Talk:Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster/Archives/2013

Military secrets, prostitutes and controversy

the comment and link was removed because the source was not reliable. the original source has been removed from the newspapers website because it was libellous and all other credible sources have removed the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.98.91 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

Hold your horses there. On February 15th, 2009 the News of the World published further allegations that the Duke on one occasion spent £17,500 for a night with a call girl.

Fully story here

Quoting from the text:

The [24-year-old madam] spilled the beans shortly after being handed a six-month jail sentence in the US for money laundering, conspiracy and conspiring to promote prostitution.

Her ex-boyfriend Mark Brener, 63—who ran the escort agency— was this month sentenced to two and a half years for conspiracy to commit a prostitution offence and conspiracy to launder money.

The couple’s vice ring, the Emperors Club VIP escort agency, was exposed after New York Governor Eliot Spitzer— ranked by Suwal as ‘Client 9’ on the club’s exclusive list—was forced to resign over his fling with call girl Ashley Dupré.

The UK client list is believed to have included an ex-Cabinet member, a number of MPs, a senior judge, a prime-time TV idol, an A-list movie star, two well-known footballers, a rock star and billionaire Arab princes.

So it seems that it's all there in black and white...it will also come out in the wash in the next few days.

So I've put the section back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.73.111 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference is no longer there, when you click the link it says "page does not exist". Now, again as I have mentioned above, the story was just allegation, there was no proof. The News of the World has taken the story down becuase they know that they are potentially facing legal action from the Dukes lawyers. A story is not taken down just for fun, there has to be a reason for the removal of the link.

I would like to draw your attention to the following which is wriiten in the Biographies of living persons. In the sources section it reads:

"Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims.

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link.

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

And then in the Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material section it reads:

"Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability."

Now pay particular attention to unsourced articles. As mentioned before, the News of the World article has been removed, so the controversy section regarding the News of the World is UNSOURCED so should be removed. Furthermore, pay even more attention to the word "libel", this on its own is perhaps the biggest threat that publishing these allegations will lead to.

Subsequently, I am removing the section again and will be happy to set up a discussion on the Biographies of living persons page.

Typical you have a rich, powerful man who uses whores, drugs and probably a lot else that makes a mockery of their perceived social status and then you get the apologists (who don't have the power, the wealth or the kudos) who defend the 'greater goods' actions. Well just for the record to those of you who seem to think that we still live in a world where you must tip your hat to the social elite as they leave the factory gate, the Duke of Westminster CANNOT SUE WIKIPEDIA ON THE GROUNDS OF DEFAMATION because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that defends against any legal actions on the grounds:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:

1. The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
2. The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must "treat" the defendant "as the publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
3. The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.

Take note: Fuzzy Zoeller tried to sue Wikipedia but failed on these grounds even though what was said, in his case, was probably libellous.

So here are news stories written from statements made in open court (thus protecting them anyway from action on the grounds of qualified privilege) that suggest the current Duke of Westminster has been a serial user of call girls/prostitutes/whores etc: China Daily.net, News.com.au,The Sun and New York Times.

Or are reputable news sites no longer acceptable to the 'cap doffers'?

Either way the story goes back...

The additions that User 86.166.68.221 included in this article constitute defamation. He/She has written an entirely fictional text sourced from third party sources (where the originals have in fact been removed. )

User 86.166.68.221has sourced articles which are replicas of original articles which were removed because they were clearly entirely unsubstantiated.

Furthermore, user 86.166.68.221’s text is entirely incorrect even with respect to the articles he himself sourced.

1. No court documents are mentioned linking the duke to the agency.

2. the duke was never identified as Client 6

3. None of the allegations against the duke were ever confirmed

I have searched for the original story which ran these allegations and simply can’t find it. The story has clearly been removed following legal action because it was baseless.

I totally agree with user Cameron Scott and Londonfella – both of whom have removed the link. As Scott said: “a dead link to the news of the screws does not cut it on a BLP article. Find better sources.”

I would also be willing to discuss this further on the Biographies of Living People’s page - as Londonfella had previously suggested. In fact Londonfella has also written above an unbiggotted and convincing argument for the deletion of the section above.

Personal feelings should be kept separate when editing an article. This is a clear breach of Wiki rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.204.51.230 (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't make this story up because you obviously don't understand legal matters. The revelations were mentioned in open court in the US and are therefore protected by privilege (this law counts for any court in the world - not just in the UK). Secondly the sources are perfectly valid as they were written in good faith, without prejudice and printed contemporaneously (Sic March 2008).

The Sun source remains 'alive' so there is one 'British' reference. I read on the Huffington Post that His Grace took out an injunction through his lawyers banning the publication of his name within the boundaries of the UK. That's all.

How can you deny anything? When all my sources are active, published on respectable news organization websites and factually similar in tone and subject. There are no "dead link to the news of the screws" from what I wrote. As for being third party reports, I think you'll find the Bible has been copied and reprinted many times. Do you question its integrity?

Furthermore Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act defends against any legal actions on the grounds:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:

1. The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
2. The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must "treat" the defendant "as the publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
3. The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.

So just to be clear only the content provider is therefore liable for the defamatory comments not the provider or user of an interactive computer service = Wikipedia.

it's no good trying to hide behind sophistry and misdirection (even the odd ad hominem) but the bottom line is the Duke of Westminster despite all his money, all his opportunities, all his prestige and power, payed to have sex with women. He only got caught when the vice ring he was using got busted. A lie always remains the truth until exposed. So chin up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.129.85 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added some info on the prostitution scandal as it would be ridiculous not to even mention it. Yes, they are allegations, but it is TRUE that allegations were made and that he resigned from the MoD, so I see no problem in adding this info, even if in the end they are only allegations and turn out not to be true. This is history and it happened and who are we Wikipedia to censor history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.88.109.87 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the section added on 21 Dec because what user 200.88.2109.87 wrote is not factual and therefore should not be included on the page – this has also been written above by several other users. The last time this was removed User Cameron Scott wrote: Cameron Scott (talk | contribs) (8,690 bytes) (→Call-girl controversy: every single source is a call-back to either "alleged" or "it was claimed last year in the news of the world" - get better sources or this article will be locked) again we have the same sources. The allegations were retracted from all reputable news sources because it was libellous. the sources that were included by user 200.88.109.87, once again, are just repeats of a Daily Mail article which was retracted because it was libellous. the china news link does not work and says the “page does not exist”. The Sun newspaper is writing about an allegation which was unfounded. All reputable news sources have removed any mention of the story. I understand that this user wants to include something that he/she found on the internet but it has to be true and in this case I cannot see any facts to support the paragraph written, especially that the Duke resigned from his position with the MoD because of the allegations. i cant find any other source to back this up. from what i can see the two incidents were unrelated.the paragraph is misleading/untrue and the source is a gossip website!! For these reasons I have removed this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.49.24 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Asterix-style protest?

Although the reference used does support the claim that the protest was "Asterix-style", it does not explain what that means. I can only assume it is a reference to the French Asterix comic books, I am likely not alone in the readership of this article in not being fluent enough in this comic book series to immediately understand the meaning.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Eyebrows

This guy has ridiculously large eyebrows. I think this should be mentioned in the article, as I think most people will miss this feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.78.193 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1565316/Paris-revolts-against-Duke-of-Westminster.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Yoenit (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Poor sourcing

I removed a section with poor sourcing. Apparently a prostitute made a claim against this very famous man (so of course the tabloids printed something about it), and his lawyers pointed out (or claimed, depending on how you look at it) that he wasn't even in the country at the time. I don't see any reason to include it unless we have solid non-tabloid sourcing to show that there was actually something of substance to this. (i.e. not just that the claim was made and the tabloids reported on it, but that it was actually important... was there a crime committed, a divorce over it, etc.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Bollocks, Wales. Did Gerald have his legal people get to you? Seems to me that Wikipedia always acts just a little too quickly when its income streams are threatened! Besides if the allegations are not true, then 1. why has there never been a libel action (Gezza has got the lawyers and the money)? 2. if the paid-for-sex accusations are false then why are links like the one in the The Sun or the respected Huffington Post still functioning? I'll tell you why because the alleged accusation are materially true. Therefore His Grace could never win at trial. Particularly as the Duke quit as the chief of the British TA after it was revealed he had been talking to the women about military matter. Wales if you knew anything about defamation and the law, you would know that the publication is always the defendant. It has to prove the published claims are true, the plaintiff does not have to prove anything. My suspicion that this is just another one of your famous ass-covering is most noticeable when you assert that it was only one prostitute making the claims. This is pretty disingenuous, at best you either know nothing of the man's peccadilloes and his numerous recorded encounters with call girls visiting his properties in London (all recorded by journalists). At worst this is a cover-up using the age-old fallacy of an appeal to authority (sic poor sources, pap!) to get out of it. As for your other spurious reasons regarding its low-quality importance, er....one of Britain's richest and noblest men resorts to the world's oldest profession. Hmmm no hypocrisy there then, of course not, as according to Jimbo. 20:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.99.234 (talk)