Jump to content

Talk:Huw Edwards/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Earlier career

What did he do before May 1999? They don't just stick you on the Six O'Clock News without some previous experience and exposure to the viewing public. 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.17.141 (talk)

He had previously been Chief Political Correspondent on News 24 before starting on the revamped Six O'Clock News. His Newswatch profile has it all here. It is also already mentioned within the article. Hope that helps. Wikiwoohoo 20:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming of Flower

On September 26th, 2012, Edwards had a rose named in his honour at the North Wales Horticultural Show. "Huw's News" was officially named during a small ceremony, with a token flower given to Edwards as a gift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.231.65 (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Huw knew that a rose is a thorn by any other name. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Children

The BBC said, in 2003, that Edwards was married with five children. This was backed up by Edwards himself, in 2012, in an interview with the Daily Mail: [1]. Should this simple fact be added? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Martin, Now if our friend Hilly Billy were to catch sight of this, he would not say, "Natch". — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Maaan, that sheet? Those snitchers unravel the gravel, baby; stone dribblers, y'dig? Now lay it on me, gates; are ya in the know? or is you a solid bringer-downer? --Hillbillyholiday talk
There are loads of sources that confirm five children, including his Who's who entry, but also [2], [3], and [4].
User:Iridescent suggests that Who's Who cannot be trusted. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Haha yes, he’d probably have a “blue fit”. But folks over at WP:BLPN have suggested that “the Mail could be used for a basic fact of this sort”. I’d suggest using only the BBC source. I mean they ought to know, didn’t they!? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it should be added to the article. I would say the Cardiff Uni bio would be the best source to use. Daicaregos (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Dai, I agree. Please add it. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done. Daicaregos (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Songs of Praise awkwardness

Without wishing to offend anyone, can I please have a quick moan about a sentence in the "Other programming and appearances" subsection? This reads: "In January 2008, he introduced a special Songs of Praise programme in celebration of the organ, both playing the instrument and demonstrating some of the stops to be found on it." I find the bit starting "both" very difficult - I will argue this at length (and risk boring you to death) if you like but my basic point is it's clunky and overegged. If he played it then by definition he more or less demonstrated a minimum of ONE stop and probably more - the way we have it written at the moment seems to oddly isolate this one aspect. It's like saying he played the horn and also demonstrated how those funny buttons can change the note. Or something. I didn't see the programme in question so I am not sure I can fix it well (but could try!) and I'd be interested if someone else fancied a go. But YMMV and you may think it sounds fine! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

PS On a much more important note, I think it's a major failing that this article doesn't use the word "cuddly" anywhere ... what is Wikipedia coming to, etc ... :) DBaK (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure. Obviously playing a piece usually involves quite a few stops. Playing a long piece may involve changing between sets of stops. But it’s still possible to demonstrate the effect of stops on single notes or chords, without playing any piece of music. Stops are really not like the buttons on a horn. Just my view. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmmmmm thanks Martin and I'm not sure either! The above actually is a real tribute to my inability to express myself clearly and to choose an analogy which won't get off the runway before it leaves the slipway and then fruits without rooting. So please forget the horn! My stupid. But my point - such as it is - is that there seems something odd and wordy about how we have it at the moment. It sounds like there were two quite separate activities, BOTH of which Cuddly Huw did - (1) the Playing Of The Instrument and (2) the Demonstrating of The Stops and I somehow doubt that this is what really happened - it sounds a bit over-specified to me. Or like someone is really thinking of the organ-playing prowess of a certain fictional Librarian. It somehow gets my teeth on edge when I read its current version, However, it is probably time for me to stfu now, as I gather it is charmingly termed, and have a nice cuppa instead. I won't continue with this unless I can magically come up with a better wording - which is unlikely ... cheers DBaK (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a charming rural idiom as I understand it. Maybe you need a snack with that cuppa? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC) p.s. there's a clip here, but not published by BBC.

Bias

What about the allegations of bias? (2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:C848:EEF:A546:1E86 (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC))

Got any reliable sources discussing it that we can use as references? I did a very quick Google for "Huw Edwards", bias and found nothing of any substance at all so it is not even clear what allegation you are talking about. If it is just the usual low grade whingeing about the BBC that the tabloids use to fill space on a wet Wednesday then it won't go in but if there is something genuinely substantial then it could do. What is there? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per snowball clause (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


Huw Edwards (journalist) → Huw Edwards – Huw Edwards The Journalist and Newsreader is surely the first thing that comes to mind at the hearing of Huw Edwards. Andysmith248 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

No immediate objections, although two of the others are also still living. I must say that "journalist" may not necessarily be the best way of describing a newsreader in any case There's a bit of a mixture at Category:BBC newsreaders and journalists. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Birth name

FreeBMD here confirms that his birth name was just Huw, mother's name Protheroe. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Name pronuciation

Where does the first listed pronunciation of his name come from? On TV, I've only heard his name pronounced /hju/, i.e. like the word "hue" (or the name "Hugh"). But the first pronunciation listed is /hiːʊ/, which something like "HEE-oo". If this is maybe how his name is pronounced in Welsh, I think it would be good to specify. — trlkly 23:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

In Wales his name is pronounced like the word 'hue' with a Welsh accent. In England it is pronounced 'hue' if you're saying it with an English accent.
Seems like a bit of a pedantic post to me, given that the name is ultimately Germanic in origin meaning 'mind' (eg. Dutch cognate 'geheugen' meaning memory).
89.241.31.109 (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Welsh spelling is transparently phonemic, and yes, /hiːʊ/ is how "Huw" is pronounced in Welsh. Specifying language might be a good idea but it's a bit tricky because, as the above comment notes, the Welsh pronunciation is used in Welsh English as well as Welsh itself. So it wouldn't be accurate to say only one of the pronunciations is English, because they're both used in English.
Ultimately the two pronunciations aren't all that distinct though so I'm not sure how much it matters. [j] and [i] are the same sound, phonetically speaking, but one symbol is used for when it's a consonant sound, the other for when it's a vowel. So the difference between the two is marginal, particularly in fluent speech when the distinction between /uː/ and /ʊ/ is likely to be reduced. --Cyllel (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
As "Huw" is a Welsh name, the only correct pronunciation is the Welsh one - the first one in this example: https://forvo.com/word/huw/ There's no "y" (/hju/) sound like there is in English, only a short "i" sound. "Hue" isn't pronounced the same way by English and Welsh speakers. Welsh speakers pronounce it as they do "Huw" and English speakers pronounce it as they do "Hugh". Deb (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Defamation guidance

In response to a now-deleted comment asking a topical question about this page:

There's not a universal procedure for when it's ok to publish something - there's just liability under British law. If a Wikipedia editor defames someone by bringing them into disrepute, they become the legally responsible party for creating & spreading that negative public sentiment. Perhaps Wikipedia could also be held responsible in a grander sense - eg negligence in removing defamatory content - but that's less clear cut. The editor is taking the primary risk.

Given the evolving & perilous nature of making public comment about Huw at the moment, I'd avoid publishing negative content unless you have a good grasp of British media law basics. The boundaries of what constitutes defamation aren't just made up by instinct - there's clear case law and guiding principles for what triggers legal & financial liability for publicly causing harm to an individual's reputation. The easiest & most effective defence to a defamation suit is (verifiable, provable) truth - clearcut evidence that the facts underpinning the negative publicity are accurate. So if public resources & media aren't presenting you as an editor with concrete evidence of Huw's relevance to a negative subject, you're exposing yourself by creating that link in the public sphere.

The fact that the allegations originated somewhere else - and you're merely repeating them - isn't an accepted defence. You can still be held liable for promulgating the defamatory remarks. Bottom line, if/when a negative subject is confirmed as relevant to Huw, it'll enter his profile organically. Until then, anyone making the link prematurely needs to understand & be wary of the legal minefield they're entering. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:EC19:B200:7536:298E:9EC8:434 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation. I definitely had no intention of making public any negative information about Huw. I'm just curious as to when it will happen on Wikipedia. But you have also answered this. 2607:FEA8:935A:3A00:4436:573E:6371:3255 (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

BBC News at Five

In the external links of the article is a table where it states he hosts BBC News at Five 2006–present. BBC News at Five discontinued in 2020, so it should state "2006-2020". In its place was the UK Government's daily press conference on COVID, but I'm not sure if this would be classed as its succession. Perhaps just state "Show Ended". 2607:FEA8:935A:3A00:4436:573E:6371:3255 (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the years as requested. Not sure how to get "show ended" in that final column, so I'll leave that for someone else. Station1 (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Centre of explicit photo row

Named by his wife 86.178.1.22 (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@86.178.1.22
cite: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66159469?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=64aedb76c3502b6dfaaff7d1%26Huw%20Edwards%20named%20as%20presenter%20by%20his%20wife%262023-07-12T16%3A57%3A48.663Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:71f9c445-8409-466c-9d95-7ca83dce498d&pinned_post_asset_id=64aedb76c3502b6dfaaff7d1&pinned_post_type=share 185.222.21.158 (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Resignation

Huw Edwards has not resigned from the BBC as at 1815 on 12/07/23. This correction confirmed by UK's Sky News

https://news.sky.com/story/huw-edwardss-wife-names-him-as-bbc-presenter-accused-of-paying-teen-for-explicit-pictures-report-12917735 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.148.123.246 (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Lock this article

I think this article should be lock for editors because I think some folk will cross the line.Earl of Sutton Coldfield (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's already extend-protected. I don't think it needs to go further than that unless we see established users disrupting the article. — Czello (music) 18:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Creepy messages

The article details claims of inappropriate behaviour by three young people. There was a fourth, now aged 22. This SkyNews source says:

"In separate claims, the newspaper published messages the presenter allegedly sent to a 17-year-old after initiating a conversation on Instagram in October 2018."
"The paper said the messages contained love heart emojis and kisses."
"The youth, now aged 22, told The Sun "looking back now it does seem creepy because he was messaging me when I was still at school".

The Sky report also says this: "The BBC also said on Wednesday that Edwards was facing further allegations of "inappropriate behaviour" towards colleagues." 86.187.224.83 (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

2023 suspension

The article doesn't state when he was suspended. Presumably sometime between the lunchtime news on 5 July and the One Show the following evening (6 July). Dajanes (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I suspect no one really knows. According to this timeline, he was informed on 6 July and it was agreed (between whom isn't clear) that he "shouldn't appear on air", and on 9 July the BBC said it had suspended someone. Reading between the lines, I'd interpret this as towards the later stages on that timeline. I see we don't include the date of the suspension statement, but we probably should. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Should any of the recent "news" even be listed on this article? Be careful with WP:BLP. There is no evidence of criminal activity. So this article covers of events that didn't happen. Probably better to just remove the whole thing. "The Sun gets its knickers in a twist and gets sued" belongs on the Sun article not here. Anna (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We are not directly citing The Sun though we are citing RSs like Sky News, The Guardian, and the BBC which is fine. Enoumous amount of RS coverage shows we should include the allegations per WP:PUBLICFIGURE.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Given the substantive coverage this has been getting in the more-trustworthy media, we can hardly ignore it. Which isn't to say we shouldn't show some sensitivity over the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
WP is not a newspaper and is not bound to act like one, reporting on "scandal". "Enormous amount of RS coverage" doesn't mean WP has to follow their lead either. There are currently three paragraphs in the WP article on something that didn't happen. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP. Anna (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
We clearly need to include something about the issue, both in the lead and the body. It is amply covered by RS, and germane to a discussion about this public figure. I do agree the coverage is excessive at present though, it's occupying a large percentage of the article, violating WP:RECENTISM and WP:BALANCE. I'd reduce from three paragraphs to one.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

'Serious gender discrimination'

This thread refers to commentary over alleged gender discrimination regarding BBC salaries, some six years ago. It has nothing to do with more recent events. And see WP:NOTFORUM.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is there any factual evidence for this, or is it just opinion pieces? If there is no solid evidence, this may be libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.226.227 (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

he's not actually done anything illegal from what i can gather. 2A02:C7E:5437:5400:1888:872A:1913:43CD (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
You are commenting on a post made in 2018, referring to something which had no connection with current issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps it was about this charming story? Also published by that wonderful newspaper The Sun. 86.187.229.179 (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

If this comment was about alleged gender discrimination regarding BBC salaries in 2017, the current source from The Guardian, used to support the claim in the article, "His salary was reduced voluntarily in the light of gender pay differences found within the BBC", ought to at least mention Edwards? Currently it does not. Thanks. 86.187.229.179 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

A better source might be this one, which actually names him alongside five others. 86.187.230.134 (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Does the most read articles feature undermine [WP:BLP] protections?

Despite best efforts to keep this article clear of defamatory information before there were reliable sources available, it was Wikipedia where I first learned Huw was "the bbc presenter", nearly a full day before the news broke for real: This was listed as the top read article, and it doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. Probably this is irrelevant and nothing can or should be done... Altho I could almost see an argument to exclude BLPs from the top read list, out of an abundance of caution. You could almost make an argument that, when people are looking to determine the identity of an "unnamed bbc presenter", listing that person as the most read article is implicitly defamatory.

Idk, just some random thoughts. The fact remains that I learned this information _from_ Wikipedia, when it was still not considered public information, and existing BLP protections did nothing to prevent that. 8.9.82.32 (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

To put my point more pithily:
When the news is reporting on a scandal involving an "unnamed BBC presenter", having a public and highly visible list on Wikipedia (even if algorithmically generated) which names exactly one (1) BBC presenter... That's sketchy territory. 😬 8.9.82.32 (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
We cannot stop other people from speculating on other sites about that BBC presenter, which then resulted in a spike in views for the said presenter on Wikipedia. We had nothing in article text about it until it was announced so Wiki is not in the wrong.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Not technically in the wrong per Wikipedia policy, but as 8.9.82.32 says, one can put two and two together. Still, I'm not sure what the alternative would be - never show article views? GnocchiFan (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

2023 suspension - two police forces

Should the part played by the South Wales Police be included? Currently only the Metropolitan Police are mentioned. 86.187.173.18 (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know what they actually did? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2023

The lede to this article currently says: "following allegations in The Sun that he had paid a 17-year-old for sexually explicit photos". These allegations, to the extent that they were made (rather than heavily insinuated), do not appear to be substantiated. I'm not sure that this currently developing news story belongs in the lede at all, when a much better written section under the subheading "2023 Suspension" covers it more accurately. I would remove the poorly worded section in the lede entirely, in favour of this better written, and more up-to-date section. The current summary in the introduction may even be libellous, and I think its removal is one of urgency.

I'm really not sure sure this story belonds in the lede at all at this stage, while it is ongoing and murky. Neverthess, as a second option, if it is felt that the lede must include it, then perhaps just "In July 2023, Edwards was suspended by the BBC following allegations published in The Sun Newspaper", and leave the details of those allegations to be covered in its relevant subsection. Better to be vague than misleading.

Thanks,

--Tomatoswoop (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It does belong in the lead section due to the significant amount of news coverage. You are right, though, that The Sun appears to have backtracked on the key allegation that Edwards paid a 17-year-old for sexually explicit pictures. We now know that The Sun never had evidence that would have proved this, and that the police had already looked at the matter in April 2023 and decided that Edwards had done nothing illegal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not The Sun backtracking, it's their competition suggesting this in an attempt to defend their own second hand relaying of the 3rd-party allegations given to, and therefore reported by, The Sun. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Maybe we should make all newspapers into unreliable sources then - and then we wouldn't be including it in the article, would we? Deb (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I wholly agree. The Sun started off by very strongly implying there was evidence of criminality. Once the lawyer for the young person got involved, it quickly said "oh no, we didn't mean that at all". 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Edwards already being investigated?

In this article The Guardian says: "One of the most extraordinary claims, made by multiple individuals in the newsroom, is that BBC journalists including Victoria Derbyshire had been “taking initial soundings” in relation to claims against Edwards in the days before the Sun released its original story." It's also reported in The Telegraph here. 86.187.170.249 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

So there's some story there, but as much of it is about internal conflicts at the BBC, it might be a better fit for the BBC controversies article than here. OTOH, an editor just recently delinked that article, arguing it should only be a summary while this article should contain more details. I don't have strong opinions either way, so I'll step aside and let others discuss. Xan747 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2023 (2)

To add the statement of No Criminality issued by South Wales Police in regard to the allegations against Huw Edwards from their investigation in April 2023

https://news.sky.com/story/no-criminal-offence-in-allegations-against-bbc-presenter-says-met-police-12919368 https://metro.co.uk/2023/07/12/second-police-force-issue-statement-about-huw-edwards-19118225/ Knowledgework69 (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Xan747 (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The Sky source seems to imply that the report of the original alleged possible criminal offence might have occurred in South Wales. Is that correct? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
To my understanding, the individuals who initially raised the allegations against Edwards did so to South Wales Police, in April, Prior to raising it to the BBC and then Subsequently it was referred to the Metropolitan Police. Both police forces have indicated that no criminal offence has occurred Knowledgework69 (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
From the Gruan on 14 July: On Friday the Sun condemned “sanctimonious haters of tabloids” who have pushed back on its reporting, pointing to subsequent investigations into Edwards’s conduct by BBC News reporters. The newspaper said its original story was clearly in the public interest because it gave a “voice to two worried parents” who approached it to protect their child, after being unhappy with initial responses from South Wales police and the BBC.[5] Xan747 (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah, so not only saying "the BBC doesn't care", but also "you can't trust the police"? 86.187.168.33 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

What about adding this: "South Wales Police said, "Information was initially received by the force in April 2023 regarding the welfare of an adult. No criminality was identified... Following recent events, further enquiries have been carried out and officers have spoken to a number of parties to establish whether any criminal allegations are being made. At this time, there is no evidence that any criminal offences have been committed. There are no ongoing enquiries being carried out by South Wales Police."" with that SkyNews article as a source? I guess they should also be mentioned in the lead section. 86.187.168.33 (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That's an awfully big chunk to quote directly, but it does belong in the section. I'll work on that now.
As is usually the case there are questions about who said what to whom and when. To that end I found two timeline articles published on the 12th from South Wales Guardian and Sky News that may help other editors better organize the details in this section. Xan747 (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The SWG just says this, under 12 July: "The Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police say that no criminal offence has been committed by Mr Edwards and neither force would currently be taking any further action in relation to the allegations." Thanks.. 86.187.168.33 (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done I basically did that, plus added the fact that SWP were the first police force contacted about the matter. Xan747 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. Should the SWP also be mentioned in the lead section? 86.187.168.33 (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Could be, but IRL calls. Will come back to it later. Xan747 (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Xan747 (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Metropolitan Police needs to be preceded by "the", South Wales Police less so but could also be for consistency. Thanks. 86.187.165.128 (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't sure the convention. Added in front of both. Xan747 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks. 86.187.165.128 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

TalkTV interview

"The Guardian understands that an interview with the couple has been recorded and is being edited for broadcast on TalkTV, the sister station of the Sun. Sources said the parents have been offered a significant sum for this." - [6] Many other sources available. So obviously no question that Rupert Murdoch is out to destroy the BBC. 86.187.165.128 (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

We should wait until the piece airs before printing anything--if it even exists. Then if multiple RS say it was an obvious attempt to destroy the BBC we can run that. Xan747 (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. The Daily Mail says it might be Piers Morgan interviewing, not that we can quote that anyway: [7] 86.187.165.128 (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, I mentioned this over at the TalkTV (British TV channel) before this discussion. If editors think it's undue for that article too, please let me know on that article's talk page. Thanks. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit

I disagree with this edit by User:DeFacto. It frames the story as some kind of battle between The Sun and The Guardian and suggests that it was only the latter newspaper that made such an interpretation of the story. Many other newspapers also reported what The Sun had said and made the same interpretation. I think this article should report what The Sun actually said. 86.187.237.6 (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that phrasing it as a "rival news outlet" is totally wrong here, and have removed that I would personally also just like to include what the Sun said ("The Guardian said that The Sun said X" is really weird wording IMO), I understand the need for third-party references, as The Sun is (rightly) a deprecated source on this website. However, I think the sourcing is good enough to say that this is what the Sun was saying on X date, without actually using the article in question. GnocchiFan (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Sun allegations

The lead currently says "following allegations in The Sun that he had paid a 17-year-old for sexually explicit photos". Yet if no criminal offence was committed, this cannot be true. And the Sun is now claiming that it never suggested any criminal offence had taken place. So did the Sun ever say, precisely that "he had paid a 17-year-old for sexually explicit photos" ? Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I imagine numerous lawyers are considering that question right now. — The Anome (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The initial report in The Sun here said "The well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images." This implied that the images were obtained while the person was 17. This turned out to be a lie. 86.187.173.18 (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
It's all a bit confusing. If The Sun had rock solid evidence that Edwards had done something illegal, they could have gone to the police straight away. On Monday 10 July "the young person's step father is quoted as saying police had told him that whatever had happened "wasn't illegal"[8] and the police may have been saying this as far back as April. Media reports hyped up the angle that Edwards might have committed an offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978, but The Sun has now backtracked and accepted that none of this was illegal. The Sun claimed that this started when the person was 17, but the rest is less clear.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the "relationship" may have begun when the person was 17, but it seems there was never any exchange of "sordid images" at that age. News UK journalist Rod Liddle claimed on BBC's Newsnight that the paper felt it was "in the public interest" to run the story as it highlighted that the BBC had not learned any lessons from the Savile scandal about taking complaints seriously. Here are some detailed questions for the paper that the BBC has set out: [9]. The Independent has set out some "cracks in The Sun’s story. 86.187.168.186 (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • There is a good article about this here. An average person reading the original allegations in The Sun might easily have got the impression that Edwards had paid for explicit material when the person was 17 years old. The police said "Information was initially received by the force in April 2023 regarding the welfare of an adult. No criminality was identified. Following recent events, further enquiries have been carried out and officers have spoken to a number of parties to establish whether any criminal allegations are being made. At this time, there is no evidence that any criminal offences have been committed."[10] So to put it bluntly, The Sun never had rock solid evidence that Edwards had done anything illegal, but worded the initial allegations in a way that suggested that he had.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    Wow. That article says this:
    "A story on the paper's website published the same day [Sunday 9th] was headlined "BBC SEX PROBE Top BBC star who 'paid child for sex pictures' could be charged by cops and face years in prison, expert says".
    "The piece reported comments made by former chief crown prosecutor Nazir Afzal to The Times - which is owned by the same company as The Sun - that the presenter could potentially be charged with sexual exploitation under the Sexual Offences Act 2003."
    The Sun is a disgusting piece of tabloid filth that should be prosecuted. Hey, thank heavens for press freedom, which protects the interests of the country's vulnerable children? 86.187.234.130 (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
It seems like we are blaming The Sun for our interpretation, via 3rd-party reports, of their reporting. Several times our articles had to be corrected after Wiki editors had misrepresented what the media was saying happened. As far as I can tell, The Sun never said in its own voice that anything illegal had taken place. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Gosh, yes. Poor old Sun, eh. That's a perfectly calm and well-balanced website headline, isn't it. They were just relying on "an expert" to say what "could potentially happen. They hardly have "their own voice", do they. lol 86.187.239.10 (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The Sun is dancing on the head of a pin here. They went to considerable trouble to suggest that the story *might* have involved illegal conduct with a 17-year-old, and are now trying to extricate themselves from the controversy this has caused, after it emerged that they never had any evidence that would have backed this up.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
That's not how I see it. I think other media who jealously picked up on The Sun's story not wanting to miss out, have got egg on their faces and are now blaming The Sun for doing what they are best known for doing.
Clarifying for their readers that there was a line, that if crossed could have serious consequences was all they did. Misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what they were saying was not done by them, as far as I can see, if was done by others, including some Wiki editors. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
And what of the so-called teenage "victim" their self? Who actually told the paper on Friday it was all "rubbish"? Not worth reporting that bit?? 86.187.233.10 (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
They did report that, and challenged it. Which source supports that they were told that on Friday? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
"In their letter sent on Monday to the BBC, the lawyer says the young person sent a message on WhatsApp to the paper on Friday evening denying the claims, saying the statement their mother made to the newspaper was "totally wrong and there was no truth to it". The lawyer also claims in the letter that the mother and the young person are estranged. This was something else that the paper did not think worth mentioning, or did not bother to find out? 86.187.233.10 (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
(BTW, did you spot the quote marks in the headline on that BBC News article?) They are giving (also without endorsing it) another person's account, whether it is accurate, or not, we cannot say. The Sun said on Monday that they found that out from the BBC's report of a letter sent to the BBC.[11] -- DeFacto (talk). 17:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
They said this: "via a legal letter given to the BBC, the youngster insisted nothing "unlawful” or “inappropriate” had happened between them and the presenter - who the youngster did not deny knowing, or receiving cash from." They did not claim that's how they "found out" the claims were all rubbish. At least that letter is real evidence. As for the original claims, everything was hearsay - the Sun had no real evidence of anything, that might have been used in a court. 86.187.167.149 (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
We don't know that that "the claims were all rubbish", but we do know that The Sun weren't endorsing them, just reporting, in their own style, stuff that they say was given to them in "sworn affidavits". -- DeFacto (talk). 11:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
We know that the person who was alleged to be the "victim" said they were rubbish. Or did the BBC also just invent that? Do you think the detail about "sworn affidavits" should be added to the article? How many RS sources so you have for that claim? I don't know much about them, and the degree of legal weight they hold, unless they are requested or provided as part of an ongoing criminal trial. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
You say We know that the person who was alleged to be the "victim" said they were rubbish. Well we don't know that for sure, all we know is that BBC News said a lawyer told them that. As for RSes supporting that The Sun said that stuff was given to them in "sworn affidavits", take your pick: BBC News, The Guardian, i. That seems to have been overlooked by our Wiki editors though. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and a RS source reporting that The Sun said that the stuff was given to them in "sworn affidavits" doesn't make it any more true, does it. We don't know they were give any sworn affidavits for sure, because no court has ever asked to see them. I'm not even sure the police would be that interested in them, would they? 86.187.173.57 (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
We don't yet know the truth in any of this, but surely we should not be taking sides like this, and giving an unbalanced account of what is known. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
If "taking sides" means assuming The Sun is unreliable, that seems to be unavoidable. 86.187.173.57 (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
No, it does not mean that, it means avoiding OR and waiting until we know all the facts of the matter. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
No one in their right mind can trust The Sun to necessarily present any "facts". 86.187.168.33 (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
We never cite them though, so that's irrelevant. It is a fact though that we do not know all the facts of the matter, and it is not our role to speculate. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Regardless of the fact that we are not permitted to quote The Sun anywhere, you seem to have been at pains, throughout this entire thread, to tell us we must not misrepresent it. Where exactly do you think this has happened? 86.187.168.33 (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
On this talkpage and in the first sentence of the section in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
All news media report what other people allege. How can we blame them if readers choose to read more into it than is actually written? The headline uses quote marks to differentiate between their own voice and that of the individual whom they are reporting on. Gossip and scandal is their bread and butter - it is what their customers subscribe to. We don't have to make it worse by misrepresenting what they say, and then suggesting it was their fault we misrepresented them. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
You are assuming that Sun readers know what quote marks signify?? 86.187.233.10 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
But that's irrelevant. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The Sun was relying on an account from the person's mother and stepfather. They may have seen evidence that Edwards had behaved inappropriately, but the implied allegations of illegal conduct didn't stand up, and the parents had already gone to the police in April and been told that nothing was illegal by the time that the story was published in July. As this article points out, The Sun is trying to blame other news outlets for what happened.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The Sun didn't imply anything, they just reported what they said the mother/stepfather told them and described the line, that if crossed, could mean criminality. Interpreting that any other way is, imho, misrepresenting it. That article you link to is nothing more than sour grapes from a competitor, The Guardian, themselves masters of a similar style of journalism which is often misrepresented too. That Guardian article doesn't point anything out, it is simply their interpretation and opinion which you are now interpreting in that way. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
We're starting to repeat ourselves; the question at the start of the thread was whether The Sun alleged that Edwards had behaved in an illegal way with a 17-year-old. The Sun said no, other media outlets said yes. Quote from BBC News: "The initial allegations, first reported by the Sun online on Friday evening, were that the news presenter paid a young person for sexually explicit photos, beginning when they were 17. In later versions of the story, the Sun changed the wording of this allegation to "it is understood contact between the two started when the youngster was 17". This seems to follow from a straightforward interpretation of what The Sun said in the original story, and The Sun has backtracked, in the view of other media outlets.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
You are conflating "alleged" with "the reporting of allegations". -- DeFacto (talk). 18:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Comparing The Sun's Friday article with their Tuesday article suggests to me that BBC News are mischief-making in that quote. It's not a case of the wording being changed, they are two different articles written by different journalists about different aspects of the story and allegations. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah yes, great editorial oversight. Just two different journalists. An easy mistake. And you accuse the BBC of "mischief-making"?! Do you think the BBC invented the other complaints just to show how easy it would have been to blackmail Edwards? It's very surprising to see a Wikipedia editor defending a publication here that most other editors view as a pathetic comic. We even get a warning that The Sun is an unreliable source when we post links on this Talk page! 86.187.167.149 (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It seems weird to me that we're even considering quoting anything printed in The Sun. Deb (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Jane Martinson in The Guardian here reminds us about the Samantha Fox days. She says: "Even after the young person rubbished the claims, the Sun – a paper that used 16-year-old page 3 models – stood by its reporting. It cites the concerns of the parents about the money funding drug use; the allegation that the young person was 17 when the arrangement began, and therefore could not consent; and the failure of the BBC to speak to the parents. A spokesperson said: “It’s now for the BBC to properly investigate.”" It didn't really look like The Sun was actually helping the BBC to "properly investigate". It looked more like it was holding the BBC to ransom just to make a point about its lax safeguarding procedures through extreme embarrassment. And the result? Edwards is now hospitalised. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It's not because it was in The Sun though, it's because the rest of the news media followed The Sun's lead and published it too. If the other media hadn't snapped it up, it wouldn't be here. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Eh? What mistake? BBC News has a clear COI in this, and their output should surely be discounted. I'm not defending a publication, I'm showing how what had been published is being misread/misrepresented.
However, that is quite usual, but the surprising thing is how it seems to be acceptable and unquestioned for content harvested from the so-called 'reliable sources', yet when it's from The Sun it is condemned. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, wholly condemned. Rightly so. Apologies, I thought the sarcasm in my "obvious mistake" was obvious. I was being sarcastic. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's because it's from The Sun. This isn't a difficult concept. Why do you believe the Sun can be considered a reliable source? Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@Black Kite, you seem to have misunderstood my point. My point is that when we use a third-party source to support what another source has said (e.g. a BBC News report for what The Sun said or a Guardian report for what BBC News said) then we should be as carful about the verifiability of what we write on what The Sun said as we are about the verifiability of what we write on what BBC News said.
As I said previously, I'm concerned how we find it acceptable to misrepresent what The Sun said. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Where in the article do you feel we have misrepresented what The Sun said? Thanks. 86.187.168.33 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I was talking more about on this talkpage discussion than in the article, but there's an example in the article too, in the first sentence of the section. I've read, and re-read The Sun article referred to, and cannot see it saying they alleged that that happened. All I can see is mention of "sleazy messages", and not payments for anything, at that stage. That is a misrepresentation of the source's (The Guardian) misrepresentation. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This Talk page is supposed to exist only to help improve the article? How would you propose to re-write that text? I see The Sun's headline there is "I blame BBC man for giving money for drugs to my child that could kill them, says mum of teen amid sex pics." Not sure what "teen amid sex pics" actually means, but never mind. 86.187.168.33 (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Stick to robustly supported facts, which given the COIs that exist between rival news outlets, may require us to check that what the 'reliable' sources are saying is actually true. And steer clear of any temptation to editorialise or use loaded terms reflecting our own personal bias against The Sun. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the lovely advice. What's your suggested re-write? 86.187.169.105 (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
  • So, to sum up The Sun never actually accused Edwards of the criminal act in its own voice, it merely used quotes and "this person says..." to make it appear to pretty much everyone reading it (and let's face it, I doubt if many Sun readers are semantically analysing anything here) that Edwards had committed a criminal act. And then when it turned out he hadn't, the newspaper has been tying itself in knots to try to claim that it never did what all of its readers think it did. No wonder it's deprecated. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Yes. So it's a good job the statement in the lead section has been trimmed. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    That's how all the news media operates isn't it, the so-called 'reliable sources' as well as those deemed unreliable by a minority of active Wiki editors? They get leaks, statements, accusations, allegations, etc. given to them by various aggrieved parties, and write a report relaying it. They obviously can't resist to pass the gossip on, but cannot report the allegations in their own voice, so make heavy use of quotes and phrases like "a source told us", "a well connected colleague was told", "an insider told us", "an employee complained", etc. Then, depending on their agenda, political alliance and that of the accused, wrap it in vague and ambiguous journalese language, use loaded words to influence their readers' perception of what is alleged, and liberally pepper it with editorialisation. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Yes agreed, some news media. That's a pretty good summary of why The Sun as a "newspaper" is a load of junk. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Not just The Sun. Most UK News media use journalists, and that is how they are trained to sell newspapers. Perhaps it's time to be honest about this, and deprecate them all. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'm not prepared to lump "most UK media" in with The Sun. But I'd agree The Sun and The Daily Mail are a good place to start. Would you also ban use of the BBC? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Have you ever read The Guardian, or the Mirror, or the Independent, or BBC News, or The Telegraph?
    BBC News have a massive COI in this story, so should not be considered reliable for it, at all. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Have they also got form for repeatedly publishing false stories that they knew at the time to be false? That's why the others are deprecated. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    I've got no reason to assume that any of them publish any less "stories that they knew at the time to be false" than The Sun does. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Ah, so The Sun (and the Mail) just get caught by IPSO doing it more often. How careless of them, you'd think they would have learnt by now. Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    If you say so. I don't know the stats - do you have a link to them? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Here's a clue. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    I don't see any clues there about repeated publication of false stories. All I see there are clues about how ridiculously indignant some people apparently get when they don't agree with how their favourite 'celebrity' has been characterised in an opinion piece. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    You could always read our articles on the Sun and the Mail, of course, to work out why they're deprecated and the others aren't. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    We're not talking about why they've been deprecated though, we're talking about your assertion that they've got form for repeatedly publishing false stories that they knew at the time to be false. And after you said they get caught by IPSO doing it more often I asked if you had links to the stats you were alluding too, but none turned up.
    I did a few searches for IPSO stats, and it seems that The Guardian, the Financial Times and the Independent do not think it is a good idea, so have refused to be regulated by it. Are you using another source of objective stats that shows how the mainstream news media compare when it comes to the accuracy of their reporting? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    DeFacto, do you believe this report by the Press Gazette? 86.187.168.33 (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Should I have a reason not too? It's based on subjective opinions though, and not on the objective measurements I was hoping to see based on the findings of IPSO. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Do the "objective measurements" that you were hoping to see, based on the findings of IPSO, actually exist? 86.187.168.33 (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    I assumed so when we were told above that The Sun get caught by IPSO publishing stories that they knew at the time to be false more often than other news outlets. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Yes. Perhaps they only found out they were false later e.g. after the weekend. 86.187.169.105 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    We can report "The BBC said..." in the same way as "The Sun said..." with RS. That's not exactly going to be difficult here. Having said that, I'd be very surprised if BBC News knowingly published anything that was false, considering what the result would be if it were reported... Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
    Currently we cite BBC News three times in the article, and The Sun is never cited. Unbelievably two attacks on the piece in The Sun are supported with BBC News cites and another is used to support what was "reported by The Sun" through BBC News's edititorialised version of it.
    As none of the news outlets knows the full truth of the events yet, what's the difference between BBC News reporting what one party told them and The Sun reporting what another party told them? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
We already know that the police looked at this twice, in April and July 2023, and said on both occasions that Edwards had not done anything illegal. This overrides any claim and counterclaim in the media, and WP:BLPCRIME and WP:LIBEL come into play here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, at this stage it looks like The Sun has trashed Edwards' career and put him in hospital. Any libel lawyers worth their salt might well be queuing up to take on his case. His projected loss of earnings won't exactly be negligible. In the mean time, Wikipedia has to be rather careful about what it says. I'm a bit surprised we haven't had any input from Jumbo Wales himself on this one. But then he generally only comments if he's asked, doesn't he? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is suggesting that we assert anything in Wiki's voice that is not supported by an RS or contravene any Wiki policies. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that other RS sources, which attack that piece in The Sun, could very easily be found and I would have no objection to them being used instead of the BBC sources. And in answer to the unsigned question above, yes I have often read The Guardian, and The Daily Mirror, and The Independent, and BBC News, and The Daily Telegraph, thanks. They are actually used on Wikipedia as WP:RS sources quite often, I believe. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
My question wasn't unsigned when I posted it, but the first paragraph became separated from the second and its sig as a result of this edit, but I have now fixed it.
I'm glad you've read them. Did you notice how they all use the same journalistic tricks to weight stories to the journalist's personal, or their publication's corporate leanings? Further, have you ever noticed how often Wiki editors insist that it's okay to use similar loaded vocabulary and blatant editorialisation in Wiki's articles because that's the language used in the 'reliable' source? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm somewhat unconvinced that The Financial Times, for example, uses "the same journalistic tricks" as The Sun. And I really don't think further discussion of this point will add any value to this article. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • There's some crude WP:OR opinions about BBC News in this thread epitomised by this: BBC News have a massive COI in this story, so should not be considered reliable for it, at all.. But here's an RS that provides something more substantive. DeCausa (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I too would be very interested to know if IPSO really are collating statistics regarding which newspapers are publishing stories they already knew to be false, and if those statistics damn The Sun in particular. As for this idea we should consult Wikipedia's encyclopedia articles to learn why Wikipedia editors distrust certain newspapers, that could either be very good advice, or an inadvertent admission that Wikipedia articles reflect the biases of its editors. The fact that the person giving that advice is unashamedly wearing their own bias, and has potentially already shown a propensity to lie when it suits their bias, one could be forgiven for thinking it's the latter not the former. GrandBlasterMash (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Add concern that Edwards was allegedly funding a crack cocaine habit

Please add ", who were concerned the payments were helping fund their child's crack cocaine addiction." after the text "The allegations were said to have been made by the mother and stepfather of the young person" (from the already provided source).

This provides additional context to the public interest angle still being asserted by The Sun, since at present this page wrongly gives the impression the only thing anyone was concerned about was the potential for this to have allegedly been a case of child sexual abuse, and that perhaps this has gone away now and was maybe never there to begin with.

The unique way the BBC is funded means there would be manifest public interest in knowing whether such allegations are being handled properly (while still under current interpretations of privacy law meaning the names should not be reported). There at least seems to be wide agreement, even from the BBC, that it wasn't handled properly. GrandBlasterMash (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This needs to be talked out a bit first. Xan747 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Why? Since this is merely an expansion of what is already included in the given source, an expansion that prevents Wikipedia from potentially misrepresentating the parents (who from that source and all the others showed, were always quite clear they were more concerned about their child's health rather than whatever he may or may not have been doing as a consenting adult), what needs to be discussed, precisely?
Why? Because when I got here to answer the request, there was already pushback, and I don't automatically fulfill edit requests that are likely to be controversial or already challenged, no matter how well-sourced. Xan747 (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC) signed after the fact
We have no credible source for anyone actually having a crack cocaine addiction. We don't report allegations as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
What on Earth are you taking about. My addition is part of the sentence that begins "The allegations....". It is an expansion of that allegation. No fact is being asserted or implied. GrandBlasterMash (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The wording you proposed reads like an assertion of fact to me. Anyway, given the doubts that have arisen about the remainder of the allegations, I see no particular reason to emphasise unverifiable claims here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
We've gone as far as reporting that the alleged victim's parents made the initial reports. I don't have a particular problem putting the allegation of crack-cocaine use in their voice. But I also understand and appreciate your arguments, so I'm still on the fence but with a leaning. Xan747 (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand their argument at all. I don't know why you even considered it relevant frankly. My addition is clearly, unequivocally, an expansion of the parental allegations. No fact is asserted or implied. By leaving it out, this article wrongly implies the images were their sole concern, the sole reason for the Sun's story. The provided source, and all others as far as I recall, make it quite clear their chief concern was a fear their child was in imminent danger of a drugs overdose if the payments were not stopped immediately. And regardless of whether that's all true, half true or a compete lie, they are reported allegations and the Sun's public interest angle is and probably always was in the fact the BBC mishandled the complaint. GrandBlasterMash (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Right. So the reason I could argue against inclusion of the drug use angle are policies at WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPCRIME, which states For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Parental allegations their child has used illegal drugs is clearly information suggesting commission of a crime. Xan747 (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, this how the Sun puts it now....."From the outset, we have reported a story about two very concerned and frustrated parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and payments from him that fuelled the drug habit of a young person."....“We reported that the parents had already been to the police who said that they couldn’t help."...“The parents then made a complaint to the BBC which was not acted upon.” Source (The Independent) [12]. GrandBlasterMash (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
It runs into problems with WP:THESUN. Other news sources have not seen any of the hard evidence that The Sun used to publish this story, and allegations relating to criminal activity are a matter for the police.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Even if and when Piers Morgan appears with the "tell all" harrowing parental interview, this will still raise awkward WP:BLP questions. It seems the mother is estranged from the "victim" and the relationship with the step-father is unclear. Unless the victim actually gives their side of the story, or at least gives their permission for the parents to speak on their behalf, what actual "evidence" will be presented for a "crack cocaine habit"? If lawyers for Edwards decided to bring a case against The Sun or against the parents, how much of what the parents said might be considered "sub judice"? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and we need to be very careful we are not publishing something libellous. Deb (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
AND it doesn't really matter what the money was used for, unless there's some evidence that he was giving it to them with the intention of them using it to buy cocaine - which seems extremely unlikely. When (for example) Rupert Murdoch makes donations to the Conservative Party, would we really be interested in what they spend it on? Deb (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Alter Newsnight sentence

Please change "BBC journalists including Newsnight presenter Victoria Derbyshire were examining accusations of inappropriate behaviour involving Edwards before The Sun reported on the allegations." to "On Wednesday 13 July Newsnight reported that two current and one former junior BBC employees had received inappropriate messages from Edwards, but they had not filed a complaint in case it adversely affected their careers.

This is from the same source but more accurately records this was a separate incident, and further adds to the public interest element, namely the deficiency of the BBC's complaints system. GrandBlasterMash (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, why would a fellow presenter like Derbyshire be directly investigating Edwards? Is this how HR works at the BBC? Wasn't it just that she made Edward's name, in connection with this investigation, public by mistake? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Our article follows what the source (the Daily Telegraph) says. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2023

In the lead where it states: On 12 July 2023, he was identified by his wife as the BBC presenter being investigated for allegedly paying a 17 year old for sexually explicit photos.

There should be a sentence added: The alleged victim has denied this through her lawyer, and claims to be estranged from her mother who made the initial claims [1]. The Met Police and South Wales Police have said they are not pursuing action[2]. Oh no no no no no (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  • To add to this, although it may need some discussion, the police have said that there was no illegality involved. That indicates that the person who was allegedly paid for photos was not under the age of 18 at the time. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree with both points – I know what the papers are saying, but BLP applies here and we should err on the side of caution. We should also make it clear that this was over a number of years and wasn't a one-off payment in the lead. Perhaps wording such as "paying for explicit images from a younger male, beginning when he was a teenager" (someone can probably phrase this better than me). The teenage aspect doesn't seem in doubt, from what I can see. –GnocchiFan (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC) Struck through as inaccurate —GnocchiFan (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi GnocchiFan. What's your source for "younger male"? Thanks. 86.187.224.83 (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
"Young(er) person" might be better wording, per the sources already given. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@Catfish Jim and the soapdish, what's your source for this assertion: the police have said that there was no illegality involved. That indicates that the person who was allegedly paid for photos was not under the age of 18 at the time? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, been away for a couple of days. The Sun had originally quoted the stepfather of the person in question where he said he had reported things to the police and they said they were not able to proceed with any case as there was no illegality involved. This has since been confirmed by various outlets. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Which outlets? Does the article need to be modified to reflect this? Xan747 (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@Catfish Jim and the soapdish, yes I get that, but how does that imply "that the person who was allegedly paid for photos was not under the age of 18 at the time"? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Because that would be illegal. Basic logic, but sure... synth. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@Catfish Jim and the soapdish, fair enough, if that's the only criteria that decides if paying for photos is illegal. But I wonder then why The Guardian say that it is only a "potentially" criminal offence. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@DeFacto said:
> I wonder then why
If you have RS answering that question then please provide it. Xan747 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@Xan747, I'm not sure that I follow you, I thought what I said was quite clear. We have a reliable source throwing doubt on the assertion that I was questioning above. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@DeFacto, Here's what the Sun said: A TOP BBC star is off air while allegations he paid a teenager for sexual pictures are being investigated. The well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images.
Here's what our article says in the 2023 suspension section On 7 July 2023, allegations were first reported by The Sun that a "well known" name at the BBC had been paying a then-17-year-old tens of thousands of pounds for sexually-explicit photographs.
The only thing I might change the article text is to make clear that the payments occurred over a period of time; as it's written now it sounds like a one-time payment was made when the alleged victim was 17 in exchange for illicit photos, which we know to be incorrect. We don't know when the first pictures were sent, and we don't say so. We might infer no photos were sent until the alleged victim was 18, but that would be synth because afaik no RS say that either.
In sum, I see no problem with how the article is written other than some updates and tidying up. Since you apparently think otherwise, please suggest a specific edit, with RS to back it up. Xan747 (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@Xan747, I'm not sure what point you're addressing here, but it doesn't seem to be the one that I was addressing in my post that you seem to be replying to. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll take that to mean you don't have a problem with anything written in the article. Xan747 (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
DeFacto is right. It may just mean that no evidence was presented to the police, for whatever reason. The young person(s) may have been the owner(s) of that evidence and decided not to present it. The more telling question is why The Sun did not publish the initial young person's statement, which they made on Friday, that no illegal activity had taken place. The Sun changed their story on Monday to just say that "contact had begun" when the young person was still 17. 86.187.224.83 (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66159357
  2. ^ https://news.sky.com/story/no-criminal-offence-in-allegations-against-bbc-presenter-says-met-police-12919368

 Partly done: Edit: I added "the mother and the young person are estranged" since that is reliably sourced, and pertinent. Xan747 (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The article currently states: On 10 July, the lawyer of the alleged victim told the BBC that "nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in The Sun newspaper are rubbish".[40] [...] The Sun stated: "It is understood contact between the two started when the youngster was 17 years old", but that reporting did not mention whether explicit photos were exchanged when the alleged victim was 17 years old.[47]

Since the police did drop the investigation, it's reasonable to conclude that the explicit photos weren't taken until after the alleged victim turned 18, but it would be synth to actually put that in the article without an RS explicitly saying so. Edit: therefore I took no action per that part of the discussion. Xan747 (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of cleanup templates

@Black Kite, I thought cleanup templates should be left in place until the matter has been resolved - not reverted without a resolution. They are purely temporary tags that something is disputed and needs some sort of action, and when the problem is resolved they will be removed. As they are never intended to be permanent part of the article content, surely they are not within the scope of WP:BRD. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  • I can't see that they don't fall under it, but regardless "Tags must be accompanied by either a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it or, for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter". This didn't happen, so it's not unreasonable to remove it. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Black Kite, there was no 'reason' parameter presented for that template, so I gave a detailed explanation for adding them in my edit summary. And as a discussion was already underway before the tags were removed, I thought it quite reasonable, and indeed very helpful, especially give the removers edit summary, to replace them. Perhaps you could put them back now, so readers and other editors are aware of the concern. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of BBC coverage

I've added the following to the BBC controversies article and was wondering if editors thought it was worth mentioning here?

The BBC's coverage of events was considered excessive by some. Claire Enders, a media analyst, told The New York Times: "What we had was a kangaroo court, which destroyed someone who did not commit a crime", saying that the BBC "got drawn into a trap set by The Sun".[1] Alan Rusbridger, the former editor of The Guardian, also told the NYT that "The BBC lost its sense of proportion" in its coverage of the story, adding: "It gets into this mind-set where it feels it must make up for sluggishness in handling issues by showing a clean pair of hands in covering them."[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Landler, Mark (13 July 2023). "The BBC Aired Saturation Coverage of Anchor's Behavior. Was It Too Much?". The New York Times. Retrieved 20 July 2023.

GnocchiFan (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards "no" as that's very much about the BBC as a whole as opposed to Edwards. But of course the nature of that coverage might turn out to have had an impact on Edwards, or the various investigations, enquiries and other commentary, so it's not wholly irrelevant by any stretch. I think I'd prefer to leave it out until/unless there's a firmer link between the nature of that coverage and its impact on Edwards himself. WaggersTALK 12:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Also a no. I think this article should only include the most limited and pertinent aspects of this, so at this point purely what was alleged, that what was alleged has been de facto retracted, there were other allegations, Edwards is in hospital. Apache287 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Huw_Edwards/Archive_1&oldid=1238010671"