrett differently, if they exist. It is the job of Wikipedia editors to accurately summarize the full range of reliable source coverage. If that coverage is negative, then so too will be the Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved here and just wanted to draw attention to it without becoming active myself. Thank you for the clarification, which makes sense.

"We are not obliged to change the reputation of a living person to make it better or worse than what reliable sources enable us to report. A person with a very well-sourced bad reputation is just that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)"

True Light Jagami (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC) —  Blocked sockpuppet of Lustigermutiger21, see investigation.

Märtha Louise pronunciation

The Swedish letter "ä" is not irrelevant to Märtha Louise. Märtha is her name, and she is named after her Swedish grandmother. It's a Swedish name. The letter "ä" doesn't exist in Norwegian at all. Märtha is not the same name as Martha (which also exists in Norwegian and Swedish), and ä is an entirely different letter from a. It is not pronounced like the separate name Martha (whether in Norwegian or any other langage). The vowel "a" in Martha is pronounced like in English, also in Norwegian.

Events of 1905 have nothing to do with the pronunciation and don't change the nature, origin, or pronunciation of this Swedish name that she got from her Swedish grandmother. Neither did the joint foreign policy and joint monarch of Sweden and Norway as two separate countries with their own languages (and governments, parliaments, etc.) before 1905 have any bearing on any linguistic issues (and Norway has been formally independent since the kingdom was founded over a millennium ago, and the union with Sweden was a very loose union with no impact on domestic policy and issues.)

It is entirely possible for a person in the United States to have a French, Vietnamese, or Spanish name too. If your name is Carlos, Miguel, or Pablo, it would be impolite for Americans to insist on calling you Charles, Michael, or Paul. That is essentially what he's doing by calling her Martha, perhaps because Märtha superficially looks similar to Martha, even though ä is a totally different letter. Using English phonetics to pronounce the name Martha is not the same as assigning her a different name (similar to anglicizing Pablo to Paul). Now, having your name mispronounced by foreigners in casual encounters or "translated" into similar names (Pablo to Paul) wouldn’t be a big issue for most people, but Norwegians find it puzzling that he doesn’t bother to learn the name of his wife, when he is talking to Norwegian media about her, who has never been known in Norway as Martha. It's not like her name is difficult to pronounce either. --Sveinkros (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Märtha in English is pronounced "Martha". That's the simple fact here. The phonetics of each language rule this quite strictly, not our personal opinions, interpretations etc. The letter ä does not exist in the English alphabet. It is pronounced, alphabetized and in every way treated as an a, in English. There is enough well-deserved criticism of Verrett in this article. The item discussed here does not measure up. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I very much doubt that it is common, even in English-speaking countries, to habitually Anglicize the names of people from non-English-speaking countries to names that are somewhat similar but not the same, whether they are from Norway, Mexico, Spain, or France. Märtha is Norwegian, not English or American. Her name is not Martha, and it's not pronounced like Martha. "Ä" is basically an "e" rather than an "a". English doesn't have its own pronunciation of this non-English name. It's more like seeing the Spanish name Pablo and thinking, "Oh, that looks a bit like Paul, so I'll say Paul." --Sveinkros (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

For comparison, there is no such letter as "ä" in Norwegian either. Märtha is not a common name in Norway. However, Martha is a common name in Norway, and the vowel "a" in Martha is pronounced exactly like in English. There are only 20 women in all of Norway called Märtha. There are several thousand women called Martha. But Norwegians still pronounce her name correctly because that is what her name is. Norwegians understand that this is a Swedish name, and that it has its own pronunciation and even a letter that differs from the Norwegian alphabet and common Norwegian names. So Norway isn't really any different from the United States in terms of whether "ä" exists in the alphabet and in terms of what the most familiar (related) name is (Martha in both cases). I believe cultural sensitivity is thought of as important in most English-speaking countries too, and English has also shown adaptability in accommodating foreign names. --Sveinkros (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

We cannot impose any personal interpretation of cultural sensitivity on anyone who chooses to speak English correctly using correct English phonetics. The Swedish and Norwegian pronunciations are irrelevant to that. A speaker of English has at least as great a right to be respected when speaking perfect English as anyone whose main objective is cultural sensitivity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose excessive smearing

I fully support the fact when Durett is described by reliable sources, and extensively, even in negative terms. There is a risk however, that we spill over into such trivial smearing as is not allowed in Wikipedia biographies of living persons. I am asking all contributors to bear that in mind, and I will oppose anything of the sort relentlessly. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a neutrally written article, especially the introduction, and should be cleaned up. I've added a POV tag for now. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

How can we report this false Wikipedia page?

This is highly bias and negative and obviously false. How can we report this please? Thank you. 80.44.186.75 (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The place to report would be WP:BLPN Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. Thus the new tag is inappropriate. The issue must be well clarified or the tag should be removed. All the article's negative material about this man is exremely well-referenced. The are no reliable sources to cite to descibe him more generously. None. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

For now, I am mostly concerned about the introduction. It is likely to be factually accurate, but is not neutrally framed. There is a lengthy conspiracy theory catalog (should be summarized), graphic details about sexual practices and insulting quotations from his mother. At the same time, the key reason to his notability, the marriage to Märtha Louise, is not discussed. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

It is not clear what the neutrality issue is. As per guideline. A personal opinion does not make the neutrality issue clear. Nor does it justify adding an inappropriate tag. One could tag the lead as too long (I could agree). If anyone can find any (one single) reliable souce to add that might give the article more balance, a source praising this man for anything whatsoever, that could of course be added. Good luck with that! There is none. None. His marriage to Märtha does not even make himn notable, on its own. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The article can be improved even without the tag. To give an example about the neutrality problems, consider the negative quotes from Verrett's mother. The article failed to inform the reader that Se og Hør has the mother under a paid contract, as reported by VG (See of Hør denies this). The fact that a tabloid is paying a source for damaging stories is a critical piece of information for the reader to evaluate the source's credibility. Omitting it is a clear neutrality problem. In many parts of the article the quotes are still not properly contextualized and that needs to be improved. The earlier failure to mention the PFU (Norwegian Press Complaints Commission) report is another example. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The second paragraph is POV imo. It reads like a laundry list of things deliberately placed there to make him look bad. We don't necessary need a play-by-play of every individual dumb thing he's said; we just need maybe the biggest highlights and in less detail. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I now condensed the introduction a little. The "con man" part might still be misplaced, with too much weight given to it in the first paragraph. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

It still needs to be condensed a little more imo. How prominently are these beliefs discussed in media? I see one or two refs per claim. What should be in the lead is stuff that's widely discussed in reference to this person. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

They are quite common, see for example, Newsweek and The Independent for typical neutral coverage. By contrast, the characterization as a "con man" does not seem to be frequent enough in neutral sources to justify its use in the second sentence (and we should be cautious with offensive labels, even in quotation marks). Similarly, calling him a "conspiracy theorist" seems redundant if we already specify some of the conspiracy theories he promotes. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok that sounds good; trying to err on the side of caution because of POV I've seen on related articles about this royal family. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Royal

@Sveinkros: The royal house itself has published a statement that Durek is "part of the Royal family", but that he does not represent the Royal house officially. That kind of statement is a more reliable source than newspaper columns or celebrity journalism. The current statement in the introduction is Verrett holds no title and does not represent the royal house. It does not address the subtle distinction between the royal house and the royal family, but makes an exact statement on Durek's role. Verrett is not royal on the other hand is ambiguous; he is royal in the sense of belonging to the fringes of the royal family, but not in the sense that he would have a title or official duties. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Being in the family of people who are royal does not make you royal. The royals of Norway have a lot of relatives, cousins, in-laws, and so on, who are not royals, but who are part of their personal family. The phrase "royal family" was criticized as misleading and inaccurate precisely for failing to convey the distinction between royal and non-royal, and the press release from Märtha Louise – whose statements are often controversial – you refer to is from 2022. The entire category of "royal family" was removed from the website of the Royal House in 2024. In other words, you are referring to an outdated and incorrect press release from Märtha Louise referring to a category or phrase no longer used by the Royal House.

Norway only has the Royal House and other royals. Verrett is neither. The idea that he is a royal or anything like it is laughable to anyone who knows the Norwegian context. In fact, Norway's preeminent royal historian, Trond Norén Isaksen, clarifies that while he is not royal, his attempts to portray himself as if he were is a big part of the criticism of him. That's what's going on now too, in this new reality show he is in.

The Royal House currently lists all other royals here, alongside the Royal House. No mention of Verrett as a royal. Only 3 people recognized as royal, alongside the Royal House, all Norwegian citizens. https://www.kongehuset.no/seksjon.html?tid=228106&sek=228113 --Sveinkros (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and the above NRK source. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for thanking Sveinkros! That was well deserved for him and big of you. Your wording that "he is royal in the sense of belonging to the fringes of the royal family" is patently incorrect, in this case as in any other. We can only hope you don't continue to use any such wording for Christopher O'Neill or anyone else who is not royal. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

It was true in the sense of 2022 Royal House statement, but I accept that the Norwegian Royal house has clarified the terminology after that. I don't think I've had anything to do with Christopher O'Neill. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Lead too long

The lead of this article is much too long, as if this were a person of some major importance. Looks rirdiculous and embarrassing. SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I made an attempt at trimming it down. Please review. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed the length of the lead today as it's still somewhat excessive. My other criticism is repetition, for instance, about monarchy public support, notorious for conspiracy theories, claims about family wealth, the apparently frivolous racism claims, all have multiple mentions in the body (so this aspect is not just repetition due to a summary in the lead). ~2026-10830-00 (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)