Talk:Huw Edwards/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

COI tags on BBC sources

DeFacto has put conflict of interest tags on the BBC News sources in the section about the 2023 suspension. Per WP:RSPBBC BBC News is normally considered to be a reliable source and there doesn't seem to be a huge problem here. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The tags should be removed. Here's another RS with a story about how BBC News has worked on this which ilustrates why the tagging is nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That 'story', from a rival news outlet that 'also' has a clear COI in this matter, should clearly be discarded too. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

How does the Guardian have a COI here? Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite, I'll AGF and take that as a serious question. The Guardian is a rival news outlet to both BBC News and The Sun. It has a vested interest in discrediting them both, but may choose to back one, BBC News perhaps, in attacking the other. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I find it a bit odd that you single out The Guardian for criticism in this particular instance, as that could be applied to using any newspaper/news organisation as a source on anything in a Wikipedia article on a newspaper. GnocchiFan (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@GnocchiFan, I've only mentioned The Guardian because it has been cited in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

So on that basis every news source has a COI. Which is slightly ridiculous, when you think about it. Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite, it is not ridiculous, it is obvious, and needs to be taken into account when the action of a news outlet is being discussed by other news outlets. WP:COISOURCE and WP:BIASED recognise that. A solution may be to contrast content from a cross-section of sources, carefully attributing who is saying what. That way readers will have a chance of cutting through the various editorialisations and loaded language we've seen so far presented as matter of fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

A cross-section of sources that you believe all have a COI? Or are you just talking about sources you aren't keen on? Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite, neither - a cross-section of sources offering the various different interpretations of the same story. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not about the reliability of BBC News as a source, this is about whether, in this instance, they have a conflict of interests in the subject matter they are being used as a source for.

To me it is clear that as:

1. one of their employees is the subject of the article
2. their handling of an alleged complaint relating to one of their employees is part of the story
3. their reporting of the details of the initial allegations made in The Sun varies significantly from that given in other sources (who also have a COI here)

there is a clear case per WP:COISOURCE to be considered here. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. If there is a specific issue with a particular BBC report then bring it here and it can be discussed. But I don't see evidence that it has affected BBC reporting at all (indeed, listening to BBC radio reports at the time they broadcast very regular disclaimers about how the story and the reporting of it were being handled by different arms of the BBC). Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Disagree as well. There is zero evidence that BBC News has not reported this in any way that stops them being an RS on it. If anything, per the Guardian article, the commentary has been how they've treated it like any other story. The soaraway Sun on the other hand... DeCausa (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, it is not a question of whether it is an RS, or not. It is whether they have a COI in this story, and it would seem that they have several. And I'd take anything The Guardian says on this with a pinch of salt, as they too have a COI as a rival of The Sun particularly. They might be supporting BBC News as an ally against The Sun. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

By the same questionable reasoning, the Sun has a CoI when reporting on the BBC. And any news media source has a CoI when reporting on any other. Taken to its 'logical' conclusion, it would be difficult to find uninvolved sources at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. But if we cannot resist to include the drama, we can contrast what the competing news outlets are saying, taking care to attribute each appropriately. That way readers will see how the journalists craft a story, carefully choosing words, to lead readers to take away the meaning they want them to hear. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

No, this is a question of whether BBC News is RS for this story. The only relevance of COI is if it compromises the RS status, otherwise, who cares. I've given an RS showing that the BBC has reported the story neutrally. Where are the RS that say otherwise? They're not there. Unless you can provide them this is just you're own WP:OR that there is an issue with BBC News reporting. DeCausa (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not OR, it's the literal definition of a COI - the organisation has conflicting or incompatible interests. But as the other news outlets also have one of the COIs, that leaves us with no choice (other than to omit this story) but to provide an attributed cross-section of the available conflicting takes on the story. Or are we just going to stick with one version - the one from our preferred 'RS'? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

But only you say this. There's no RS complaining about BBC News coverage. Where is the hue and cry about BBC News lack of independence? Seriously, you need to drop this dead end. DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you not think the BBC has a conflict between defending its public image, reporting all it knows about the story, its duty of care to its employees, and possibly other things too? If not, why hasn't it divulged all that it knows and when it became aware of it? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Chinese wall is a very basic concept. There is never an automatic COI. The RS is very clear that BBC News has reported this independently. Frankly, you're just pushing a personal POV which is becoming disruptive. Either put up some RS support evidencing this supposed BBC News bias or drop this. Do you have RS support for any claim that BBC News reporting has been biased? Yes or no. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

How it tries to manage it is irrelevant - it still has it. Other news outlets have their own agendas too, and may choose to support an ally who is also attacking a rival. This sounds like a tangled web of tactical and selective 'reporting'. Per WP:BIASED, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, so why should we assume that any of the news outlet RSes we use are not biased, especially when reporting on the actions of their rivals? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Where exactly is all this 'ally' stuff coming from? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that it has several different competing interests involved with this story, its journalistic neutrality, its liability to its employee, its status relative to that of its news outlet rivals, etc. How can we say that none of those were being prioritised ahead of accurate and neutral reporting? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

By that logic, to be honest I'm not sure where we're going to find any COI-free sources to describe this topic. Popcornfud (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Popcornfud, do you agree with that logic though? If not, how would you modify it? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's one of those situations where we have to shrug and report what reliable sources say. What other course of action is there to take? We know so-called "reliable sources" are never 100% reliable anyway, and always have their own biases and interests. Should we avoid using Guardian reports on Rupert Murdoch media, as Murdoch is a rival to the Guardian? Etc. Popcornfud (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BIASED we need to consider "the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". However, if we choose to use sources with a COI, robust in-text attribution needs to be used to make it clear to users whose opinions are being stated. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Are BBC News reporters also likely to be the HR department for the BBC when it comes to deciding what should or shouldn't be done with Huw Edwards? No.

Is there anything in the stories that you can evidence as examples of clear bias that goes against the reporting by several other sources that can be explained by Edwards being a BBC employee? No.

At present there is nothing to show that the inclusion of BBC News sources is a COI breach, the reporting itself is factual in nature (not editorial) and typically backed by links to other sources.

So far the only source that was COI is one I removed, which was inclusion of comments by Adam Boulton who is employed as a media commentator by NewsUK (who also own The Sun). Apache287 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

We have other articles that have the same issue, i.e. News International phone hacking scandal, and we've dealt with them perfectly well. I don't think it's an issue at all - or at least certainly not a COI one. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite, how is it dealt with there then? Are the opinions weighted by prevalence in the sources, or what? And is there any case there of the public record being misrepresented in the article because an 'RS' has editorialised it that way? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

All we know so far is that a) The BBC suspended Edwards and b) the police said that none of it was illegal. There is a gap because we have no detailed comments from the BBC or Edwards on why this brouhaha occurred. Until there is some more detail, it is flailing around to accuse media sources of bias and conflict of interest.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

should parts of this article be in the past tense?

should parts of the article refering to his reporting at the bbc be in the past tense? it seems that he won't return beyond reasonable doubt Schlimple (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that they should be in the past tense for now. I know people are saying that he was only suspended and that he might come back – okay, then we can change the tense if he does come back to work at the BBC, however (un)likely that may be. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Edwards hasn't been sacked or resigned from the BBC, so it is jumping the gun to say that he will never return. But I see the point that he isn't doing anything at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh totally. I mean, I think it's unlikely that he will return, but it would be firm WP:CRYSTAL territory to say that. But I don't think using the past tense does that. As you say, he isn't doing anything at the moment. GnocchiFan (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I would vote to keep it present-tense for now. Officially he still is a BBC presenter, he's just suspended. That doesn't mean he's not a BBC presenter. was implies a degree of finality that is not yet certain or earned. Popcornfud (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

We only really use past tense for people who have died. If someone has changed role, we'd still use present tense but refer to them as a "former newsreader" / "former presenter" etc. But as others have said, Edwards has not been sacked or resigned so his role remains current until he or the BBC announce otherwise. WaggersTALK 15:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

(See MOS:BLPTENSE for the guidance on this) WaggersTALK 15:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Until we reliably hear that he will no longer be doing those things how can we put them in the past tense? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This is to get things the wrong way around. On Wikipedia, we can only state that which we can verify with reliable sources. Currently, the lead has "He presents BBC News at Ten" (present tense). Given that Edwards isn't presenting New at Ten then it is going to be impossibly unlikely that a reliable source would say that Edwards is presenting News at Ten in September 2023 (but those who doubt could try and find such a source if they want). In fact reliable sources like the Guardian have reported that senior BBC journalists doubt that he will ever return to his former role (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/sep/02/no-one-expects-him-back-what-now-for-bbc-huw-edwards) - although in accordance with WP:V - the onus for verifiability rests with those who want to add information not take it out. In sum, it's verifiably the case that Edwards "presented BBC News at Ten" it's not verifiable (or even true) that Edwards "presents BBC News at Ten". Greenshed (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Guardian article was published after most of the discussion above. At the time of the discussion there was nothing from any source indicating whether or not he was likely to return to work and we were right to be cautious about making changes.

Now that we do have a published source stating it's unlikely he'll return we can absolutely use that. The wording needs to be done carefully though - he is still employed by the BBC as their main news anchor (present tense), albeit suspended. My preference would be for the lead to say "he began presenting BBC News at Ten in (whatever year it was) but is currently suspended from the role" or something along those lines. Just tell it as it is but assume nothing. WaggersTALK 08:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian source quotes unnamed people in the BBC newsroom saying that they don't think he will come back. It's true, but it is just office gossip. If I were going down to the betting shop and placing a bet on this, I would also say that it is unlikely that he will present News at Ten again. But we need confirmation from the BBC or Edwards, and neither has made any comment on this since July.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

With respect, we don't need to know anything to remove a statement that cannot be verified (see WP:V). Specifically, the erroneous claim in the lead that "He presents BBC News at Ten" should not be in the article. Greenshed (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead as it stands "Until his suspension in July 2023, he was the lead presenter of BBC News at Ten, the flagship evening news programme of the BBC." is easy to verify and does the job nicely. The Career section no longer says he is the presenter, just when he started presenting. I think the article's fine as it (now) is. WaggersTALK 10:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

(Kudos to @Ianmacm for making those changes) WaggersTALK 10:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a story in i (newspaper) today which says that Edwards is set to leave the BBC.[1]. "A senior newsroom insider said: "The review is in and unfortunately there isn’t a path back for Huw. There is no expectation he will return." This isn't much further forward on previous stories quoting newsroom staff saying that he is unlikely to return, but it does provide some new information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I will add the information that, when the BBC's apology for the original handling of the complaint was made last week, we did have a BBC newsreader (Nicky Schiller) that, on one occasion, referred to Mr Edwards as "the former BBC newsreader", although I do not know if this was intentional or was a slip of the tongue etc. Of course I cannot post a link to video of the news channel that shows this to order to provide verification to readers here, as these things get broadcast/on I-Player for two hours and then disappear from the public domain and I am not aware of anyone keeping a copy and posting it online anywhere. However, you have my eye-witness assurance as to what I heard (may or may not have said "BBC" but did say "former" and "newsreader" - wish I had written it down contemporaneously - and of course it came from BBC News that ought to know and be reliable as to whether one of its own journalists is former or not).

I now also wonder how many years we are going to wait of Edwards absence before Wikipedia says former newsreader? Potentially, if the BBC never ever issues any details as to what happens with the complaint and Edwards remains suspended indefinitely, do we have to await an 'official' confirmation as the only verification before we change no matter how long he remains off air and never returns? It is now 8 months - at some point, eventually, it will become more untenable to say he is going to return, if he doesn't come back in the meantime but are we waiting for what seems like a slim chance of this happening whilst at the moment being biased towards the status quo and not neutral point of view at all because we only have him as a newsreader as the start point, if this was possibly appointed as a newsreader but not yet announced and awaiting official verification we wouldn't be talking about removing him from being called one here, instead we would be refusing to put him as a newsreader until it was verified that this is what he is or is going to be. The only reason he is still claimed to be a newsreader despite not doing any newsreading for months and months is because of historical reason that makes us biased in maintaining this status quo position and arguably already after it is becoming increasingly untenable. aspaa (talk) 17:38, 04 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to wait for an official statement from the BBC, or from Edwards himself, don't we? Yes, it might take months more, or even years. Perhaps we need to put "newsreader (currently suspended)" or something like that? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It is clear that Edwards is now in a weird limbo. He isn't exactly fired by the BBC and he isn't exactly employed either. He is apparently still suspended on full pay, and this may be a very long period of gardening leave. Much as it seems logical to say "former newsreader" in the article as none of the newsroom staff expect him to return, he still hasn't officially left the BBC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there really any reason to be so desperate to add "former" to our articles? This came up recently at BLPN in relation to another article and I don't quite understand it. I'm fairly sure it's a standard applied fairly inconsistency. I mean sure with cases like Michael Caine and Michael J. Fox where someone has formally announced a retirement or something we can report it. But otherwise it seems unnecessary. E.g. Phillip Schofield doesn't say former but we do mention he himself saying his career is over and frankly that seems fine to me. Edit: For clarity I'm only referring to general careers like newsreader, presenter, actor etc. In the case of of specific jobs etc, we do have to handle it somehow. In other words, I do agree saying someone presents something which they haven't done for months and may never do again is more problematic. Although even in these cases, I think in most cases in the article on the person, "former" still isn't necessary. Instead we should handle these the same way we normally handle such things like Tony Blair and say they served in the role from X to Y or some variant of that. Of course deciding when someone is no longer in that role can be complicated in cases like since if there has not been any specific announcement finding sources on it may be difficult. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

Huw Edwards is listed as The Bach Choir's VP here but he was removed from this post in May 2024 (as evidenced by his removal from their website), so the article should read:

'On 5 July 2019, Edwards was awarded a fellowship of the Royal Welsh College of Music & Drama.[57] He was a vice-president of The Bach Choir from 2022-2024'. Joebachchoir (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The website is likely to fluctuate a fair bit and it s primary source. Are there any media statements or press articles we can cite regarding his removal? I'm struggling to find one WaggersTALK 12:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It was changed in this edit but it is primary sourcing/original research which isn't ideal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

A more reliable source may be their annual return to the Charity Commission if there's no third party reporting we can use. Their latest return, submitted in May 2024, still lists Edwards as a VP, but that's for the year ending 31 July 2023 - https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/258287/accounts-and-annual-returns. WaggersTALK 12:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I've cut the mention altogether, it's fairly trivial anyway.--Launchballer 13:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Marriage

There are several reports in tabloid sources that Edwards and his wife have separated and are living apart, but I couldn't find anything in WP:RS to support this. Ef80 (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

What makes The Independent and The Times not reliable?--Launchballer 13:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing at all, I just didn't find the refs there after a short search. Both are paywalled of course, so not ideal. --Ef80 (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing Archive.ph can't handle.[2][3]--Launchballer 13:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that it is hearsay and is traced back to The Sun. The Independent says "A source told The Sun: “They separated quite a long time ago but have not announced it publicly." If you look at all of the sources, they are simply repeating this piece of hearsay from The Sun. There is no direct confirmation from Edwards or Flind that they have separated, so I removed it from the infobox per WP:BLP.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's the right move. It all stems from the address given in court documents being different from their usual address, but they could have just moved house in that time. Until there's an official announcement or something in a genuinely reliable source, we have to tread carefully. WaggersTALK 14:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

ungrammatical and unclear sentence

The first sentence under "Sexual Misconduct" contains "since they were 17." It's unclear whether "17" refers to the number of images or the age of the teenager. 2602:306:BC65:4779:20B6:93EF:E57A:3958 (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I've made it clearer in this edit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarification of the "making" crime

I added to the lede the bolded part: In July 2024, he pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children, admitting to having received indecent images of children on WhatsApp. - and it was removed by Ianmacm for being personal commentary. I disagree that it is personal commentary, for example BBC News reports: He admitted having 41 indecent images of children, which had been sent to him by another man on WhatsApp, Westminster Magistrates' Court heard. The reason I made the addition is to avoid confusion by readers who are not familiar with the law. It is not obvious that the "making" offense includes simply receiving such images. Readers may be misled to believe that Edwards went around photographing children indecently. starship.paint (RUN) 11:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

IMO the wording you propose doesn't add clarity. The additional wording "admitting to having received indecent images" doesn't actually explain the previous clause of "making indecent images" — it sounds supplementary, rather than explanatory. In other words, it isn't obvious that "making" the images and receiving them is the same thing.

We go into more explanation about what is meant by the legal wording "making" here in the article body, which I think is fine. Popcornfud (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

As we know most readers don't read past the lead, and as the lead summarises the main, it is not "fine" just to rely on the explanation in the main. However there may be a better wording that could be employed. The making offence was not "receiving" the images. It occurred when he clicked on and viewed the images, because clicking on them made a new copy.

This comes up whenever the making offence is reported in UK cases. The lead correctly links to the Protection of Children Act page when using the word "making" which flags to a reader that the language is not the plain reading of the word, but it is also very clear that the word is misunderstood often, and people are often misled. There was a curious bit of news reporting on the BBC where they said he pleaded guilty to making the images, but that no one was suggesting he made the images himself. The detail is often lost in the wash. But I support the intent of starship.paint's edit, because our duty here is to inform. It is not personal commentary, because there are media reports (the more careful ones) which have been clearer. However we should probably tweak it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I also agree we should clarify what "making" means and there seems to be a clear consensus here to do that, we just need to get the wording right. The Sky News article says "According to the CPS, the term "making" can include opening, accessing, downloading and storing the content, or receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group." I wonder if we can find and use a direct quote from the CPS along those lines instead of trying to find our own wording. WaggersTALK 12:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly the CPS's press release on this only talks about "accessing" the images, as does the New York Times. Perhaps we should simply switch "making" to "accessing" in the same way for clarity, at least in the lead. WaggersTALK 12:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been bold and done that :) WaggersTALK 12:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable reflection of the sourced content in the article body. Popcornfud (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. BBC Wales also used "accessing" in their lunchtime bulletin today. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the edit did not reflect what the source actually said. It was Edwards' defence team who argued that he did not actually "make" the images as he was sent them on WhatsApp by someone else. The latter part is true, but he was charged with making indecent images of children because that is what the law says. Also, since Edwards had received the images over a considerable period of time, he had lost the opportunity to claim that it was all a one-off innocent mistake, which he might have been able to claim if he had blocked and deleted immediately. I also reverted this edit, because it could be seen as implying that it was the fault of the man in Merthyr Tydfil for sending the images, not Edwards' for receiving them. We may never know how Edwards ended up in contact with a man who sent him serious child porn over a two year period, but Edwards had no choice but to plead guilty.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Multiple sources use "accessing" instead of "making" as discussed above. Some (most?) of those that use "making" in their headline go on to clarify that "making" doesn't mean "making" in the generally understood use of the term. Our aim here is to to make the information easy to understand, not to use precise legalistic language. WaggersTALK 13:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Do we need to switch out the reference(s) we've used to ones that lead with "accepting"? WaggersTALK 13:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to explain in the article that "making" can include receiving and accessing. However, when it comes to describing the charges that Edwards faced in court, the article should say "three counts of making indecent images" because that is what was on the charge sheet and that is how the law in this area works.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC).

You reverted a 3:1 nascent consensus there. Also you are wrong. What is on the charge sheet is not what should necessarily be in the lead of an international English language encyclopaedia. The reader need not be versed in English law; there is no requirement for such competence when reading about British legal cases. We need to tell the reader what Edwards did wrong, in summary form in the lead, and in detail in the main. That summary form is not required to follow and thus explain a curious legal term that does not exist in other countries. This is a common issue when the making offence comes up, and our articles usually settle on wording that describes, in plain English, the offence. E.g. "downloading" (although in this case, "accessing" is better). Would you be willing to self revert "accessing" back in please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to start an edit war, but I've changed it back to "accessing". Let's make sure there's consensus here for making any further changes to that sentence before doing so, please. WaggersTALK 14:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I've already said that he was charged with three counts of making indecent images of children. The general idea on Wikipedia is that you are supposed to stick to what the sourcing says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The sourcing directly quotes the CPS as saying: making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group. The sourcing also says regarding "making" that A court must also decide whether an offence falls into the category of possession, distribution or production. According to the Sentencing Council, creating the original image counts as production - the more serious of the three categories. It adds that "making an image by simple downloading should be treated as possession for the purposes of sentencing". This is a BLP and we are duty-bound to represent the subject accurately. Unfortunately "making" can be misunderstood as "production", the most serious offense. I am not wholly opposed to "making" in the lede, as long as his specific offense is clarified to be accessing or possessing in the lede. starship.paint (RUN) 02:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that Edwards created the images himself, as the prosecution never claimed this. The term "making" includes downloading and accessing, which Edwards did and was insufficiently careful over a considerable period of time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The term "making" indeed includes accessing under British law. But that's not the point. The point is that "making" is commonly understood to be "produce" or "create". You seriously can't expect the average reader to equate "making" to accessing. starship.paint (RUN) 15:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the result of R v Bowden which leads to a use of the word "making" an indecent image which might not be same as the use of the word "make" in an average dictionary. Many convictions for "making indecent images" in English law involve sharing and downloading the material rather than actually creating it. This is what happened with Huw Edwards.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Mate, I understand that. Again, do you expect our readers from all over the world to know this? When you do not explain this in the lede, misunderstandings come about. R v Bowden has been viewed around 8,500 times from 2015 to 2014, that's an average of 3 views per day. starship.paint (RUN) 15:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Disgraced

I find it nauseating that people don’t think “disgraced” should be in the opening sentence. What the f is wrong with you people? EDWARDS is a nonce, a paedophile, a criminal. DrLurve (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking Wikipedia policy for personal opinions? When people disagree with your edit/s and you want to change the lede in an article then you need to discuss it here. You've been reverted a number of times.

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and what they say. Not our personal opinions.

If you want to add 'disgraced'then calmly discuss that here, along with WP:RS to back up why you think it should be added. Please remain civil. Knitsey (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that people remove ‘disgraced’ from the description of a convicted paedophile tells me everything I need to know about them. But I do see your point. DrLurve (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Report

Why is his criminal behaviour only mentioned in the last sentence of the third paragraph? It is all he is going to be known for in the future. 82.16.135.131 (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about this and it should probably be in the opening paragraph, but not the opening sentence. For example, Rolf Harris has a similar consensus after discussion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The day after news has broken is usually a bad time to decide on the relative importance of a piece of information. It is covered in the lead, so nothing is hidden. Wait a while and when the dust settles, you can use secondary sources to assess the relative merits and importance of each piece of information and revisit this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this is similar to Rolf Harris and will pass WP:10YT easily.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Rolf Harris went to prison for sexual assaulting girls over a long period. Huw Edwards clicked on child abuse images that had been sent to him on WhatsApp. The making offence occurred when he clicked on them (because the making offence refers to making a copy where one did not exist, for instance by downloading). Now I make no excuses here: he chose to click on them, and there was also the context of the relationship in which they were shared. There was an offence, but I do not see how this is comparable with Harris. They are very different cases. I'll add that yes, I think the information that the offences occurred will certainly pass the 10YT. The question is not whether it should be in the article: it should. Neither is the question whether it should be in the lead: it should. The question is only whether this becomes the first thing that there will ever be to say about Edwards. On that, I suggest we wait. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yep it's very important not to make comparisons. However I agree there probably should be something in the first paragraph. We're trying to answer the question "Who is Huw Edwards?" in one or two sentences. If I was asked that question, my answer would be something like "He's a former news presenter who's been found guilty of accessing child pornography. He was the BBC's main news presenter for many years, presenting several flagship programmes, until allegations about sexual misconduct came to light".

I disagree with the IP, the sexual offence is not all he's going to be known for. He's primarily notable because of his broadcasting career so it's right that that comes first. It's all about getting the balance right. WaggersTALK 08:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Good job so far

I see that (inevitably) there has been some disagreement over some of the content on this page, and we're also dealing with some unconstructive edits, but on the whole I think this article is looking surprisingly good. The prose is generally clean, nicely balanced, well sourced and altogether straightforward to read. Nice job to all those who have contributed. Popcornfud (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair comment tbh. There are better ways to make sure EDWARDS faces justice than editing the piece here. The truth will out. DrLurve (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Calling EDWARDS “Disgraced” is hardly unconstructive. I see downplaying the crimes of a paeadophile / sexual offender worrying. All other significant criminals have their offence mentioned in the opening sentences of their Wikipedia piece. Let’s just say such editing behaviour interests me. Why downplay sexual offences? DrLurve (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This is casting aspersions, which is something that you have also done in various edit summaries relating to this. Huw Edwards is the latest in a long line of articles where someone has said that the article must point out that he is a paedo/nonce/disgraced in the opening sentence. That is not how the lead section is written. Edwards has a Wikipedia article because of his notability as a broadcaster, and his career was wrecked by the child porn convictions in 2024.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Please read and understand WP:NPA. Your attitude isn't helping your case. --Ef80 (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's gone beyond that - DeLurve is blocked indef blocked yesterday. WaggersTALK 10:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making this comment @Popcornfud. Even where there has been disagreement, for the most part it has been handled sensitively and sensibly. When Wikipedia works as it should like this it's a lovely experience to be part of it. WaggersTALK 10:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. In the opening, only the third paragraph refers to his perversion. And even then most is about accusations that were decided not to be illegal. Only in the very last sentence is it mentioned that he is convicted for child pornography crimes. 82.16.135.131 (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

See the thread Talk:Huw_Edwards#Report above. Personally I think this should be in the opening paragraph somewhere, but there needs to be a consensus. According to legal experts, Edwards is likely to receive a suspended sentence for this in September rather than actually going to prison. Nevertheless, his career is wrecked and the saga has led to bad publicity for the BBC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Although I am not opposed on principle to mentioning this in the first paragraph, I think the IPs comment ably demonstrates why it would be a bad idea to do so now. At this time we still don't know about the outcome, or what comments will be made about this. We are very much in the midst of events, and that always lends them an importance that may not be lasting. It seems to me that this will always be very notable, but perhaps not the first thing we should say about a veteran broadcaster. We should wait to see what secondary sources (and news reporting is not a secondary source) say about him, and then follow those. What we should not do is pander to anyone who thinks that perversion is an editorial criterion for consideration in a BLP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a danger there of overcompensating in the face of bombast. The end of the first paragraph ("...from 2003 to 2023") does, to me, read oddly. It hangs heavily, as though no one wants to mention what happened. It cries out for a continuation along the lines of "...when he resigned because...". I think it may be over-scrupulous to resist the overwhelming mainstream opinion that it's finished him and in a way that will define him. DeCausa (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

How about "until his resignation in 2023"? That makes it clear there is a resignation, and the natural flow therefore would expect that to be expanded in a following paragraph, which it is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

But he didn't resign in 2023. He left the BBC "on medical advice" in April 2024. One of the notable features of this saga is the Mexican standoff that occurred between Edwards and the BBC after the July 2023 allegations in The Sun. The BBC didn't want to sack him and Edwards didn't want to resign. So the stalemate continued for around ten months with Edwards suspended on full pay, which is now controversial and the BBC wants over £200,000 of his salary back.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The BBC are on record as saying he would have been dismissed if he had been employed when he was charged. He was arrested last Autumn and he did in fact resign[5] (whether or not it was on medical advice, it was still a resignation) prior to being charged. I would suggest that that all translates into a sentence at the end of the first paragraph saying "He resigned from the BBC in 2024 during a police investigation into child pornography offences for which he was subsequently convicted". DeCausa (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The first paragraph - in fact the whole lead - is looking pretty much spot on now, I think. WaggersTALK 09:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed it had been added a few days ago. I think the paragraph works and is reasonable. DeCausa (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

My only concern is that we now say something twice in the lead. Once in the first paragraph and then again in the last sentence. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The last paragraph has got perhaps some unnecessary detail. What about:

In July 2023, Edwards was suspended by the BBC following allegations of sexual misconduct made in The Sun. A police investigation found no evidence of criminal misconduct concerning those allegations. However, other evidence obtained during the investigation led to Edwards being prosecuted for accessing indecent images of children. He pleaded guilty at his trial in July 2023 and will be sentenced in September.

I think that would deal with any duplication. DeCausa (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not quite, because the police said that the arrest and prosecution of Alex Williams was a separate matter. It appears that it had nothing directly to do with the July 2023 allegations in The Sun.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Do we know for sure that the evidence was found during that investigation? Deb (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It could say "other unrelated evidence" and "during a separate investigation" but I wasn't quite sure if the latter was right. It was the Met rather than S. Wales police so I guess it must have been technically a separate investigation. DeCausa (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Another thought: the conviction really overshadows the Sun allegations now. I wonder if they are even lead-worthy now? DeCausa (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It was described as an "entirely unrelated investigation".[6] This makes sense, because the police had said in July 2023 that Edwards had done nothing illegal. This BBC News article says "8 November 2023: Edwards is arrested after a phone seized during an unrelated investigation reveals his participation in the WhatsApp exchanges with Williams".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Locking the page

I think this page should be locked for a while because I think there will be edits which will cross the line.81.152.247.155 (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

50-50 on this. The previous semi-protection expired on 1 September, but if there are any more silly edits it should be protected again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

We've only had one bit of vandalism since the expiry, which was immediately reverted by ClueBot. I don't think there's justification for further protection at this time but we'll keep an eye on it. WaggersTALK 09:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

He's next due to appear in court on 16 September, when he will be sentenced. So prepare to batten down the hatches a week on Monday? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes, it will probably be a suspended sentence. The BBC source says quite plainly: "He was charged last month and could now face a jail sentence." But then they would, wouldn't they. Perhaps he'll get community service. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Good thought. Although we can set an expiry time when we protect a page, we can't set a start time - i.e. we can't schedule it in advance. Worth reading WP:NO-PREEMPT - we only protect in response to disruption, not as a pre-emptive measure. In that respect, protection is the opposite of blocking, which should only ever be preventative and never punitive. WaggersTALK 13:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Wonder if the BBC will get back the 10 months of salary? About £397,916 by my reckoning (or the cost of my licence fee for the next 2,469 years). Gosh you could almost pay for a real TV channel with that, couldn't you. But all WP:CRYSTAL at the moment of course. So we can't even mention it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Re this edit: It's theoretically possible that Edwards could go to prison, but Alex Williams received a 12 month suspended sentence for having the same material and Edwards probably will too, as it is a first offence with a guilty plea. The prisons are also so full at the moment that even when a judge wanted to send this person to prison, his hands were tied by the current sentencing guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Hands were tied, lol. Poor Huw, it's no fun being a famous news anchor. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

This is all a bit WP:FORUMy, let's keep discussion to the article itself, not to what might or might not happen. WaggersTALK 08:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Should Carol Vorderman be mentioned? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It has WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT problems. Clearly some BBC staff are annoyed that Edwards was not sacked (unlike Jermaine Jenas who did nothing illegal). --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

May deserve a mention at Carol Vorderman? And she's also Welsh! Clearly some TV-licence-payers are also annoyed.... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The BBC has said that Edwards has not returned the £200,000 salary that it wanted him to give back.[7][8] Not sure if this is notable enough for the article in this form.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "Tim Davie, appearing at the House of Lords communications and digital committee, also admitted that if Edwards fails to return the hundreds of thousands of pounds, securing its return through legal means would be difficult." He speculates on BBC taking a "more muscular" approach to suspended staff pay in future. So maybe a rocking suspension bridge using pugil sticks will help the Saturday evening viewing figures? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relationship with father

This topic has now been brought more sharply into focus, e.g. the Sky article here, which says "Edwards' relationship with father 'probably damaging psychologically'". Should some more be added in "Early life"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox criminal?

Having reverted the bold addition of this template here and an embedded inclusion of it here, the latter edit was reverted by Martinevans123 and, in a deviation to the BRD convention to BRRD, they told me to bring it here. So here I am...

The documentation on Template:Infobox criminal says:

1. "Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies."
2. "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal."

Is the subject of this article to be one of those rare exceptions? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the guidance you quote, I think I oppose use of that infobox here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

How is Edward's Biography "violated" by use of this template? Does the statement "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal" apply equally when the template is used as a nested subsidiary template to "Inbox person"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Does the documentation say but ignore that if nesting it? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If you don't know, I think you ought to check. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't see it, can you? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to have another look... Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that Rolf Harris didn't get one. It's still possible to include criminal_charges, criminal_penalty and criminal_status as parameters in Infobox:person. I'm not really sure what difference it makes to the reader. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that if we don't use the infobox then it would also not be correct to add those parameters to infobox person. The infobox summarises, but a summary for someone who is notable for being a criminal will always look different from the summary for someone who is notable for something else. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Harris was notable only for being a criminal. But I don't see any advice about that at Infobox:person. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll go and see if I can remove it from Rolf Harris. In the meantime I note that Jonathan King doesn't use that infobox, and that was my basis from removing the same from Chris Langham last March. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Two relevant talk sections in the archive of the Harris page discuss the infobox. I see you took part in each. See Talk:Rolf Harris/Archive 3#Infobox and Talk:Rolf Harris/Archive 3#Infobox. They are both quite old though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we ought to restrict discussion here to Huw Edwards. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not see this caution before I removed it there. But there is, in fact, an advantage to seeing how the edit goes there. Harris' conviction is old news, but an established part of his history. Any discussion there will be less influenced by recentism. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Cross-article discussion threads? Not sure that's generally accepted. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Not my intention. Any discussion there should focus only on that article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The guidelines are clear on this issue. If a person's primary source of notability is not as a criminal, the infobox is not used. However much we disapprove of the crimes of Edwards, Harris etc, it is not suitable to use infobox criminal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

And we also can't add criminal convictions to the Infobox:person? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You can do that, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Mug shot

I'm starting this discussion here before we get the inevitable mug shot added given its been released by the police a few moments ago after his sentencing. Personally I do not think it is needed because I feel that it would not add much to the article as a Crown Copyright fair use image given we already have plenty of CC and freely licenced pictures of him on the page. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Quite agree. Most people will already know what he looks like. His appearance in the mugshot is not radically different. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Also agree. I don't see that the mug shot adds anything to an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Although, yes, he's not smiling in that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Some good news for Edwards today: UK police mugshots are copyrighted and so are not added to a Wikipedia article without a good reason that meets WP:NFCC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, it cuts off the top of his head! Why would we want to use it? DeCausa (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah - not all versions do. DeCausa (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add it. Cut off head, or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and no £200,000 fine. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Do we need to add any remarks by the judge, e.g. "‘long-earned reputation in tatters’" or from the psychiatrist e.g. "concluded Edwards was at “considerable risk of harm from others” and the risk of taking his own life was “high and significant” if he was imprisoned."? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that User:NAADAAN has added the mugshot anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Mugshot date

Where is the evidence that the police mugshot was taken in September 2024? The EXIF states 12 September 2024, when Edwards was not in custody, and is more likely a processing date. I'm sure I heard the image described as "at the time of his arrest" on TV today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Does this matter for its use under "fair use"? Does it's use add anything to the article anyway? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it matters for fair use, but if we already have a picture of him in the infobox I don't see what a mugshot is going to add except for humiliation of someone who's admitted to committing crimes that will effectively end his public life. Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, the difference between the two images, taken only three years apart, is quite striking. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 It matters because we say it's from September 2024 in the caption. It's also not "fair use", but on Commons as OGL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The CPS released it under OGL, I think it's worth including beyond the NFCC (since it's under the OGL) insofar as there's some coverage discussing it. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5; from a cursory search) NAADAAN (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there a difference between "discussing" the image and merely describing it? Martinevans123 (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just because the media are using it, doesn't mean we should. As said above, we already have plenty of images of him in the article and adding the mug shot does nothing more than compound the humiliation to someone who is now a criminal and his career is over. We don't need to be gratuitous. Its the same with Rolf Harris, his article doesn't have a mug shot because there were plenty of other images of him in the article and the same principle seems to be held here. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I had assumed that any material under copyright required a definite date. Does it need only a month and year? Martinevans123 (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Does the mugshot really need to be in the article? It is a bit too newsy for me. I nearly removed it, but didn't want to set off a revert war.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, per the above, and I removed it yesterday. It is not in the article now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)