This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Prince Andrew, Duke of York article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 7 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
Andrew’s mother was Queen Elizabeth, who’s father was King George VI. So how is Andrew not a descendant of the king? 2600:8806:F48:1D00:3041:26B6:3CEE:E22E ( talk) 22:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The fifth paragraph of the "Allegations of sexual abuse" section begins "Giuffre asserted that she had sex with Andrew on three occasions, including a trip to London in 2001 when she was 17." Near the end says "Giuffre stated that she [...] 'wouldn't have dared object.'" If she wouldn't have dared object, why does this say "had sex with" instead of "was raped by." Even assuming the other two instances were after she was of age, this is an allegation of rape, not consensual sex. Is the reasoning that she hasn't been publicly quoted as describing it as rape? The title of the section is "Allegations of sexual abuse" so it could at least say "was sexually abused by." The phrasing, to me, feels like it is not properly representing the weight of this allegation. AwesomelyToad ( talk) 23:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
That title, as well as all of his military titles was stripped from him by his mother, Queen Elizabeth in 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:2221:f500:818f:a05f:f164:f32c ( talk • contribs)
The Guardian says the $15,000 was a loan[ https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/12/jeffrey-epstein-is-dead-but-questions-remain-for-prince-andrew] and The Evening Standard says she was paid $15,000 to go to London[ https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/who-is-virginia-giuffre-suing-prince-andrew-b950026.html]. The claim currently in the article is not in the citations at the end of that sentence. A reliable source is needed, and the content should be balanced against other claims of what the money was for. DrKay ( talk) 21:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
"Accused" is a BLP violation, he's never been accused of child abuse, since Giuffre was not a child as at 17 she was over the age of consent in the UK. This is false. The source notes that "Ms. Giuffre’s lawsuit was filed under the Child Victims Act, a 2019 New York law that, among other things, opened a new window for people to file civil lawsuits over child abuse no matter how long ago it occurred". The source further notes that two of the three incidents of alleged abuse occurred on U.S. territory. U.S. law applies on U.S. territory, so the age of consent in the UK is irrelevant. Wallnot ( talk) 13:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
CNN - it doesn't support your edit and contain an error of fact
Bloomberg - doesn't support your edit, it specifically mentions she was over the age of consent.
Newsweek - doesn't support your edit
Yahoo (the Wrap) - doesn't even mention Andrew.
ABC Australia - doesn't support your edit, it mentions "child abuse" in passing but he's never been accused, convicted or charged. Lazy journalism.
Jerusalem Post - doesn't support your edit
The Guardian - doesn't support your edit
Newcastle World - doesn't support your edit, it mentions "child abuse" in passing but he's never been accused, convicted or charged. Lazy journalism.
San Francisco Chronicle - doesn't support your edit
The majority of sources don't support your edit, a couple mention the term in passing and CNN is factually incorrect. One doesn't even mention Andrew. Our
WP:BLP policies don't allow the edit you're so determined to force into the article.
W
C
M
email 06:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Repeating a libel in what you think is a reliable source would not make you immune from being sued for libel, nor does it make the wiki foundation immune. And it's still a violation of our WP:BLP policy.You seem not to understand the difference between stating that Andrew committed child sexual abuse (which would be a potentially libelous statement by Wikipedia) and stating that he has been accused (by VG) of child sexual abuse (which is a reliably sourced fact). Perhaps a dictionary would be helpful.
See also WP:DICK, its an essay you could learn a lot from.You might learn something from WP:NPA. Wallnot ( talk) 13:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Epstein was convicted of sex trafficking, not “convinced” 220.236.14.170 ( talk) 22:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add the recent heckling incident at the queens private funeral in Edinburgh where said heckler said "Andrew, you sick old man", i believe this would go with information about Prince Andrews Sexual abuse allegations, ( BLP violation removed). Wikieditor726 ( talk) 11:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Wikieditor726
The first incident has been widely publicised, but the second incident is news to me. Do you have a source? PatGallacher ( talk) 12:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The first incident is now mentioned in the article. PatGallacher ( talk) 12:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
While sourced, the list of ranks is puzzling. His promotion to captain was "honorary" (as explicitly stated in the Gazette), but subsequent ones to rear- and vice-admiral weren't? Also, we're relying almost entirely on primary sources here, which isn't ideal. Are there additional secondary sources that could be used to shed a little light on this? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 01:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The UK media consistently expect Andrew to sink into the background after the Queen's funeral. Spencer Kuvin who represented many Epstein victims thinks Andrew will try and use his public appearances at the funeral and other events to rehabilitate himself. Kuvin should know.
See Jeffrey Epstein victims angered by Prince Andrew’s ‘public rehabilitation’ at Queen’s funeral events The Independent Proxima Centauri ( talk) 12:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
We learn in this article that Andrew wore a uniform this week but we're not told who authorized this. Charles needs to be named. Rutsq ( talk) 00:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Then start with the fact that he wore no uniform and then did wear a uniform even if the name of who authorized this is left unsaid. BBC: "Prince Andrew wore his uniform for the occasion, despite being stripped of his military titles." and "Until Friday, Prince Andrew had not worn military uniform at the events marking his mother's death, unlike his siblings who are working Royals with military titles. An exception allowing Prince Andrew to wear military uniform was made for the vigil." found here Rutsq ( talk) 03:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I've restored that wording to the lead. As far as I can tell, there's only 1 editor who believes the word "Child" should be struck from the phrasing, and they've gone to great lengths to argue their case, but I don't see their arguments as convincing. I even provided a multitude of sources, and they proceeded to argue that each source wasn't valid, perhaps hoping no one would bother to check their arguments. For example, I used a Yahoo story, they replied that the source "doesn't even mention Andrew." However, here's the exact text from that link: "she has endured a scandal surrounding her middle son, Prince Andrew, who has been accused of child sexual abuse." I can't see how someone is arguing in good faith when they're just blatantly lying about sources like this. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 19:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I too noticed the link to this discussion at WP:BLPN. In no way am I disputing the seriousness of the allegations against Andrew. I think his conduct was clearly unacceptable. In reading various reliable sources about the case, I see terms like "minor" and "teenager" used as well as "child". When most readers see the word "child", I doubt that a 17 year old comes to mind. As for the sources listed above, several of them are very weak. Newsweek is not a reliable source and hasn't been for years. Sources about other things like the death of the queen or abuse by Catholic clergy that mention the matter in passing should be avoided for content with BLP implications. The Guardian source is about whether it was inappropriate for the BBC to interview Alan Dershowitz, and it uses the term "minor" not "child". The Jerusalem Post uses "teenager" instead of "child". Accordingly, I think that language like "17 year old minor" would be far more accurate and less problematic. Cullen328 ( talk) 17:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how to handle this. Was the Duke of York found guilty or not? Was the other person a 'minor' at the time? I'll leave it with you folks, on what to include and/or exclude. GoodDay ( talk) 21:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Is "child sexual assault" the actual wording in Giuffre's submissions to the court? Or is that term only used in the media? Because, if the latter is the case, there's a good liklihood the media is using the word "child" to engage readers with provoked emotional reaction. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 13:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
"Further I note that sources simply don't support the claim of child sex abuse"but to be clear I am comfortable with the current text and only commented as I was pinged. W C M email 11:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
To summarize this discussion: I see one editor (just like before) who is against putting the word "child" in front of "sexual assault", in spite of numerous sources stating exactly that: "child sex assault" or "child sexual assault". I see several that are on the fence, and several that, like me, see no reason to censor the word "child", given that multiple reliable sources use the phrase, and report that Giuffre sued Andrew under a NY law that specifically exists to allow victims of child sex assault to sue. Considering all that, I see no reason to keep the word "child" out of the lead, as used in this (removed) phrasing: "He was the defendant in a civil lawsuit over sexual assault filed by Giuffre in the State of New York, in which Giuffre accused Andrew of child sexual abuse." If no one else that hasn't already come forward has an objection, I will reinstate that phrasing. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 17:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Would "adolescent" or "minor", be acceptable? GoodDay ( talk) 23:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the complaint refers to "Prince Andrew's sexual abuse of a child" and alleges that "Prince Andrew forced Plaintiff, a child, to have sexual intercourse with Prince Andrew against her will". The concerns raised by others about relying on a primary source for a WP:BLP issue are inapposite; it would be inappropriate per BLP to rely on a primary source for the claim that Andrew sexually abused her in actual fact, but since the proposed wording is an accusation, it should be fine.
That said, I am cognizant of the general preference for reliable secondary sources, so how about this as a compromise: In August 2021, Virginia Giuffre sued Prince Andrew in the federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing him of "sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress." Giuffre sued under the Child Victims Act, a New York law extending the statute of limitations in certain sex abuse cases.
I think this makes a good compromise because it uses similar language to that found in the WP:RSs themselves, so we don't risk substituting our judgment for theirs, which we are not supposed to do. Wallnot ( talk) 16:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
In August 2021, Virginia Giuffre sued Prince Andrew in the federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing him of "sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress." Giuffre sued under the Child Victims Act, a New York law extending the statute of limitations in certain sex abuse cases.Do you see the words "child sex abuse" in those two sentences? No, because I pointedly did not include those words, because the proposed addition was meant to be a compromise. I would say shooting down another editor's suggestion without even reading it is the very definition of a BATTLEGROUND attitude.
[media sources] are not reliable sources for an allegation of this nature. In fact, WP:BLP suggests we should include such an allegation. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which provides the following example:
A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.Wallnot ( talk) 19:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Giuffre sued under the Child Victims Act, a New York law extending the statute of limitations in certain sex abuse cases.—is a near-exact paraphrase of the language in the CNN source. 3. I read Zaereth's explanation of why news sources are not reliable for this purpose. It makes no reference to policy. The policy I quoted above, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, seems on point: it refers expressly to a scenario in which sex scandal accusations against a public figure are widely reported in news sources. That's exactly what we are discussing including here. Given that the policy at WP:PUBLICFIGURE clearly says that such accusations should be included, I'm not sure why you think yours and Zaereth's non-policy-based explanations should be persuasive. Wallnot ( talk) 16:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I refer you to my previous answer. W C M email 07:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Giuffre sued under the Child Victims Act, a New York law extending the statute of limitations in certain sex abuse cases.to section 4.3 with no change to the lead. Is that it? If so, that's non-controversial. Can people keep there comments short and to the point. DeCausa ( talk) 20:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The lawsuit was filed under New York's Child Victims Act, legislation extending the statute of limitations where the plaintiff had been under 18 at the time, 17 in Giuffre's case.As an additional second sentence in §4.3. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 17:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is focused heavily on the allegations of sexual abuse against Andrew and the related lawsuit, but while I understand why this is the case given it's extensive coverage for the last few years, I think that the heavily detailed information about the allegations & lawsuit could be split into a separate article (called something along the lines of Prince Andrew sexual assault allegations) to talk exclusively about the allegations and lawsuit. This would allow this article to focus on Andrew's overall life (with summarised mentions of the allegations & lawsuit) as opposed to focusing heavily on a specific part of it. 88.108.44.8 ( talk) 20:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
He’s currently listed as Prince Andrew, Duke of York Harry is listed as HRH the Duke of Sussex. Surely both Andrew Harry and Megan should be individually described in similar terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.194.217 ( talk • contribs)
Andrew like Harry,Meghan still retain "HRH" but do not use them H.K.H45 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I noticed there was a little minor edit warring several months' back regarding the inclusion of the footnote about Paul Page's prior conviction for fraud. As such I wanted to explain why I think it's best left out instead.
First of all, I understand that the principal argument for its inclusion is to call his credibility into question, since that is precisely what both sources attempt to do. However, I feel that they do a poor job at this. The fact that the some of his allegations are unsubstantiated in and of itself should be enough to be able to say just that: some of his allegations are unsubstantiated. But instead they go the extra mile by insinuating that his allegations are not to be taken at face value anyway because of his prior conviction for fraud, which to me seems like flawed logic and just so unnecessary in the first place. By mentioning his prior conviction in the footnote the article applies this same flawed logic. What's more, it seems completely off-topic as well as WP:UNDUE.
In short, if there's a desire to mention that Page's allegations are mostly unsubstantiated then I would suggest we say just that and no more. I see no reason why this can't be said in prose instead of in a footnote. (Do include the sources again if you do!) Jay D. Easy ( t) 21:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
In England, his title is “HRH the Duke of York” but in Scotland, his title is “HRH the Earl of Inverness”. The page’s “Titles, styles, honours and arms” section should probably be edited to include his Scottish title 2A00:23C4:37A4:9D01:5CD2:AA08:6E38:D2F5 ( talk) 10:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I have a concern about the wording, "The lawsuit was filed under New York's Child Victims Act, legislation extending the statute of limitations where the plaintiff had been under 18 at the time, 17 in Giuffre's case.
The Act does not provide the basis of an action, but merely extends the limitation period under which it can be made. It "[a]mends prospectively the statute of limitations in civil actions alleging conduct which would constitute a sexual offense against a child under the age of 18....up until the victim reaches 55 years of age."
Can we change "was filed under" to "was allowed under?" TFD ( talk) 05:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He is no longer a prince. 110.20.75.13 ( talk) 01:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Andrew is still a Prince still retains "HRH" but does not use it. Also he is still in line to the throne. H.K.H45 ( talk) 11:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think signature of Andrew should be changed to SVG format. The link is Signature_of_Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York.svg Tipinen ( talk) 11:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
There is an RfC on Talk:Charles III#RfC: Inclusion of "Agnatic house" which may relate to this article. Feel free to contribute. Estar8806 ( talk) 03:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
On 6 May 2023, at the Coronation of Charles III and Camilla, Prince Andrew was booed by members of the public as he was driven down The Mall in a state car: [4]. I think this should be added. 86.186.37.253 ( talk) 11:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Is this person still officially the Duke of York? 2A01:CB15:821A:1D00:E0EA:E7CD:CD46:22CF ( talk) 10:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The last sentence under the sub-title "Finances & Debt" includes a reference to Mr. Gleave's search for 'Finding yogurt production.' It has come to our attention that this information is inaccurate and misleading, as it was reported based on a statement from a convicted fraudster.
To maintain the accuracy and integrity of the article, we kindly request the immediate removal of the name ' Adrian Gleave' from the mentioned sentence.
(Other new details revealed about the case also include the fact that Prince Andrew received “half” of a £100,000 sum which Mr Turk claimed was a payment to businessman Adrian Gleave, 52, to fund a search for “finding yoghurt production facilities in America”.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zento21 ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I found a small spelling mistake: Under "Allegations of sexual abuse" > "Jeffrey Epstein and related associations" > In the sixth paragraph, change "Tuan "John" Alessi, who was..." to "Juan "John" Alessi, who was..." The butler's name is Juan, not Tuan. Fleinflein ( talk) 19:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Prince Andrew, Duke of York article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 7 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
Andrew’s mother was Queen Elizabeth, who’s father was King George VI. So how is Andrew not a descendant of the king? 2600:8806:F48:1D00:3041:26B6:3CEE:E22E ( talk) 22:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
The fifth paragraph of the "Allegations of sexual abuse" section begins "Giuffre asserted that she had sex with Andrew on three occasions, including a trip to London in 2001 when she was 17." Near the end says "Giuffre stated that she [...] 'wouldn't have dared object.'" If she wouldn't have dared object, why does this say "had sex with" instead of "was raped by." Even assuming the other two instances were after she was of age, this is an allegation of rape, not consensual sex. Is the reasoning that she hasn't been publicly quoted as describing it as rape? The title of the section is "Allegations of sexual abuse" so it could at least say "was sexually abused by." The phrasing, to me, feels like it is not properly representing the weight of this allegation. AwesomelyToad ( talk) 23:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
That title, as well as all of his military titles was stripped from him by his mother, Queen Elizabeth in 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:2221:f500:818f:a05f:f164:f32c ( talk • contribs)
The Guardian says the $15,000 was a loan[ https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/12/jeffrey-epstein-is-dead-but-questions-remain-for-prince-andrew] and The Evening Standard says she was paid $15,000 to go to London[ https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/who-is-virginia-giuffre-suing-prince-andrew-b950026.html]. The claim currently in the article is not in the citations at the end of that sentence. A reliable source is needed, and the content should be balanced against other claims of what the money was for. DrKay ( talk) 21:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
"Accused" is a BLP violation, he's never been accused of child abuse, since Giuffre was not a child as at 17 she was over the age of consent in the UK. This is false. The source notes that "Ms. Giuffre’s lawsuit was filed under the Child Victims Act, a 2019 New York law that, among other things, opened a new window for people to file civil lawsuits over child abuse no matter how long ago it occurred". The source further notes that two of the three incidents of alleged abuse occurred on U.S. territory. U.S. law applies on U.S. territory, so the age of consent in the UK is irrelevant. Wallnot ( talk) 13:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
CNN - it doesn't support your edit and contain an error of fact
Bloomberg - doesn't support your edit, it specifically mentions she was over the age of consent.
Newsweek - doesn't support your edit
Yahoo (the Wrap) - doesn't even mention Andrew.
ABC Australia - doesn't support your edit, it mentions "child abuse" in passing but he's never been accused, convicted or charged. Lazy journalism.
Jerusalem Post - doesn't support your edit
The Guardian - doesn't support your edit
Newcastle World - doesn't support your edit, it mentions "child abuse" in passing but he's never been accused, convicted or charged. Lazy journalism.
San Francisco Chronicle - doesn't support your edit
The majority of sources don't support your edit, a couple mention the term in passing and CNN is factually incorrect. One doesn't even mention Andrew. Our
WP:BLP policies don't allow the edit you're so determined to force into the article.
W
C
M
email 06:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Repeating a libel in what you think is a reliable source would not make you immune from being sued for libel, nor does it make the wiki foundation immune. And it's still a violation of our WP:BLP policy.You seem not to understand the difference between stating that Andrew committed child sexual abuse (which would be a potentially libelous statement by Wikipedia) and stating that he has been accused (by VG) of child sexual abuse (which is a reliably sourced fact). Perhaps a dictionary would be helpful.
See also WP:DICK, its an essay you could learn a lot from.You might learn something from WP:NPA. Wallnot ( talk) 13:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Epstein was convicted of sex trafficking, not “convinced” 220.236.14.170 ( talk) 22:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add the recent heckling incident at the queens private funeral in Edinburgh where said heckler said "Andrew, you sick old man", i believe this would go with information about Prince Andrews Sexual abuse allegations, ( BLP violation removed). Wikieditor726 ( talk) 11:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Wikieditor726
The first incident has been widely publicised, but the second incident is news to me. Do you have a source? PatGallacher ( talk) 12:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The first incident is now mentioned in the article. PatGallacher ( talk) 12:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
While sourced, the list of ranks is puzzling. His promotion to captain was "honorary" (as explicitly stated in the Gazette), but subsequent ones to rear- and vice-admiral weren't? Also, we're relying almost entirely on primary sources here, which isn't ideal. Are there additional secondary sources that could be used to shed a little light on this? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 01:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The UK media consistently expect Andrew to sink into the background after the Queen's funeral. Spencer Kuvin who represented many Epstein victims thinks Andrew will try and use his public appearances at the funeral and other events to rehabilitate himself. Kuvin should know.
See Jeffrey Epstein victims angered by Prince Andrew’s ‘public rehabilitation’ at Queen’s funeral events The Independent Proxima Centauri ( talk) 12:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
We learn in this article that Andrew wore a uniform this week but we're not told who authorized this. Charles needs to be named. Rutsq ( talk) 00:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Then start with the fact that he wore no uniform and then did wear a uniform even if the name of who authorized this is left unsaid. BBC: "Prince Andrew wore his uniform for the occasion, despite being stripped of his military titles." and "Until Friday, Prince Andrew had not worn military uniform at the events marking his mother's death, unlike his siblings who are working Royals with military titles. An exception allowing Prince Andrew to wear military uniform was made for the vigil." found here Rutsq ( talk) 03:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I've restored that wording to the lead. As far as I can tell, there's only 1 editor who believes the word "Child" should be struck from the phrasing, and they've gone to great lengths to argue their case, but I don't see their arguments as convincing. I even provided a multitude of sources, and they proceeded to argue that each source wasn't valid, perhaps hoping no one would bother to check their arguments. For example, I used a Yahoo story, they replied that the source "doesn't even mention Andrew." However, here's the exact text from that link: "she has endured a scandal surrounding her middle son, Prince Andrew, who has been accused of child sexual abuse." I can't see how someone is arguing in good faith when they're just blatantly lying about sources like this. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 19:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I too noticed the link to this discussion at WP:BLPN. In no way am I disputing the seriousness of the allegations against Andrew. I think his conduct was clearly unacceptable. In reading various reliable sources about the case, I see terms like "minor" and "teenager" used as well as "child". When most readers see the word "child", I doubt that a 17 year old comes to mind. As for the sources listed above, several of them are very weak. Newsweek is not a reliable source and hasn't been for years. Sources about other things like the death of the queen or abuse by Catholic clergy that mention the matter in passing should be avoided for content with BLP implications. The Guardian source is about whether it was inappropriate for the BBC to interview Alan Dershowitz, and it uses the term "minor" not "child". The Jerusalem Post uses "teenager" instead of "child". Accordingly, I think that language like "17 year old minor" would be far more accurate and less problematic. Cullen328 ( talk) 17:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how to handle this. Was the Duke of York found guilty or not? Was the other person a 'minor' at the time? I'll leave it with you folks, on what to include and/or exclude. GoodDay ( talk) 21:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Is "child sexual assault" the actual wording in Giuffre's submissions to the court? Or is that term only used in the media? Because, if the latter is the case, there's a good liklihood the media is using the word "child" to engage readers with provoked emotional reaction. -- ₪ MIESIANIACAL 13:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
"Further I note that sources simply don't support the claim of child sex abuse"but to be clear I am comfortable with the current text and only commented as I was pinged. W C M email 11:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
To summarize this discussion: I see one editor (just like before) who is against putting the word "child" in front of "sexual assault", in spite of numerous sources stating exactly that: "child sex assault" or "child sexual assault". I see several that are on the fence, and several that, like me, see no reason to censor the word "child", given that multiple reliable sources use the phrase, and report that Giuffre sued Andrew under a NY law that specifically exists to allow victims of child sex assault to sue. Considering all that, I see no reason to keep the word "child" out of the lead, as used in this (removed) phrasing: "He was the defendant in a civil lawsuit over sexual assault filed by Giuffre in the State of New York, in which Giuffre accused Andrew of child sexual abuse." If no one else that hasn't already come forward has an objection, I will reinstate that phrasing. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 17:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Would "adolescent" or "minor", be acceptable? GoodDay ( talk) 23:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the complaint refers to "Prince Andrew's sexual abuse of a child" and alleges that "Prince Andrew forced Plaintiff, a child, to have sexual intercourse with Prince Andrew against her will". The concerns raised by others about relying on a primary source for a WP:BLP issue are inapposite; it would be inappropriate per BLP to rely on a primary source for the claim that Andrew sexually abused her in actual fact, but since the proposed wording is an accusation, it should be fine.
That said, I am cognizant of the general preference for reliable secondary sources, so how about this as a compromise: In August 2021, Virginia Giuffre sued Prince Andrew in the federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing him of "sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress." Giuffre sued under the Child Victims Act, a New York law extending the statute of limitations in certain sex abuse cases.
I think this makes a good compromise because it uses similar language to that found in the WP:RSs themselves, so we don't risk substituting our judgment for theirs, which we are not supposed to do. Wallnot ( talk) 16:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
In August 2021, Virginia Giuffre sued Prince Andrew in the federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing him of "sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress." Giuffre sued under the Child Victims Act, a New York law extending the statute of limitations in certain sex abuse cases.Do you see the words "child sex abuse" in those two sentences? No, because I pointedly did not include those words, because the proposed addition was meant to be a compromise. I would say shooting down another editor's suggestion without even reading it is the very definition of a BATTLEGROUND attitude.
[media sources] are not reliable sources for an allegation of this nature. In fact, WP:BLP suggests we should include such an allegation. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which provides the following example:
A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.Wallnot ( talk) 19:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Giuffre sued under the Child Victims Act, a New York law extending the statute of limitations in certain sex abuse cases.—is a near-exact paraphrase of the language in the CNN source. 3. I read Zaereth's explanation of why news sources are not reliable for this purpose. It makes no reference to policy. The policy I quoted above, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, seems on point: it refers expressly to a scenario in which sex scandal accusations against a public figure are widely reported in news sources. That's exactly what we are discussing including here. Given that the policy at WP:PUBLICFIGURE clearly says that such accusations should be included, I'm not sure why you think yours and Zaereth's non-policy-based explanations should be persuasive. Wallnot ( talk) 16:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I refer you to my previous answer. W C M email 07:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Giuffre sued under the Child Victims Act, a New York law extending the statute of limitations in certain sex abuse cases.to section 4.3 with no change to the lead. Is that it? If so, that's non-controversial. Can people keep there comments short and to the point. DeCausa ( talk) 20:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The lawsuit was filed under New York's Child Victims Act, legislation extending the statute of limitations where the plaintiff had been under 18 at the time, 17 in Giuffre's case.As an additional second sentence in §4.3. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 17:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is focused heavily on the allegations of sexual abuse against Andrew and the related lawsuit, but while I understand why this is the case given it's extensive coverage for the last few years, I think that the heavily detailed information about the allegations & lawsuit could be split into a separate article (called something along the lines of Prince Andrew sexual assault allegations) to talk exclusively about the allegations and lawsuit. This would allow this article to focus on Andrew's overall life (with summarised mentions of the allegations & lawsuit) as opposed to focusing heavily on a specific part of it. 88.108.44.8 ( talk) 20:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
He’s currently listed as Prince Andrew, Duke of York Harry is listed as HRH the Duke of Sussex. Surely both Andrew Harry and Megan should be individually described in similar terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.194.217 ( talk • contribs)
Andrew like Harry,Meghan still retain "HRH" but do not use them H.K.H45 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I noticed there was a little minor edit warring several months' back regarding the inclusion of the footnote about Paul Page's prior conviction for fraud. As such I wanted to explain why I think it's best left out instead.
First of all, I understand that the principal argument for its inclusion is to call his credibility into question, since that is precisely what both sources attempt to do. However, I feel that they do a poor job at this. The fact that the some of his allegations are unsubstantiated in and of itself should be enough to be able to say just that: some of his allegations are unsubstantiated. But instead they go the extra mile by insinuating that his allegations are not to be taken at face value anyway because of his prior conviction for fraud, which to me seems like flawed logic and just so unnecessary in the first place. By mentioning his prior conviction in the footnote the article applies this same flawed logic. What's more, it seems completely off-topic as well as WP:UNDUE.
In short, if there's a desire to mention that Page's allegations are mostly unsubstantiated then I would suggest we say just that and no more. I see no reason why this can't be said in prose instead of in a footnote. (Do include the sources again if you do!) Jay D. Easy ( t) 21:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
In England, his title is “HRH the Duke of York” but in Scotland, his title is “HRH the Earl of Inverness”. The page’s “Titles, styles, honours and arms” section should probably be edited to include his Scottish title 2A00:23C4:37A4:9D01:5CD2:AA08:6E38:D2F5 ( talk) 10:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I have a concern about the wording, "The lawsuit was filed under New York's Child Victims Act, legislation extending the statute of limitations where the plaintiff had been under 18 at the time, 17 in Giuffre's case.
The Act does not provide the basis of an action, but merely extends the limitation period under which it can be made. It "[a]mends prospectively the statute of limitations in civil actions alleging conduct which would constitute a sexual offense against a child under the age of 18....up until the victim reaches 55 years of age."
Can we change "was filed under" to "was allowed under?" TFD ( talk) 05:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He is no longer a prince. 110.20.75.13 ( talk) 01:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Andrew is still a Prince still retains "HRH" but does not use it. Also he is still in line to the throne. H.K.H45 ( talk) 11:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think signature of Andrew should be changed to SVG format. The link is Signature_of_Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York.svg Tipinen ( talk) 11:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
There is an RfC on Talk:Charles III#RfC: Inclusion of "Agnatic house" which may relate to this article. Feel free to contribute. Estar8806 ( talk) 03:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
On 6 May 2023, at the Coronation of Charles III and Camilla, Prince Andrew was booed by members of the public as he was driven down The Mall in a state car: [4]. I think this should be added. 86.186.37.253 ( talk) 11:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Is this person still officially the Duke of York? 2A01:CB15:821A:1D00:E0EA:E7CD:CD46:22CF ( talk) 10:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The last sentence under the sub-title "Finances & Debt" includes a reference to Mr. Gleave's search for 'Finding yogurt production.' It has come to our attention that this information is inaccurate and misleading, as it was reported based on a statement from a convicted fraudster.
To maintain the accuracy and integrity of the article, we kindly request the immediate removal of the name ' Adrian Gleave' from the mentioned sentence.
(Other new details revealed about the case also include the fact that Prince Andrew received “half” of a £100,000 sum which Mr Turk claimed was a payment to businessman Adrian Gleave, 52, to fund a search for “finding yoghurt production facilities in America”.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zento21 ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I found a small spelling mistake: Under "Allegations of sexual abuse" > "Jeffrey Epstein and related associations" > In the sixth paragraph, change "Tuan "John" Alessi, who was..." to "Juan "John" Alessi, who was..." The butler's name is Juan, not Tuan. Fleinflein ( talk) 19:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)