Talk:Prince Andrew, Duke of York

Not a descendant of the King?

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)

Not a descendant of the current king, Charles III. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Language describing rape allegations

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)

If there aren't any rape allegations, then we can't say that there are. See WP:BLP and WP:OR. Sources must explicitly make such a claim. DrKay (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Article Incorrectly Claims he was Duke of York

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)

No, he retains the peerage. DrKay (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

He's still the Duke of York. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Dubious

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)

The wording was only added in today with this and this misleading edit summary. I had reverted back to wording which had been stable for several months. Wee Curry Monster reverted back to the wording introduced today with this edit summary. I'm not convinced that the UK legal position is that determinative but there is a clear and WP:UNDUE POV behind the newly introduced wording that insinuates Giuffre's motivation in a way that is a signficant BLP issue. I suggest it needs to go back to the previous stable wording - perhaps removing "has been accused of child sexual abuse" to gain consensus. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the stable wording should not be changed without discussion, and certainly not to a wording that seems intended to disparage Giuffre ("campaigner"). --Tataral (talk) 23:48, 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. Even if the wording was stable, as a BLP violation it can't be allowed to stand. Restoring that text is of itself a BLP violation, the fact that other editors have kept away from a toxic atmosphere on this article isn't an excuse for allowing a BLP violation to perpetuate. WCM_email 07:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

As I referenced above, taking out the words "child abuse" might be the solution. But the newly added POV wording clearly disparages Giuffre (and for the sourcing is dubious) - that is also a BLP and UNDUE violation. Why revert to that? DeCausa (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

See WP:BLPN#Prince Andrew. You did a blind revert of an edit that was addressing a BLP concern, there are actually multiple BLP issues with what has been aggressively edit warred into the article. If you see additional BLP issues raised in the edit, which to some extent I can appreciate you address that, what we shouldn't do is simply revert. WCM_email 07:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thatr's right. That's why I didn't revert you. I've proposed taking out the reference to child sexual abuse. Now address the BLP violation that you restored. DeCausa (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

[1] You did revert and did not identify any BLP violation, had you done so I would have copy edited. You might want to simply de-escalate rather than pointing fingers. WCM_email 11:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I said I didn't revert you. You had raised BLP, the person I reverted didn't. Had they done so I would have copy edited. We both did the exact same thing. The only difference is I actually went and fixed it. DeCausa (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out they actually did [2]. WCM_email 14:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

No they didn't. That's the wording with BLP, DUE and sourcing problems. DeCausa (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The sources there don't explicitly say she accused him of child sexual abuse. The most common wording seems to be something along the lines of "sex trafficking and abuse". I'm not sure about including the "$15,000" part in the lede, seems a bit besides the point. Tristario (talk) 07:32, 13 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)

And you'd still be wrong, the events took place in 2001 allegedly. NY age of consent in 2001 was 13, it was raised to 17 in 2017 and was later raised to 18. Similarly in the Virgin Islands. So it still wouldn't be child abuse under US law pertaining at the time. Putting such claims in wikipedia's voice is a WP:BLP violation. WCM_email 14:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not exactly correct. One in London , one in New York, and one in Little St. James. In any case, you don't get to decide the wording based on your analysis of the age of consent in various places at various times. This isn't a courtroom. We go by what reliable sources say. If a reliable source says "child abuse" or "child sex abuse" or something similar, we should use that wording, regardless of Detective Wee Curry's investigation. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:31, 13 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. See also WP:DICK, its an essay you could learn a lot from. WCM_email 23:37, 13 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" - you just made that up out of thin air. If a reliable source is found to have published something libelous, it can be immediately removed from wikipedia. Again, you're not a judge or a lawyer; you proclaiming something in a reliable source might be libelous is irrelevant. If it's in a reliable source and hasn't been retracted, we can use it. Period. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• I've modified the "longstanding" text without introducing the new POV wording here. DeCausa (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Looks fine Tristario (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  It would be good, IMO, to insert some kind of context about who Virginia Giuffre is in the lead. Currently the lead reads: "Virginia Giuffre claimed that, as a 17-year old..." As a general rule on Wikipedia, when we mention someone for the first time, we write something a little bit of description like "the American author Stephen King" or "the Japanese musician Ryuichi Sakamoto" or whatever. Popcornfud (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Which I have no problem with. WCM_email 11:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Any suggestions? Tataral appears to object to describing her as a "campaigner" above. I have no opinion and no knowledge in this area. Popcornfud (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand why, since that is a description she herself has used. Perhaps Tataral would care to explain. WCM_email 11:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know that we need a description. One can click on her name to read it. It would be more relevant, in this context, to write something like "Virginia Giuffre, a victim of the sex trafficking ring of Jeffrey Epstein, claimed that, as a 17-year old..." Or leave it as it is. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2022

Epstein was convicted of sex trafficking, not “convinced” 220.236.14.170 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)