Talk:Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster

Military secrets, prostitutes and controversy

This thing about the prostitutes needs to go away. News of the World is not a reliable news source. If prositutes were indeed hired, dont you think he would have been fired as head of the Reserves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sartime (talk • contribs) 04:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is factually true (and referenced by the entry to the Daily Mail, not the News of the World) that allegations were made, and factually true that soon after those allegations were made, he was replaced as the Assistant Chief. That is what the entry used to say before you changed it, and seems to me a reasonable sentence to include in any balanced description of his career. If you can cite evidence that, nevertheless, the allegations were untrue, it would be important to cite it and add that fact to the entry. If you have evidence that there was another reason for the replacement, it would be equally valuable to add that. If you want to continue this discussion here, it would help if you signed your entry on this talk page using the four tildes. In the meantime, I will revert your changes. Js229 14:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that this section should be removed. We are running a big risk here of libel action by reporting rumour. There is a reason why The Times and The Telegraph removed their links for this story becuase they were threatened by his lawyers with the a libel action. Even if we are referencing the story from the daily mail website, which surprise, doesnt exist anymore, we can still face action. Londonfella (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fulham

Can anyone find a confirmation from a more prominant source as if true would make an amusing entry for the article. "The Duke himself had a trial with Fulham but was given the red card by the then duke, his father, who thought soccer was an unseemly sport for an aristocrat." [1]Alci12 12:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

here [2]

Fair use rationale for Image:Duke Westminster.jpg

Image:Duke Westminster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unverified statement moved from article

An informant of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation named the Duke as "Client Number 6" in the FBI's affidavit.

This statement does not appear to be verified by the source given. There is no mention of an FBI informant, nor does it state that the Duke was Client 6. Dforest (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)