This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Biography This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article is supported by the aerospace biography project. Biography: Military / Peerage and Baronetage / Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance). British Royalty Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Aviation / Biography / Maritime / British / European / Cold War / Post-Cold War C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military biography task force Maritime warfare task force British military history task force European military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Post-Cold War task force Scouting Low‑importance Prince Andrew, Duke of York is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

They do. NYT: "Prince Andrew, the disgraced second son of Queen Elizabeth II, has settled a lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre, a woman who had accused him of raping her when she was a teenage victim of Andrew's friend, the notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to a new court filing in Manhattan on Tuesday." NPR: "Britain's Prince Andrew has agreed to settle the lawsuit filed by the woman who accused him of rape." The Times: "A leading US lawyer who has interrogated Ghislaine Maxwell and acted for her victims is expected to fly into London as early as next month to question the Duke of York over allegations of teenage rape." Question is then whether such wording best reflects the balance of the sources, which is less clear-cut. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the articles, "had sex with" in colloquial English implies a level of consent which is absent from the accounts offered by the alleged victim (Mrs. Giuffre). I propose that the language be amended to clarify the alleged lack of consent in the exchange/relationship, because the current phrasing completely denies and downplays the accusations and evidence, as well as what the supporting sources outlined in the remainder of the article about abuse in these circumstances. I simply don't think it is fair to anyone (except the Windsor family) to categorize Those encounters/experiences with this phrase when it is clear that, regardless of the "he said, she said" aspects and lack of "evidentiary proof" (is (such as a rape kit with DNA test), this is a case of missing, or (if viewed generously) misconstrued consent, which Still is not the equivalent of "had sex with" in the vernacular.

If nothing else, the common English vernacular reading of this article Absolutely requires a footnote or clarification about what is meant because the phrase Does Not reflect a vernacular understanding of what (allegedly) occurred between Prince Andrew and Mrs. Giuffre. This goes triple because it already falls under a sub-header that does a better job of using the correct vernacular and verbiage that this phrase.

In other words, I take a great issue with the ways that a vernacular understanding and reading of this paragraph could lead many people to Believe that Mrs. Giuffre was a consenting party in the moment to some degree, in spite of both her own accounts, and the context of the situation she was put in at the time. 2601:644:8F82:6C80:2D2D:B1F9:1595:CA15 (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an amendment, though more clunky in verbiage, I propose

"Giuffre asserted that she was (coerced and/or assaulted) by Andrew on three occasions." If nothing else, this phrasing is an unbiased reading of what Mrs Giuffre has stated occurred - whether or not she has called it rape, she has clearly and emphatically asserted that she was, at minimum coerced. And while this still reads as a condemning statement to some, my issue is that by rewriting 'alleged rape' as 'had sex with,' you are reflecting a Heavy (and harmful) bias in the opposite direction. 2601:644:8F82:6C80:2D2D:B1F9:1595:CA15 (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with this. Factual and relevant. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

And you'd be wrong because that is a violation of WP:BLPPUBLIC, which required multipe such sources and even then advises caution in repeating allegations of this nature. WCM_email 00:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'd like multiple sources that say he was sued for child sexual abuse? No problem. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CNN

Bloomberg

Newsweek

Yahoo (the Wrap)

ABC Australia

Jerusalem Post

The Guardian

Newcastle World

San Francisco Chronicle

It goes on and on, of course. There's likely hundreds. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. WCM_email 06:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Interesting how you choose to lecture me about WP:NPA ignoring the personal attack that led me to refer to that essay. I'll leave it at that.

He's not been accused of child sexual abuse, nor has he been charged, nor has he been convicted, nor is there reliable sources backing this up. That is the point, the fact that cited sources do not support this assertion.

I would also very much appreciate you stopping the personal attacks, the needling comments and following my edits, as to be frank it's starting to get irritating. Feel free to continue your practise of having the last word. WCM_email 16:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

The first incident is now mentioned in the article. PatGallacher (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second thing that the editor is referring to is an amateur video of Andrew that's circulating on social media. It has not been picked up by any reliable sources as far as I can tell and accordingly shouldn't be covered here. Aoi (青い) (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, the second part of the request likely violates BLP due to its lack of reliable sourcing, so I've redacted it. Aoi (青い) (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The last time he officially wore military uniforms, they were (not sure) the ranks of Vice Admiral (Navy), Lieutenant General (Army) & Air Marshall (Air Force). I believe his sister Anne, holds the ranks of Admiral (Navy), General (Army) & Air Chief Marshall (Air Force), but not certain. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine we can conclude Anne's ranks are indeed honorary, having never served in any of those, but in the cases of Andrew, having served as a commander, then been promoted to explicitly-honorary captainty, and then to a not described as honorary rear-admiralty... As I say, a good secondary source to provide interpretation would be very useful. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• Do UK media understand things better than the Americans?
• Alternatively do Americans know things that pro-royalist UK media haven't told us?
  

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)[reply]

So some of the UK media are pro-royalist but want him "to sink into the background"? Any sources that might support this suggestion? Not to mention that the source you have cited (The Independent) is a UK-based newspaper reporting on the issue, so no, the American media don't necessarily know better. Meanwhile, it's better to avoid adding speculative statements regarding Andrew's future per WP:CRYSTAL. Additionally, the quotes taken from sources have to be kept to a minimum. We neither want to copy paste a big chunk of a copyrighted article into this page, nor do we want to give undue prominence to third opinions. This is a WP:BLP and the subject has not been charged with any crimes in a court of law. Keivan.f^Talk 14:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Only if you can find a reliable source to support this. British tabloids and reasonable inference (which both agree with you) aren't sufficient. I think there may be a quote via a "royal source" and the Telegraph, but I haven't seen it first hand. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've reverted. Not because I'm strongly against it but if there is a WP:BLP concern it is better left out until resolved. BLP is different to other content dispute issues. WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. It would be better for Wee Curry Monster to engage and for this to resolved one way or other. DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re-adding the source list here, to open up discussion. Each one of them supports the wording that Giuffre accused Andrew of child sexual assault, and that Andrew later settled out of court. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CNN

Bloomberg

Newsweek

Yahoo (the Wrap)

ABC Australia

Jerusalem Post

The Guardian

Newcastle World

San Francisco Chronicle

I agree with Fred. It is ridiculous to suggest that it is a BLP violation to state, with ample sourcing, that someone has been accused of something that they have been sued for. Wallnot (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. Can we leave it out please until WCM is of the same view or there's clear consensus that WCM is wrong. WP:ONUS. As I said we should be extra carefull with WP:BLP. DeCausa (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if a single editor, who is misrepresenting sources (as when he said "doesn't even mention Andrew" when it explicitly does), is looking to shield Prince Andrew from having the word "child" mentioned in his sexual assault scandal, and there are multiple sources that directly contradict that point of view, that this is taking WP:ONUS too far. I'm willing to wait a few days to see if any other editors jump on this highly dubious point of view, but come on - imagine if we applied this standard to every BLP. You wouldn't have any negative information relayed from reliable sources about anyone. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my position. On the face of it, as a preliminary view, I took the same view as WCM but freely admit I haven't examined it in depth or looked through your sources. i'll do that hopefully over the next 24 hours. But I can't stress enough that the BLP angle puts this on a very different basis than the usual content dispute. Hopefully, others will chime in. Given the seriousness of the nature of the text it may be appropriate to raise this again at WP:BLPN DeCausa (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've gone ahead and asked at WP:BLPN that uninvolved editors chime here. Anyone coming to this should consider WCM's rebuttal of the above sources in the above thread headeds "Dubious". DeCausa (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wording WCM removed was thus: "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." Editors should note that the sum total of WCM's "rebuttal" was the rather nebulous "doesn't support your edit", even though every single source stated that Giuffre had sued/accused Andrew of child sexual abuse. In one case (the Yahoo source) WCM claims "doesn't even mention Andrew", and yet, right in the middle of the article, is this: "she has endured a scandal surrounding her middle son, Prince Andrew, who has been accused of child sexual abuse." Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty much open-and-shut to me, and frankly doesn't even fly as a BLP red flag. If this weren't substantiated by sources, "we only libelled him in a lengthy section of the body, not in the lead" wouldn't be any help. Unless there's some nuance we wish to debate about "child" vs "minor" vs "below the age of consent", etc, I'd suggest reinstating will all deliberate speed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone from BLPN, here's my take. Now, I haven't gone through all the sources, but just looked at the one provided in the article. The CNN source you provided in the last reverted edit in the article actually says "trafficking". It mentions child abuse in relation to a new law passed in New York, but never says the case itself is one of child abuse, and I don't think we can make a positive affirmation from their vague implication. There is a big problem with news outlets, because, while they may be reliable sources for certain types of info, they are at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of reliability. People often seem to think that reliability is a black and white thing, but it's not. Reliability is not created equal. A source that is reliable for one type of info mat be completely unreliable for another. Some sources are inherently more reliable than others. Compared to a good book by a reputable publisher, news outlets aren't even close. The big problem with news outlets is they often get things wrong, but they can justify this because news changes on a daily/hourly basis.

Even news outlets are not equal in their own genera. CNN is about as reliable as FOX news (which is not very), but is no where near the league of the NY Times. Newspaper are out to sell product with flashy headlines and provocative terms that pull at people's heartstrings.

Here's the problem as I see it. First, that CNN source is really not about the subject but is instead using him as an example. It's really about the new law passed in New York. (However, the CNN article it links to is actually about this incident, so I'm not sure why that one wasn't used instead.) In New York, the age of consent is 17, which she was. Now, I'm not saying that she gave her consent, and trafficking is just about as heinous, but I think as an encyclopedia we have a duty to be better than the sources we use. As a new law I'm sure there are some grey areas that judges will need to sort out, which is why we have judges in the first place. There is obviously more to the story than can be covered by such a broad term, which may or may not be accurate in the context of the law.

The big problem from a BLP standpoint is that term has connotations of "child" abuse, that is, it conjures up images of pre-pubescent children rather than adolescents, which makes it a problem in the lede if we just leave it at that, because we need to be way, way more specific than that. The good majority of people (like 90% on average) who view an article will only read the lede and go no farther, so we need to make sure we are not being in any way vague or possibly misleading (even unintentionally). Zaereth (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggested alternative wording, or do you favour the qualified "sexual abuse" in the lead as at present? And similarly, what are your thoughts about the mentions this gets in the body of the article? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The body of the article has no specific mention of "child sexual abuse" Tristario (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it does contain "impropriety with underage minors", "sexual activities with a minor", "anti-child trafficking protesters chanting "P[--]! P[--]!"", and so on. Would "sexual abuse of a minor" in the lead be a satisfactory upsum? (Redaction due to the objections of an edit filter.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, further to my earlier post I've now read through all of the sources and agree with how Cullen328 and Zaereth characterises it - and indeed with WMC's earlier point in the original thread. The "child abuse" aspect seems to come mainly from the naming of the Act "Child Victims Act". But the name of the Act and the status of a 17 year old as a "minor" in that jurisdiction doesn't make it "child abuse". I don't see any of the sources actually directly stating that he was accused of "child abuse" anyway. DeCausa (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not just in that jurisdiction, but in the one Andy Windy's normally resident too, and many others. Granting not all of the US, or even all of the UK. It clearly is (alleged) child abuse, by a straightforward application of the definitions of "child" and "abuse". But I'm entirely in favour of using "alleged sexual assault of a minor" or similar if that more closely reflects the wording of the sources, and that does appear to be the case here. The terms "child" and "minor" may be denotationally identical, but they do carry very different connotations, and better to follow the RS as directly as possible, than be seen to be respinning it ourselves. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

GoodDay, the facts are clear. Please do not think that I am trying to defend Andrew because I believe that his conduct was sleazy. He was not indicted or prosecuted for a criminal offense. He was the subject of a civil lawsuit in New York by Virginia Giuffre who alleged that Andrew sexually abused her when she was 17 years old. The lawsuit never went to trial because Andew settled out of court before the trial. The terms of the settlement are not known but expert observers assume that Andrew paid Giuffre a significant amount of money to make the lawsuit go away. Cullen328 (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're trying to defend Andrew. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the court proceedings were a civil matter, so there was no question of him being 'found guilty' in those. But it's not so much the "alleged" part that's at issue here, as any possible "child" or "of a minor" qualification of the "sexual assault" description. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've no idea, and that'd be a primary source, which we have very good reasons for not generally preferring. Most obviously of all in legal cases, where by definition the parties are in disagreement about the facts or their legal implications, and have their own directly opposed motivations. Secondary sources have their own factional and commercial interests too, but the desire to avoid overt sensationalism is why we insist they be reliable ones, and not -- say -- the NYP or UK redtops. But this is I think somewhat moot, as neither the balance of sources nor editorial consensus seem to support use of that exact phrase. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice it to say. We shall never know the whole story. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have been on holiday and missed most of the discussion, my first observation was I'd already been through the sources listed above and checked whether they supported the accusation. They didn't and its disappointing to me that that wasn't discussed, instead they were simply repeated. It also appears to me that there is an element of WP:GREATWRONGS in those who are advocating this text and they appear to be what I'd describe as "mission orientated" ie focused on getting the content that they feel should be in the article rather than being guided by what the sources actually said. Much as I dislike focusing on editor conduct, I also note several incident of ad hominem attacks on other editors. That said I am glad to see that cooler heads are prevailing and there is now a productive discussion, which is what I hoped to achieve earlier.

My own take on this is that newspaper sources should always be approached with a great deal of caution, they are not above grabbing onto terms that trigger strong emotion and reporting on celebrity topics, particularly sex scandals, is often salacious and irresponsible. I note that Zaereth has already expounded on this at great length and far more eloquently than I did. Further I note that sources simply don't support the claim of child sex abuse, I'm encouraged that consensus has swung away from inclusion but have to observe that even if there were consensus it would violate WP:BLP specifically WP:BLPPUBLIC.

Nobody is defending Andrew, its wikipedia that is being defended here by not including poorly sourced and sensationalist material. Simply reporting on his association with Epstein and the basic facts surrounding the case are pretty damning, there is simply no need for hyperbole. WCM_email 07:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia's take is the we use reliable secondary sources, newspaper and otherwise. I'm still unclear if you're complaining about the sources we're using, arguing on the basis of them, or a little bit of both. Our current wording in the lead section makes it clear that the accusation was one of sexual assault of a 17-year-old; that's supported by the sources, the sources are entirely appropriate, and I personally think it gives due weight to the essence of the case. Do you disagree with any of that, or with any other related aspect of the current text? Or are we just wandering off down an WP:ABF exercise by way of a postscript, and otherwise all just loudly agreeing past each other? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood what's under discussion. See my revert here. Some editors want to take it back to what I reverted from. WCM is referring to that earlier wording. That's the whole point of this thread. Some editors wanted the earlier wording and not the current wording. DeCausa (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely aware of what the original point of contention was. WCM's comment, as I just said, doesn't make it at all clear if they consider there's some remaining objection they have (sensational sources, unspecified POV-pushing editors, etc), or if it's simply an out-of-context comment on a week-old revert. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure my position is clear given the discussion above, the key sentence being "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. WCM_email 11:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That is a bizarre mischaracterisation of the opinions in this thread. Only one editor has supported your position (Walnot). Myself, Wee Curry Monster, Cullen328, Zaereth have clearly indicated that they are against referring to it as "child" sexual assault and I think by implication so has Miesianiacal. I'm pinging them all to check that I've got that right (and apologies to those editors for the ping). Not sure if a ping to an IP works but 109.255.211.6 appears to have switched to agreeing with the leaving it out "child" during the course of the thread. Hopefully, they'll show up to confirm their position. DeCausa (talk)

I continue to oppose the use of the word "child" to describe a 17 year old in this context. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that this is gross misrepresentation of the discussion so far. It did start with what I would characterise as unhelpful commentary from editors who don't understand WP:BLP or the reliability of media sources. That devolved into accusing editors of lying and shielding a paedophile, none of which is productive. Since the posting to WP:BLPN more mature discussion has followed and there is a clear consensus against inclusion. In any case, even if there were an ill-informed consensus to include a crude and sensationalist wording, it would still be removed for violating WP:BLP and if editors persisted could well see their editing privileges removed. WCM_email 07:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe to think I am indeed capable of changing my mind -- on occasion! -- I think on this occasion my position has been fairly consistent. That is, that the use of "child" (per the primary sources of the suit and the applicable statue, and several perfectly reliable secondary sources, notwithstanding repeated assertions to the contrary) is clearly not a BLP vio, and hence that we should take the tone of this discussion down a notch or twelve. But that it isn't the optimal wording either, especially in the context of a necessarily brief mention in the lead section. (I think the earlier context given that she was allegedly trafficked as a 17yo makes it clearer that she wasn't some much younger age at the time of that alleged assaults, than it does that she wasn't a little older, but arguably it could be misinterpreted in either case.) Hence my repeated attempts to find different text that better serves clarity for the reader and a good encyclopedic tone, and my on-going frustration that it keeps going back to 'anything but the status quo and we'll get free reverts on sight!!' yelling. TBH I was a little surprised to see that there's already been a BLPN posting on this, as I on the point of doing that myself. (Keep doing it until? But maybe I'll let them recuperate at least until we've moved on from the same discussion section about the same sentence...)

Shorter version: we should be making as clear as possible, as concisely and neutrally as possible, both her actual age at the time of the alleged offences, and that there's legal significance to that age as it relates to PA. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would "adolescent" or "minor", be acceptable? GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't, that would be weasel wording, the article at present is perfectly adequate. WCM_email 07:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is "weaselly" about "minor"? We already use -- and source -- it in the body. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If we use that sort of wording, we should have an close-at-hand source for the direct application and significance of the CVA in that section. IIRC we don't at present. I do think we should make clear what the plaintiff's age (or status as a minor in the jurisdiction, or something to that effect) was at the times of the alleged assault. If the current wording is seeking to do this, by stating her age when trafficked, it really doesn't make it at all clear. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had in mind the CNN source linked above, which states "Giuffre brought her case under the Child Victims Act, a state law enacted in New York in 2019 which expanded the statute of limitations in child sex abuse cases to give survivors more opportunities to seek justice." Here are some others that mention the CVA in relation to Andrew. Wallnot (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems viable. The contrary case might be it could be too much detail for the lead. Just as long as it makes concisely clear her age (or legal age-based status) at the of the alleged incidents, given that'd a pertinent and notable aspect, and we don't want to be appearing to 'bury the lede' in that respect. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ONUS there's no consensus to change the current wording. As I've said earlier just because the Act uses the word "child" in its title there's no need to sensationalise the actuality of the accusation as it is applied to Andrew and to do so is a clear BLP violation. The current wording seems just fine to reflect the substantive accusation by a 17 year old. And just to reconfirm, Fred Zepelin's misrepresentation of this thread is a nonsense and in any case as WCM says the idiosyncratic Walnot/Fred Zepelin view, as a BLP violation, is revertible as a BLP violation regardless of consensus. I don't intend to comment further. DeCausa (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this discussion is to determine whether the proposed language is in fact a BLP violation... if it is adequately supported by sources, as the specific language I have proposed is, there is no BLP violation. The sentence I drafted is in fact a near paraphrase of the language found in multiple reliable sources, indicating that the lawsuit was brought under the CVA.

You seem to be suggesting that editors can unilaterally delete material they believe to be a BLP violation, even if there is a consensus that the material is not a BLP violation. Also, I am not Fred Zepelin—I proposed this compromise as a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. Drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Wallnot (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I just pointed out, the current paragraph doesn't make that clear at all. Rather, we have "alleged that, as a 17-year-old, she was sex-trafficked" at the start of the paragraph, and "civil lawsuit over sexual assault" right at the end of it. Unless one reads between the lines to assume those are referring to the same timeframe -- or already knows the gist of the story, and thinks 'oh yeah, Epstein-stuff, I get the picture here.' We need more clarity about the timeline, and mention of the legal significance of the local minority statutes would likely be helpful here. The precise wording I'm fairly agnostic on, as regards any possible trench warfare about 'keep the word "child" out of the lead/put it back in'. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make the point again, the use of allegations of child sex abuse is not supported by reliable sources. It may be mentioned by media sources but they are not reliable sources for an allegation of this nature. It would be a WP:BLP violation to put it back in and yes editors can remove a WP:BLP violation and admins would take a very dim view of editors editing warring to put one back. I find it ironic that one of two editors displaying a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude complains of someone speaking plainly and simply stating where we are. This confrontational approach to editing needs to stop. WCM_email 14:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: I am complaining of BATTLEGROUND attitudes because you and DeCausa are responding to a point I did not make. Look at the language I proposed again: 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.

You've also provided zero basis for your claim that [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)[reply]

WP:AGF It could simply be that in the walls of text and talk page comments heavy on personal attacks that your comment was simply missed, rather than doubling down and accusing others of the same BATTLEGROUND mentality you have displayed. Further, I not only explained why media sources can be unreliable but in a post solicited from WP:BLPN other editors have also done so. I strongly suggest you go back and read them again, I see no further point in a constantly repeating circular discussion.

As to your content proposal I have to say I consider it makes an inferrence that is not suitable for the lede, the reference to the particular act doesn't add anything and seems contrived to once again imply that Giuffre was under age. It is getting to that point again where I feel that further replies may also fall on deaf ears. WCM_email 09:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sorry, my mistake for not clarifying; the proposed addition was to Section 4.3, Civil lawsuit, rather than the lede, where I agree it would be out of place. 2. There is no inference; the language I proposed adding—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)[reply]

I refer you to my previous answer. WCM_email 07:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1, I was unclear on the context of that suggested change too (or indeed, if no one else was). Might it better to split that out as a separate discussion? This one is becoming more and more heated and entrenched, and I fear actual or proposed tweaks elsewhere might get lost in the 'can't change the lead because reasons' loop we're being driven around. (I assume there's not a global objection to mentioning the CVA and PA together, given that the separate article on the case indeed juxtaposes the two prominently.) On your other points I largely agree. But if we do wish to tweak the lead wording, on the lines of your suggestion 2, we might allude to the age threshold of the CVA without stating its name in full, lest we be unpacking more worms than we can recontain in the space reasonably available. On 3, I don't think @Zaereth: was quite saying 'news sources are not reliable for this purpose', so much as urging caution, and that we use the 'higher-end' sources where available. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:WALLOFTEXT. What's actually being proposed to be changed as of now? I can only spot one current proposal which is to add 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)[reply]

  In the spirit of eating the elephant one bite at a time, I certainly support that change. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, no. Let's wrap this up. Is that's all that's proposed? DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd oppose unless her age and the alleged circumstances explained. Without context the inference implied by the name of the act is that it was a paedophile case. WCM_email 08:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @DeCausa, if you're going to on the one hand object to "walls of text" and to seek to focus on a particular issue, then it seems unhelpful to on the other then shmoosh discussion of that issue back in with said "wall", and play the "nothing's agreed until it's all agreed" card. And no, it's not; see said WoT. But let's do this in feasibly sized increments. This change has merits that stand (or not) on their own. @WCM, yes I agree, in that context it needs more framing. As we're not trying to do it all in a sentence, as we would if this were the lead, we can do so at any required length. In particular we should make clear her age at the time of alleged offences, and that the age threshold of the CVA isn't the then or indeed subsequent AoC in NY, but 18. It's not especially unusual for "child" to formally refer to anyone below the age of majority. But that's variable and complex enough, never mind the issue of who is or isn't idiomatically a "child", to spell out very carefully and explicitly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone who is below the age of majority can be referred to as a child but at the age of 17 its fairly unlikely, what would matter in legal terms would be the age of consent. This was 13 (which I admit I was surprised by) in NY and the Virgin Islands but has since been revised upward, it was 16 in the UK. That said I think we're pretty much agreeing that if this is to be included, it requires it to be suitably framed. WCM_email 07:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So far we seem to be batting 1000 on inclusion (I think?) and on framing (thus far). I agree that it would be pretty unusual to out-of-context refer to a 17yo as a 'child' (the obvious use case being if one wanted to greatly annoy them). But it's not especially uncommon for 0-18 to be a legal, administrative, medical, etc category. And there is clearly some legal significance here to the CVA, even though it doesn't create any new criminal offences or classes of civil liability. What about something on the lines of the following: 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)[reply]

  I'm good with that. WCM_email 10:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The lawsuit is covered in Virginia Giuffre v. Prince Andrew. Dimadick (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the weight placed on this topic and the following Controversies and other incidents section with its paragraph after paragraph of tabloid news is far too great. —  AjaxSmack  00:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About 2⁄3 of the current article is given over to allegations of sexual abuse and other controversies and incidents. With an eye on WP:WEIGHT and in line with WP:SPINOFF, I propose a split of these two sections into Prince Andrew sexual assault allegations and Prince Andrew controversies and other incidents. The issues are encyclopedically important enough to cover, but are currently out of balance in this article, and should either be spun off or severely edited. —  AjaxSmack  00:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Can you clarify and contextualise what you mean by 'listed as'? And why do you think similar terms should necessarily be used? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, Harry & Meghan all use the HRH bit. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely rather they have all 'have' "the HRH" bit, but none of them 'choose to' -- or in effect, are allowed to -- use it? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew like Harry,Meghan still retain "HRH" but do not use themH.K.H45 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

To be honest, it does affect my perception of him as a character. I'm not saying anyone who has ever been accused of something is necessarily a liar, but someone who has been specifically accused of 'fraud' is usually not trustworthy. Per your suggestion, I moved the info from footnote to prose. Keivan.f^Talk 07:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's just a subsidiary title not usually used anywhere: "Duke of York thanks public as Princess Eugenie sheds a tear reading tributes outside Balmoral", The Scotsman, 10 Sept. 2022, published in Edinburgh.[3] But, in any event, it's already mentioned with a comment that on "rare occasions" it's used in Scotland. DeCausa (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't think that's better. Perhaps "was made possible by the passage of New York's Child Victims Act.." etc. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is no longer a prince. 110.20.75.13 (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: He was stripped of many of his military titles and no longer uses the style "royal highness," but remains a prince; reliable sources continue to refer to him as "Prince Andrew." Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not sure I see the advantage of changing it to svg in this situation. Could you explain why that would be better? Tristario (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

actually I think svg does look better, so I'll change it to that Tristario (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree. Further source: [5]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of any crowd reaction, his attendance at the ceremony needs to be noted. Is the Royal seating plan, in the Abbey, in the public domain? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to include every time that Prince Andrew gets booed throughout this biography? Biographies aren't generally for trivial things like this, see WP:BLP Tristario (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard Andrew being booed throughout this biography, but it might be an option in Wikipedia:Spoken articles? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this person still officially the Duke of York? 2A01:CB15:821A:1D00:E0EA:E7CD:CD46:22CF (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your quote in brackets is from The Daily Telegraph, and has not been retracted by the paper. The article content is therefore supported by the citation. I can find no evidence that the report is based on a statement from a convicted fraudster. The report is based on a statement from someone who is being sued in civil court for fraud. There is no outcome as yet, nor will there be any conviction as the case is a civil one not a criminal one. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done PianoDan (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is going on at the Commons concerning the copyright status of several coats of arms that are in use on pages related to British royalty. Please feel free to share your comments and input at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Coat of arms of Queen Camilla.svg. Thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 18:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's 'The Duke of York' not Duke of York. He isn't divorced from a Princess of the blood from whom he derives his title. He's a gross human, but his Wikipedia article should still describe him accurately 2603:6081:64F0:82D0:E40B:CE9A:D1F7:AEDF (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already included at Prince Andrew, Duke of York#Titles and styles. DrKay (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the name of this article? Likewise we have Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh, who is not called "The Duke of Edinburgh". Wikipedia tends to favour brevity in royal names. So we also have Charles III and not "Charles III, the King of the United Kingdom". But I'm not sure what you mean about "a Princess of the blood from whom he derives his title"; his ex-wife is Sarah, Duchess of York, who still derives her title from him? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]