Talk:Jimmy Savile/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Changing section name to "Reports of sexual abuse"

I am changing the name of the section from "Sexual assault allegations" to the more neutral"Reports of sexual abuse" as the word "allegations" seems to indicate a large degree of doubt as to whether the allegations are true or not, but there are now no British authorities who are expressing doubt that Savile was indeed a sex abuser and for the wikipedia article to state that there are mere "allegations" is not neutral any more. "Reports" does not indicate that they are all true, reports can be true or false, but "reports" does not throw cold water, as it were, on to the statements that follow as "allegations" does. I am also going to change some of the uses of the words "allegations" and "claimed" or "claims" to more neutral terms such as "said" or "stated". "Allegations" and "claims" are suitable for sparing use, but not constantly and solely, they indicate too high a degree of doubt if it is constantly re - iterated that theese are mere claims and allegations.Smeat75 (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think you're dead on about this, but I'm going to step back and leave this to braver souls like you. Too many others here seem to be missing the forest (the man was a serial child molester on an almost unprecedented scale) for the tiny little trees (the alphabet soup about recentism, undue weight, etc.). I don't have the patience to deal with such nonsense, so rather than lose my cool, I'll leave it to others who are blessed with more patience than I. LHM 05:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope however that you will continue to watch the article and this talk page and add comments as you feel is appropriate.Smeat75 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Will do--and good luck! LHM 20:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Savile on the Canberra

There is a glut of Savile anecdotes at the moment, but there is an interesting one here by Brian Hitchen, who claims that the captain of the cruise liner SS Canberra threw Savile off the ship in Gibraltar in the 1960s, after he was accused of harrassing a 14-year-old girl.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but as one of the comments on it says, it's based on the memory of someone who was told something by someone else 45 years ago. Not in itself very reliable or noteworthy. I don't think it's WP's role to list all such stories, rather to present a reliable overview. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The part about Savile working for Cunard in later years is correct though. This was part of the Louis Theroux documentary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Charitable work

Since "charitable" denotes a desire to promote the welfare of others and the provision of assistance to the needy, it strikes me as an inapposite term to describe Savile's unrestrained debauchery at the various institutions that he worked. As Camus observed, "too many have dispensed with generosity in order to practice charity." Ankh.Morpork 13:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I take the point. How about retitling the section as "Fundraising, sponsorship and voluntary work" ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitely better. My preference is simply 'Voluntary work' which seems the most non-connotative description but I am satisfied with your proposal. Ankh.Morpork 14:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't just work he did himself, which would be the usual connotation of "voluntary work". There is also the setting up of charities, fundraising, and sponsorship... etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. It was unquestionably charity work at the time, whatever his personal motivations might privately have been. We still have to hear of the result of the police and NSPCC enquiry into the scale of his abuse. It's not clear yet that he was pathological to the extent of seeking minors through his charitable work. When Kraft-Ebbing first wrote on paedophilia he distinguished between 'pathological' and 'non-pathological' paedophilia. That was at at a time (as was also still the case in the 1970s in the UK when Savile was most active - no law against indecent images of children, freely available at that time, until 1978 for example) when little was known about the paraphilia and probably we don't make that distinction any more. However I can certainly imagine a personality with paedophile urges who nevertheless does good works for children and whose motivation is in fact simply for their good. That was certainly the case, for example, with the distinguished London paediatrician of a few years back with an international reputation in treating child victims of starvation, who was found guilty of collecting indecent images of children. To strike 'charity work' on the assumption that wasn't Savile's true motivation seems to me unnecessary and judgemental. 142.91.77.134 (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit protected

In the opening paragraph the link to Jimmy Savile child sexual abuse allegations needs to be fixed.

Done. Rothorpe (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Honorary doctorate?

As per the Telegraph, Saville has been posthumously stripped of his honorary doctorate. A) Should this be mentioned on Wikipedia? B) If so, should it be here, or in the article on the scandal? DS (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A) Yes. B) This is one of the problems that arise when articles are split. I think it should be added in this article, where other rescissions of honours, etc., have been mentioned. C) Great photo in the article! Caption competition?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In a separate development, the University of Bedfordshire said an honorary award it gave Savile in 2009 would be rescinded.[1] Kittybrewster ☎ 16:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Umm.... that's the same story. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Cunard also cancelled a sail past in Scarborough, but this did not seem notable enough to mention. Does he still have the honorary doctorate of law (LLD) from the University of Leeds, the LLD was on his headstone?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit protected

In the opening paragraph the link to Jimmy Savile child sexual abuse scandal needs to be fixed. Same thing goes for the top of the section with "Reports of sexual abuse" as its title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.101.112 (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem. Links seem to go through ok DeCausa (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The scandal page was moved from allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.101.112 (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you mean the redirect, I've just fixed it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. The same is also the case further down the page at the top of the section dealing with the abuse scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.101.112 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No, there's nothing wrong with it. There was also nothing wrong with the first re-direct when the IP posted the edit request (17:57). After the edit request was posted User:Markdarrly altered the re-direct (19:14) which caused a problem and which Ghmyrtle then fixed. DeCausa (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

National Treasure

In obituaries and biographical accounts of his time it frequently crops up that Sir Jim's regarded as a 'national treasure' of the UK. It would be appropriate for the article to classify him so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.139.113 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 15 October 2012‎

Sources, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

There was claimed to be a source for that in this edit which a user tried to edit war into the article yesterday. He was subsequently blocked, and I assume still is. Funny that. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Friendship with the Thatchers

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopmusic/8857759/Jimmy-Savile-the-big-fixer.html "Savile became a friend of Margaret Thatcher – spending New Year’s Eve with her for 11 years in a row." Sorry if this has been discussed already and I missed it, but maybe it's worth mentioning that he was best mates with the Prime Minister? 92.233.49.173 (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

what would the import be? did Savile campaign for Thatcher or her programs and help get some passed? did she provide entertainment tips that helped him improve his stage impact? not everything that has a source has encyclopedic value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It could be added as an example of the extent to which Savile was patronised by the establishment in a paragraph discussing that. Otherwise, lacking Redpen's import above, I don't see how it could be incorporated or should be. I would like to see a fairly solid citation as well. It strikes me as urban mythical - I first saw it in a piece by Esther Rantzen and thought it self serving (oh well, if he could fool a prime minister). Erm ... but how old was Maggie's daughter at the time :)... ? 142.91.77.164 (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is list of Savile claims including 13 consecutive Christmases with the Thatchers. http://www.sunderlandecho.com/lifestyle/columnists/savile-claims-are-sad-in-so-many-ways-1-4994409 Reluctant Corrector (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Irish Independent backs Thatcher claims via Esther Rantzen http://www.independent.ie/national-news/video-silence-on-savile-sex-claims-like-ireland-priests-scandal-3247238.html Reluctant Corrector (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher can found enthusing extensively about Jimmy Savile on the Margaret Thatcher foundation website, until they take the quotes and references down, of course. She seems to have known him quite well, considered him a friend and went to him for advice. If her own foundation is not substantial, I don't know what is. http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&q=savile+site:margaretthatcher.org&oq=savile+site:margaretthatcher.org Reluctant Corrector (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this is relevant and noteworthy - it demonstrates his close connections with important people. I've added a brief paragraph with sources, under "Personal life" - more could be added if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, definitely.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

@ReluctantCollector - yes, indeed that's impeccably sourced. I hadn't done the research myself.

@Ghmyrtle - yes, saw that, agree. Fine with me. 142.91.77.169 (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As predicted by Reluctant Corrector the reference to http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104766l has now been removed from the Thatcher website with the message "404 - File or directory not found. The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable." Do we need another link now? 2.101.131.62 (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I've corrected the link. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to express my thanks for people using this research. The addition in the correct place too, namely Jimmy Savile's personal life. This relationship is a key demonstration of how well-connected he was within the establishment. As for the references being taken down on the Margaret Thatcher foundation I'm sure that the webmasters of that site keep an eye on unusual page hits and they may have already been nervous about her links with Savile. Reluctant Corrector (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hea Reluctant Corrector. I'm not sure the webmasters of the Thatcher site took anything down. It may perhaps have just have been a typo in the link when initially added which is now corrected. Not sure the Thatcher site did anything untoward here... Don't want to start any conspiracy theory... 92.233.49.173 (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Article needs to be pulled apart and started again

This is a classic reason as to why the Wikipedia model, narrative by committee just doesn't work. The article was largely written before the anyone had the balls to publish the reality. Amusingly though if you go back through the past edits you will see people did know but the comments were always removed as "vandalism". And they wonder how he got away with it?

This article is now disproportionate to the reality. The sexual abuse allegations have just been bolted on to the comments that are already here. It's like a glowing article on Hitler and his love of nature, art, and vegetarianism with a separate section on his vile anti-Semitism and how he caused the Second World War in Europe!

This article is stupid. Jimmy was a DJ, Jimmy was a wrestler or Jimmy was a tireless charity worker. Meanwhile we have another section, laying it out that while all the public stuff was going on he also was abusing kids. If this article is to be taken serious it should be written with the shadow of his paedophillic behaviour hanging over him. This is not a POV it's a fact. Same as Hitler was an animal lover he also was the reason for the Holocaust.

Savile tricked two or three generations of Britons into thinking he was a slightly eccentric odd TV presenter and charity worker. When in fact he was a according to the Met Police a "sexual predator". That tone is not reflected in this article because it has grown organically rather than from a clear editorial position where the goal is known from start. Wikipedia can't just add things as sections when they are linked to the whole. That is compartmentalising the truth, which by judging from this article, is what is happening!!

This article needs to be stripped back and rewritten from the top incorporating all the sexual abuse in chronological order. It is no good shoving it in a single section as if that was just another facet of who he was. Savile raped children from the start of his career that is who he was, the other stuff of his life are now inconsequential to this. Wikipedia editors have to face up to this fact and not be lazy by filling a section. That's not accountability that's editorialising!109.155.67.234 (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The main thing that may need to be done is to split off Operation Yewtree and the other investigations into a separate article. By the way, congratulations for introducing Godwin's law into the debate at such an early stage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Savile raped children from the start of his career that is who he was, the other stuff of his life are now inconsequential to this." - that is simply one person's opinion. The balanced biography of Savile didn't exist a week or two ago, can't be written now, and won't exist until all his activities are eventually put into some sort of context and balance. As the allegations become fact, or otherwise, the article will change and develop incrementally, and perhaps with some major rewrites along the way. But that shouldn't happen at this moment - there is too much unverified speculation, still, and too much of what is, frankly, tabloid froth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This has been a very fast moving story. The article as it is now cannot stay as it is, it has to be re-done in the light of the revelations of the last week. It is no longer appropriate to refer to "allegations" in my opinion, since the police and those in charge of investigations are making it clear in public statements that these are revelations, not a|legations.http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/08/jimmy-savile-jersey-childrens-home "The former head of the Jersey child abuse investigation has said ... he now has "no reason to doubt" that Savile was involved in indecent assault at the notorious Jersey children's home, despite there being insufficient evidence to question the Jim'll Fix It star when he was alive."http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/09/jimmy-savile-police-investigate-national "Asked whether it was now possible to say definitively that Savile, who died in October 2011 at the age of 84, was a serial abuser of young women, Spindler (head of serious crime investigations at the Metropolitan police, which is co-ordinating the inquiry)said: "I think the facts speak for themselves around the number of women who have come forward and spoken about his behaviour [and] his predilection for teenage girls."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9597158/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-was-a-predatory-sex-offender-police-say.html

"Sir Jimmy Savile was a 'predatory sex offender', police say" It is not appropriate for wikipedia to continue to present this issue as if there is room for doubt when these sorts of definitive statements are being made by authorities, it is not neutral any more, it is agenda pushing. I do not have time to try to correct it right now, but this article cannot stay as it is, it is starting to give off a nauseating whiff of defending a grotesque and now undoubted serial abuser.Smeat75 (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Opinion generally and largely seconded. I would furthermore recommend you to perhaps consider making your complaint formalised at Wikipedia:AN/I or at the Wikipedia:NPOV noticeboard. -- KC9TV 16:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm open to sensible proposals for restructuring the lead to give a better balance. If I have time I'll come up with a proposal. But, the substance of the article needs to detail his media career, the allegations, his personal life, the honours he was given in his lifetime, etc. etc. - as it does now. Let's face it, many people hearing the allegations come here to find out more about who the guy was - they need information, not even more rehashing of the current claims. There is no massive rush - in my opinion we are doing quite well here both in keeping up to date with developments, and keeping a proper balance, but there may be a need to rethink the opening paragraphs to some extent. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that serious allegations have been made, but if they were so strong (eg Haut de la Garenne, Duncroft) why was he not charged during his lifetime? There is not a great deal known now that was not known after 2007. The police, like the BBC, may now be covering their own positions, in the full knowledge that Savile is no longer around to sue for libel. Some major rewriting may be needed, but most of the news coverage is a spike from the last week and there needs to be time for things to settle down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but until things do settle down, I see no reason not to make some shifts of balance in the direction that an ultimate balanced bio would be likely to take. The current allegations and claims will always be a big part of that biography - it seems vanishingly unlikely that they will be comprehensively rebutted. I think the question of " why was he not charged during his lifetime?" is a central part of the whole story. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The ITV1 documentary was largely about the Duncroft allegations which were known to Surrey Police in 2007, while the Haut de la Garenne allegations were known to Jersey Police in 2008. At the time, the evidence was not considered strong enough to proceed. One media shitstorm later, the evidence has suddenly become conclusive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"..the evidence was not considered strong enough to proceed.." said the police. I'm not questioning what you're saying, but what was said at the time was not necessarily the whole truth, and why that might be the case might itself be part of the story. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Metropolitan and States of Jersey Police have put their tanks into reverse gear since all of this happened. Their unwillingness to pursue the matter while Savile was alive raises questions about how strong the evidence was back then. What has happened in the past week is that various people have come forward and said that Savile behaved towards them in a similar way, which might be accepted by a court as similar fact evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I was completely surprised to at the first article I read, the BBC where the police state that the allegations range back to 70's AND THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE POLICE DID ANYTHING. THAT is the real crime. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Savile raped children from the start of his career that is who he was, the other stuff of his life are now inconsequential to this." Um, the facts are "His media career started as a disc jockey on Radio Luxembourg in 1958, and on Tyne Tees Television in 1960... " Have the police, or any care home staff, or the BBC, or anyone else, been able to the us when Savile began his abuse, or if and when he ever stopped? Alas no, and I doubt that they ever will. We cannot now, or ever will be able to, deny that Savile did many good things for many people and raised a huge amount of money for charity. It is simply impossible to claim that "the other stuff of his life are now inconsequential to this". And I do not accept that any editor here as an agenda to try and keep Savile's reputation as white as possible for as long as possible. The article will have to change to reflect what has come to light. But it can't undo or blot out the many admirable things that Savile also did in his very long career. It is highly unlikely, in my opinion, that his child abuse activities alone would have ever have earned him enough notability for a Wikipedia article. Hitler comparisons are a little wide of the mark, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• You state that the Hitler comparision is "a little wide of the mark", and leave it at that. I'm sorry, but no. Jimmy Savile raped multiple dozens of young girls over the course of his career. The scale is unfathomable. While his crimes were different than Hitler's, the comparison is apt in that, even though Hitler killed himself before he could be tried, his crimes are the story of his life. That he was a pedophile, who used his fame to rape young girls, is now the story of Savile's life. LHM 17:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me while I die of boredom at comparing any major news story to Hitler and the Holocaust. Now let's have a suggestion for how to name all of this with a "-gate" suffix.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually rather than using something "-gate", I suggest the use of savilerow; to represent the furore. Reluctant Corrector (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Still can't recall all that many SS charity marathons. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Savile raped multiple dozens of young girls over the course of his career. The scale is unfathomable....." Source? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Hitler comparison may be going a little too far, but there is certainly a parallel here in terms of denial. Do some contributors have a vested interest in Savile's ongoing sainthood, or do they just need to have their own way? The article is ridiculous, you cannot mention Savile's charity work in glowing terms when he was actually abusing patients when he went to visit hospitals. The things go side by side, they cannot be disconnected and hived off into a separate section or article. And as for hiding behind the 'unproven allegations' line, just take a look at yourselves, you sound ridiculous. If Savile wasn't prosecuted at the time, people should be asking why, it absolutely does not prove his innocence.

I agree, that the article needs to be pulled apart and started again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.26.240 (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

One certainly can mention Savile's charity work, it's wholly praise-worthy. There are plenty of child-abusers who don't raise millions of pounds for charity. But I don't see any "glowing terms" and there shouldn't be any, only neutral description of the facts. The fact that Savile was abusing his various positions of trust and that he was essentially a hypocrite, should be obvious from the content of the article. I really don't think you can "hide" the sex scandal by creating a whole new article about it. And I don't think anyone still thinks that Savile was a "saint". If and when both his civil and Papal knighthoods are rescinded this will be duly reported. I think your understandable repulsion to Savile's deeds may be clouding your view of how this article should look. And one other thought - who is to say that Savile's charity work was not, at least in part, driven by his own subconscious feelings of shame and guilt? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"Goodness gracious"

I would rather prefer that the particular person, who might had unwittingly employed this dated and now unfortunate phrase in the English language, that is "goodness gracious" – now becoming somewhat notorious to English, nay British, eyes and ears, due to the association thereof with the very subject of this article – to perhaps take care to not to repeat the offending phraseology again, at least upon this page in particular. -- KC9TV 13:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Alleged victims of both genders

Perhaps the existence of allegations from male accusers should now be included, because there are many sources, inluding alleged incidents involving a boy of nine [2], a boy of twelve who has now filed a police report [3] and alleged male victims in Jersey [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.198.141 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There is a mention made of boys in the text, and I think now is the time to add "..and boys" to the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile was an atheist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.137.99 (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? I seem to recall that for many years he was a Methodist lay preacher. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

He was apparently an honorary churchwarden at St John in the Wilderness, Cragg Vale in West Yorkshire. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Separate article for sexual allegations controversy?

The article is experiencing a news spike over the sexual assault allegations, and there is little point in reporting all of it here as it could be out of date in a few days or weeks' time. It is also not a good idea to name the people making the allegations per WP:BLPNAME. The sexual allegations controversy is getting to the stage where a separate article may be necessary to avoid WP:TOPIC issues. What do other editors think?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said at 4:54 above and this whole scandal is now moving into many related areas such as possible cover up, collusion,use of children's care homes as places to find victims, the Savile scandal and related issues needs its own article now.Smeat75 (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As things stand right now, I'd oppose that idea. Firstly, at present the overwhelming majority of the allegations have been about Savile personally. It's important that this article gives a balanced account of the man - we don't want to go back to the article as it existed a week or two ago, before the allegations came out, but if the allegations were hived off into a separate article that could happen, or they could be duplicated across more than one article. We are already seeing that happen with allegations being added into the article on Criticism of the BBC. We are an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for reporting allegations. However, if (or when) the process of investigation (official or otherwise) widens substantially, to cover (say) cover-ups within the BBC or published allegations about other notable named individuals, the situation might change. (Of course, many of those who may have been involved may still be alive, and even people like Sandi Toksvig and Liz Kershaw have avoided naming names, presumably to avoid libel issues.) We don't know the extent to which those investigations may broaden. (I haven't followed all the tabloid stories, but as an editor here I don't need to do so as they are likely to be unreliable in a Wikipedia article-writing sense - not necessarily untrue - or non-notable.) One of the editors here says: "This is a major scandal, a major event with very wide possible ramifications.... I think the article can now appropriately reflect the overwhelming consensus that Savile committed dreadful predatory sexual abuse over a long period of many years." I think that's overstating the case. It may have wider ramifications - but we don't yet know that - and the allegations about Savile himself can best be contained and addressed in this article, in a properly serious way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. A news spike suggests that a new separate article would be unwise. The present total of about 100 alledged victims may be reduced by police/BBC enquiries or it may be increased. It's impossible to tell yet. But it's quite amazing how "new" things, like the hoax HIGNFY script, keep coming to light. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Roger Ordish, the producer of Jim'll Fix It, was on Channel 4 News last night. He commented about on a question about whether child protection was an issue at the BBC in that era, saying "I have to say I don't suppose it was, It's an awful thing to say isn't it?"[5] Allegations about who stuck their hand up whose skirts at the BBC Television Centre in the 1970s are never likely to be proved in court due to the length of time involved, but it is still a relevant question today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it has become a relevant question today. It seems that in the 70s, it wasn't even a question. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Quote from The Go-Between: "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there." The allegations date back to the Life on Mars era in the 1970s. In those days, if a man behaved "inappropriately" a child would not know where to turn, and would be afraid of not being believed. Political correctness had not been invented, and what was considered to be within the acceptable range of banter might set off complaints or police investigations today. This is one of the reasons why the Savile saga is notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

So, This article is experiencing a news spike over the sexual assault allegations. It also suffers from some inconsistent and contradictory editing as well. On 5 October I included allegations made in the Sun and Daily Mail that it was claimed Savile carried out indecent assaults on a nine year old girl and her eleven year old sister in 1971. You removed it, Ianmacm, on the grounds that it was sourced from a tabloid (two, in fact) . I reverted it, and then the admin John removed it. When I add a claim that Clair McAlpine, a 15 year old dancer on Top of the Pops who took her own life by swallowing two bottles of sleeping pills on March 29, 1971 left a diary in which she made allegations that one DJ had given her drugs and others had “used” her, as well a my edit about the existence of the tapes in the Finish archive you also removed that. Both claims were supported by cite a note with a link to a broadsheet UK newspaper. (I do have more cite notes, but you might not like these as they are from tabloids, or at least that is what you say, sometimes). Fine changing copy is what editors do, but I do have a couple of questions. You cite WP:RECENTISM as one reason for removing the Clair McAlpine and Finnish tape section. Well, with that line of thought why don't you sweep away the entire section on the abuse allegations? Most of the sourced information dates from as recently as 1 to 9 October. Your other justification is WP:BLPNAME which I suppose refers to the sentence about a BBC studio manager. If you look carefully at my edit of 9 October you will see that striking out the name and the comma and capitalising the letter A would conform with the WP:BLPNAME, so why have you effectively (if not technically) reverted another of my edits? (The sentence would look like this; "A BBC studio manager at the time contacted police last week to ask them to look at the case again". And now for a really bizarre edit you made. You have replaced my text about Clair McAlpine and the Finnish tapes with allegations about the nine year old girl and her eleven year old sister, sourced to the Daily Mail and the Sun, THE VERY SAME ALLEGATION I ENTERED AND YOU REMOVED ON 5 OCTOBER because it was sourced to the Sun?!?. What is going on Ianmacm, are you now expecting the allegations about the nine year old and eleven year old to be removed by the admin, John? You are obviously following this article very closely, so must have some expectation of what is likely to happen. I am certainly going to think before I make any more contributions to any of the Wiki projects, and certainly don't intend to add anything more to the Jimmy Savile article. My final question Ianmacm, is do you you intend to continue with your inconsistent, contradictory edits and your backdoor reversions?? Logging out of Wikipeadia.

Waugh Bacon (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Was that also "goodbye" to "Wikipeadia"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Some allegations have appeared only in tabloid newspapers. There is no need to go into details about all of them (there have been many and probably more to come) and naming the people involved if they are still alive has WP:BLPNAME issues. I have tried to keep the list of allegations within a reasonable length; we all know by now that there have been numerous allegations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

But that would surely be contrary to the accepted principle in Wikipedia that Wikipedia is NOT censored (Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED). There is NO known and agreed rule in Wikipedia stating that news and stories from British Tabloid newspapers and their Internet web-sites are to be treated, presumed or considered inherently unreliable. If you in fact harbour or labour doubt over, nay wish to challenge, dispute or question, the general or particular reliability of the Tabloids, or the "Red-tops", then kindly, I humbly and respectfully implore you to please agree to abide by the agreed existing procedures, and take the matter up over to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard instead, before making any, or any further, potentially unilateral decisions or controversial edits. I thank you. -- KC9TV 18:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think there needs to be consensus on whether British tabloids are reliable sources or not. In some instances they pursue stories that the more "respectable" papers disdain and can be better sources for that reason.

This is a scandal that is developing daily and that is the reason why in my opinion it needs a separate article. Caution in the first days of these revelations was understandable but things have moved on now, at least in Britain this is now an issue of major, I would say historic, importance with huge implications for many institutions. "Police are investigating claims that Jimmy Savile abused young women on a national scale over a 50 year period.In the first official estimate of the scale of the scandal, Scotland Yard said officers were pursuing 120 different lines of inquiry that could involve up to 25 victims, in an inquiry known as Operation Yewtree....Police said Savile had a “predilection” for young girls and that they had found evidence of offending on a “national scale”.Officers are in contact with Stoke Mandeville and Leeds General Infirmary hospitals, where he did charity work and volunteered, about the possibility that he abused patients there as well as in his BBC dressing room." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9596572/Jimmy-Savile-Met-finds-evidence-of-sex-abuse-over-50-years.htmlSmeat75 (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"...this is now an issue of major, I would say historic, importance with huge implications for many institutions". Well, possibly, or possibly not - we'll see. Nothing here deflects from my view that, at present, there is no need for a separate article on the allegations themselves. Operation Yewtree is mentioned in the article - I accept that that inquiry, when its parameters are clarified, may be worth a freestanding article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

To go back to the original title of this section, I think this sentence 'Staff reported that he would search the wards for young patients to abuse and that they would instruct patients in the children’s ward to feign sleep during his visits.[49] ' ought to be in the section on the allegations of sexual abuse rather than the one on voluntary work and fundraising. Partly because it doesn't flow right where it is and partly because a section on voluntary work and fundraising should contain details of voluntary work and fundraising (not allegations of sexual abuse when there's a separate section for allegations of sexual abuse). Does anyone have a problem with that? The Old Trout (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. That something is scandalous and attention-grabbing is no excuse to worm it into sections that aren't relevant. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

OK - I take the point. I've tweaked this article's section on fundraising, etc., and moved the specific referenced allegation re Stoke Mandeville to the article on the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. That's not to minimise the importance of the allegations, but simply to improve the structure and balance between the two articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Knighthood expired on death and therefore it should not be 'Sir'

Unlike other honours, the British Knighthood, as has just been confirmed by 10 Downing Street, expires upon death. If the honour has expired, he should not be referred to as "sir' in the article, as he is dead. Agreed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.91.247.43 (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It is true that a knighthood and OBE expires on a person's death, but this relates to the possibility of stripping Savile of his knighthood, which was discussed in the media today.[6] The rules might have to be changed to allow for this. Anthony Blunt and Fred Goodwin were stripped of their knighthoods while still alive. Winston Churchill (among others) is dead, but is still referred to as Sir Winston Churchill.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I has always assumed that a "life peerage", as opposed to a hereditary peerage, was just that, unless it was taken away before death. Is this stripping away after death something else - i.e. negating the fact that he ever had one? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not an expert here, but apparently the current rules do not allow for a Fred Goodwin-style rescinding once a person is dead.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The KBE only expires because it is not inherited, unlike a Baronet, for example.--JacksonKnight 17:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Woops actually hes a Knight Bachelor not a Knight of the British Empire , I have updated the wiki article. --JacksonKnight 17:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody addresses Churchill as "Sir" any more, for obvious reasons. :-) Plus, when referring to Churchill in the third person, as one always must, for the same reasons, the reference certainly does not need to include the knighthood title Churchill held during his lifetime. Let's remember that, when we are referring to dead persons, we never use honorifics.-The Gnome (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. People who were knighted in their lifetimes are invariably referred to using their titles after their deaths. Are you really saying you've never heard Churchill referred to as "Sir Winston Churchill"? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's normal practice to refer to a person by the name he or she used in their lifetime. There is no reason to diverge from that practice here. The possibility of his knighthood being rescinded, which has been mentioned today by David Cameron, is mentioned in the "Honours" section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Are Papal Knighthoods ever rescinded? One might imagine that such an honour is now of greater embarrassment to The Pope than to David Cameron. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a question for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Isn't that the sort of thing the Spanish Inquisition did? Nobody expects them to show up. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"Disbanded 15 July 1834". So not long before the BBC took over, really. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Their site doesn't give any indication of any rescissions (Good word eh! - had to look it up though...) of such honours. Perhaps they don't think it matters as he'll be burning in eternal torment anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

PS:Now in hand, apparently. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Tend to agree. "Sir" is a honorific term. When you die, you are not master of anything any more. -The Gnome (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• People continue to be referred to as "Sir" after death. It depends on the individual whether it seems to fit. Examples of common use of "Sir": Sir Walter Raleigh; Sir Walter Scott; Sir Francis Drake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.40.33 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • [7] and over 17,900 uses of Sir Jimmy in newspapers since his death last year.] We follow the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As somebody who works for the Catholic Church, perhaps I can clarify issues surrounding the KSCG. I have removed it from the article and will continue to do so because it is not appropriate, nor ever used, after death. British honours remain after death, whereas the Church has always been clear that Papal honours expire at the point of death. A person therefore may have John Smith OBE on their gravestone or obituary etc, but will never have John Smith OBE KSCG etc because it no longer counts. Papal honours are strictly 'temporal'.

Issues with this article

There is now too much trivia about Savile's career and too many anecdotes about his life in the article and too little discussion of some issues arising from the recent reports of sexual abuse. The major peaks of his career certainly need to remain, but there is no need to include, for instance, details of a particular Christmas radio broadcast in 2005,that he handed out cigarettes on a visit to the set of Celebrity Big Brother,or that a woman stole his glasses and he promised her a box of chocolates. Instead there needs to be discussion of some issues receiving a lot of attention in the British press, such as the BBC's cancellation of the Newsnight segment which examined the reports of Savile's sex abuse, e.g. http://www.standard.co.uk/business/media/roy-greenslade-shelving-of-newsnights-jimmy-savile-expos-has-left-bbc-with-questions-to-answer-8205243.html "Roy Greenslade: Shelving of Newsnight's Jimmy Savile exposé has left BBC with questions to answer" also many questions are being asked as to how so many media insiders could have suspected, or known, about his sexual abuse of underage girls without this ever coming to public knowledge, see the same article - "Two former Radio 1 DJs, Liz Kershaw and Paul Gambaccini, both said — as many others did last week — that Savile’s behaviour was an “open secret”. Indeed it was. One of my late friends, who worked at the BBC from the early 1970s into the late 1990s, often mentioned Savile’s predilection for young girls. She wasn’t moved to report it to anyone because it was such a well-known “fact”. Everyone knows, she used to say with a shrug."

There are now reports that Savile abused patients at the hospitals he volunteered in, some reference to these should be included, for instance : http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9968467.Ex_York_nurse_saw_Jimmy_Savile____molest____patient/ "Ex-York nurse saw Jimmy Savile ‘molest’ patient.June Thornton, 80, says she saw Jimmy Savile indecently assault a patient at Leeds General Infirmary" http://www.metro.co.uk/news/914688-we-witnessed-jimmy-savile-abuse-at-stoke-mandeville-say-former-patients "We witnessed Jimmy Savile abuse at Stoke Mandeville, say former patients Jimmy Savile abused sick girls on his ‘ward round’ as a hospital volunteer, two former patients have claimed."Smeat75 (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

it says a lot more about the people who supposedly witnessed crimes years ago and said nothing but are now coming out of the woodwork to make claims about a dead man, than it does about the dead man. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

We are not really supposed to use this talk page as a forum for discussing the issue or speculation but to make suggestions as to how to improve the article. If you can find reputable newspaper columnists or editorials saying something along the lines of "Why didn't these people speak out while he was alive, this all seems very suspicious" then they could be added to the article, but you will not find authorities saying such things, what you will find instead are comments from people such as Janet Street-Porter and Esther Rantzen that Savile's huge reputation as an "icon", or even, as Rantzen said, "a saint, a god-like figure", was very intimidating to a child or an ordinary person who had suffered or witnessed abuse and may have believed s/he was the only one who thought Savile was an abuser against millions of others, including church and political leaders, Royalty and celebrities, who revered him as a charity fund raiser and much loved national figure.Smeat75 (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it also says a lot about the "cult of celebrity". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The article needs to look at why more of this did not come out in his lifetime, but the lack of witnesses pursuing complaints at the time is not unusual. Consider all of the child abuse scandals in the church or childrens' homes, where bishops and politicians had in some cases been warned for years about what was going on, but turned a blind eye. The UK's stringent libel laws, coupled with the likelihood setting off a media circus (cited by one of the alleged victims) also played their part.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just read through the article for the first time and it seems to me that as of right now (lunchtime BST, 11 October) it's about right. There's obviously much more to come on this and I could easily foresee that in a year's time 90% of the article will be about his sexual abuse and issues around why it didn't come up before, with the rest of his career just a footnote. But this is too fast moving at the moment to even attempt real overall balance. There's a suggestion at AN/I that this article should have a {{current}} tag, and I think that's a good idea. Patience. DeCausa (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Might be wrong about the 90% as a new article has just been created. DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

...without any prior discussion or agreement here. How's about that then?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, guys and gals, is this new article necessary at the moment?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that every day for the past 12 days reports of Savile have made the headlines with fresh new reports and the extent of the allegations which run the risk of severely bloating his main article to be 90% about the allegations then yes, absolutely so. And no doubts the article will continue to develop as new reports emerge..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The view on this page has been that most of the individual allegations should not be mentioned here as they are individually non-notable (but clearly notable collectively) - and so they haven't been. We are an encyclopedia, not a collation of media reports. If that process were followed, the new article would be unnecessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As you know, I have been saying for several days that a separate article on the sexual abuse issue was needed but I respected your view and those others who were against it. However I felt strongly that this matter was going to start spreading widely far beyond Savile himself and that is exactly what is happening with issues involving the BBC, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Leeds General Infirmary, Broadmoor Hospital, childens' care homes and the people who ran those institutions, investigations into Savile's possible abuse in all those different institutioms and if the people in charge were negligent or culpable, on and on, and who knows where or when it will stop, there needs to be space for these issues be written about, wikipedia should be, and I imagine is, a resource that people turn to to try to find out more on this major British story. There would no be room to deal with all of that on this article and it would swamp the rest of it, and the details of Savile's career are very important, his immense fame and revered status is a huge part of all this. So I am glad there is now a separate article on the "scandal".Smeat75 (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The article needs to look at why more of this did not come out in his lifetime... Err, no, surely it needs to describe what the reliable sources say. If reliable sources start discussing the reasons why Savile's alleged activities weren't reported or handled during his lifetime, that's probably going to get to a level of OR-ish meta that isn't backed up by the sources yet. Given that Scotland Yard announced that they have an enormous cross-force investigation going on with 125 lines of inquiry being pursued, I think it is probably a little too early and a little too speculative for post-mortem discussions about why these discoveries weren't made sooner. Surely that kind of thing will be investigated and reported in the fullness of time. The Wikipedia article should be "just the facts, ma'am". —Tom Morris (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There are already various sourced theories about why Savile was not prosecuted in 2007-8, ranging from the plausible to the not so plausible. Like Wikipedia, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the media have their hands tied when dealing with living people. One of the most interesting quotes is in this citation from one of the alleged victims: "You need to be prepared for the media circus it will cause, you will have the press camped on your doorstep. I decided I couldn't cope with that. And, as understandable as that is, I don't think I'll ever stop beating myself up for not having the courage to continue with that and get it out in the open while he was still alive."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is much better in its current version,greatly improved since yesterday.Smeat75 (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The complexity of Savile appears to be he was a Dexter-like psychopath: in his case, an elephant in the room furthering his deviance through tireless dedication to good causes. Kmitch87 (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You REALLY misunderstand Dexter. That character achieves good ends (the death of really bad people) through bad means (killing them himself). Savile pretended to do good, so he could be an evil, perverted man. Savile was the kind of person that the Dexter character tortured and killed. LHM 17:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually I've never read or watched Dexter, rather he's someone everyone editing this article is likely to have heard of; but as you admit: he tortures and kills people - and his work aids him in selecting his victims. That he does so in a way that can be seen as a public service(much like raising millions for charity) is neither here nor there in the eyes of the law. My point being his true narrative is one of a serial killer who happens to be a forensic blood spatter analyst, not vice versa: and similar with Savile's story (which unfortunately isn't fiction). Perhaps he had a "Dark Passenger" too? 92.40.253.208 (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• In both the books and the TV program, Dexter has a moral code by which he lives his life. The only moral code Jimmy Savile lived by was what made him feel good. He is a polar opposite of the Dexter character. LHM 22:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Necrophilia

Are the rumours of his taste for dead bodies notable enough to be included in the article? They are quite widespread and I have heard them from many different sources. Lostmywayfelldownahole (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Any of them reliable or is it internet junk?DeCausa (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Wilder web rumours" along those lines have been mentioned here - but we should only mention them if there is some evidence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Editors need to be aware that much of whats in the press at the moment will be incorrect/untrue. Journalists are jumping on the bandwagon with this story by offering cash to people who had contact with Savile in the past. As they say, money talks, but it does not always talk the truth.Markdarrly (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I've personally heard anecdotes of suspected necrophilia connected to a hospital he was associated with, from a local in the 80s or 90s, rather than any pedophilla claims. This article by biographer Dan Davies refers to him being "disturbed by his morbid fascination with death" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213931/Jimmy-Savile-Little-slaves-sordid-boasts-dark-truth-friend--biographer-Dan-Davies.html Remember if the allegations are true then the various hospital enquiries will probably uncover them. Reluctant Corrector (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Lots of references and claims now made on national radio http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/was-jimmy-savile-a-necrophiliac-too-8216476.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/paul-gambaccini-aware-of-accusations-linking-jimmy-savile-to-necrophilia-8223217.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221922/Jimmy-Savile-necrophiliac-says-colleague-Paul-Gambaccini.html plus plenty more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.12.116 (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail and reports that someone said that someone said are never appropriate sources for controversial content. WP:RS. the web is full of all kinds of shitty shitty crap. we only take from the places that have reputation for fact checking and accuracy and non-hearsay information.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree that caution is sensible here. Better references than the Daily Mail will emerge. 71.225.0.62 (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Has he come back from the dead?

First paragraph: "He is the subject of a police investigation into allegations of sexual assault made after his death.". How the hell did he do that then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scandal Bird (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair point - now tweaked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The allegations were made after he died; the alleged offences happened before he died. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that was being doubted - I believe it was a point about syntax. DeCausa (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There is more: "In October 2012 Savile publicly defended the convicted paedophile pop star Gary Glitter [...]". That was 2009. Savile was dead in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.60.124.39 (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe an earlier defence only recieved publicity in 2012. Britmax (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Now corrected to read 2009 - thanks for pointing it out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Intro

The claims about Savile being a paedophile were around in the 1970s. It didn't just begin after his death. Although I always heard he was sexually abusing underage boys, not girls. (92.10.139.113 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC))

The intro says "claims surfaced..." in recent months. The article refers to earlier allegations, but these were largely unpublished and unpublicised claims, so I see no problem with the current wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The "claims" have been around for years and years but it seems that now he is dead, as there will be no chance of a lawsuit being filed people are more willing to go onto the record, possibly for personal gain. Louis Theroux asked him in an interview about his "tendencies" and he obviously denied it, but now he aint here to defend himself, no doubt some people will try to ramp up what was a casual meeting with Savile into a possible claim for sexual abuse.Markdarrly (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuits can be filed against his estate and his charitable foundation, and against the BBC. (92.10.139.113 (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I am fully aware that lawsuits can be filed against him, (what did you think I meant when I wrote about personal gain?)if you read the question correctly, you will realise that I meant that there is no chance of Jimmy Savile launching a lawsuit for wrongful accusation.Markdarrly (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a complicated question of law. The Statute of Limitations in the Common law of England would usually come into play in this. (I cannot however speak for the legal system of the Island and Bailiwick of Jersey, in which I believe, the system is a mixture of English-style local Common law and local Norman-French customary law.) -- KC9TV 13:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

But where is the time limit on the trial of sexual assault defined in UK common law and what is it? It's not covered by the Limitation Act 1980, is it? It seems from Law of Jersey that Jersey uses UK common law. There is no mention of the Statute of Limitations at Sexual Offences Act 2003. But does the statute apply equally to criminal and to civil proceedings? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• NO criminal trial of sexual assault is possible or allowed because the defendant (Sir Jimmy Savile) is dead.
• It is unlikely that a judge, or the Attorney-General, would allow a criminal case to be brought against the BBC or any other persons or entities, without the conviction of Savile, which is of course not possible.
• Any proceedings would probably be a civil one, as tort.
• It appears that the Limitation Act 1980 covers only the Limitations in civil cases, not criminal ones. (I am not a solicitor, of course; and a barrister, the other usual kind of lawyer, would be too busy to be on Wikipedia.)
• It is incorrect to speak of an "UK Common law", because the Three Kingdoms, England (England and Wales), Scotland and Northern Ireland all have separate legal systems, although the system in England (E. & W.) and the one in Northern Ireland are very similar to one and other, although not identically.
• What is the Common law? "The Common law" is a form of law, of sorts, and it is basically anything that is not enacted (passed) and written down by Parliament (the Statute law), or from the Pope (Canon law), the Romans (Roman law), Aristotle and other Ancient Greek philosophers (natural law) or God (the Bible), and usually they are the past cases of the judicial decisions of judges (but not magistrates or coroners).
• Jersey has always a separate legal system (and English and British (or French) laws do not usually apply in Jersey, unless the legislature (the Island's "parliament"), the Medieval-French-sounding States (Estates) of Jersey says so). E.g., we have the Data Protection Act 1998 (Chapter 29), and they the Islanders have the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005 (L.2/2005). -- KC9TV 00:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no limit of statute for serious sexual offences in English law - This is unique in Europe.Markdarrly (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in English criminal law there is no equivalent to the Limitation Act. Criminal offences can be tried, in theory, at any time up to the defendant's death. But, in practice, the passage of time will affect the CPS's decision to prosecute because of the evidential hurdles it throws up. It may affect the "realistic prospect of conviction" and "in the public interest" tests. Jersey, I suspect, won't be materially different. DeCausa (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the Statute of Limitations is an incorrect term for criminal proceedings. If something is not part of the Statute law, then it seems that it is considered incorrect to speak of a "Statute", or "the Statute of Limitations in the Common law", only "Limitations". There is however probably a long-standing legal theory, nay principle ("[T]he principle that litigation should be stifled at some point (irrespective of the merits of the case) to prevent claims being brought at a time when it is no longer possible to give a fair trial to the dispute, remains valid." (Law Com. No. 270, The House of Commons (HC 23), 03 April 2001 (printed 09 July 2001), Part IV, Reform II, Point 6, paragraph 4.23, pps. 105 & 106)), although as it is probably not established by a ruling of a judge sitting in a Court of Record, it is probably not actually part of the Common law itself in England (E. & W.). -- KC9TV 14:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 October 2012

87.112.100.79 (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really bothered what replaces it but according to the awarding body for OBE and knighthood you do not have to refer to the honours once the person is dead. This and the fact he used his charity work to gain access to children his page should now not use his obe and the Sir prefix in his listing

This has been discussed earlier on the talk page, see above. Wikipedia articles usually refer to people by the titles that they had in their lifetime, so people who had knighthoods are referred to as "Sir" in the WP:LEAD section. The issue here is Wikipedia precedent, not whether Savile should be stripped of his knighthood.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a "fact" in the way that Wikipedia generally uses that word. Yes, it's a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw from the allegations made to date. But he didn't just use his charity work - apparently he used his TV shows, his flashy car, his celebrity status in general - in short, any means available. We don't know if all of his charity work was motivated wholly, or even primarily, by his desire to abuse. I suspect he was just more of an opportunist, but we'll probably never know. The article must reflect only what everyone agrees are "facts". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

In this edit yesterday, the mention of the sexual abuse scandal, which had been placed in the opening paragraph of the article, was moved down to the third paragraph. This removed duplication, but also may be seen by readers of the article as minimising the importance of the abuse allegations in presenting a balanced picture of his life. I've now swapped the order of the second and third paras round, so that the mention of the abuse allegations is more upfront, but I'd be equally happy to revert to the wording as it was before yesterday's edit, with a bit of tweaking to minimise the duplication. Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I support your restoration of that order. But things may be different in a year from now, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The first para currently states "best known for his BBC television show Jim'll Fix It and for being the first and last presenter of the long-running BBC music chart show Top of the Pops." This is no longer true. He's now best known for being one of the nations most prolific child abusers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.160.127 (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is probably true now. But it's been true only since 30 September 2012, and that cannot reflect, or in some way obliterate, the reasons for his fame for the 50 years before that. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

But I see that "best known" has now been changed to "best". An alternative might be to use "best known in his lifetime". Except that I'm not convinced that was necessarily true. While Wikipedia has to remain topical, I'm also not convinced that the child abuse tsunami should sweep away so much, so quickly, even it definitely has in the popular public view. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You may not be convinced that the child abuse scandal should wash everything else he may have done in his lifetime, but I fear you are in the minority. Certainly all the charities he worked for have disavowed him. That he is best known now as a child abuser is undebatable, and this situation is not about to change. Do you really think that for example in 10 years this will all have been forgotten about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.160.127 (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant in this article. It will never he forgotten, not in a hundred years. Nor should it be. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

the formulation "best known for" is nearly always crappy WP:OR. Straightforward phraseology is nearly always better "He was the host of __ from YEAR to YEAR, and of __ for twenty years." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that may well be better. But the general point I am making is this: it is important for the article to clearly reflect how Savile was viewed during his lifetime - as some kind of celebrity saint, by all accounts. This is part of the reason, maybe even the entire reason, why his abuse went unchallenged for so long. Even for so long after he died. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I've slightly changed the opening para with a view to making it less cumbersome and more neutral - that is, "He presented..." rather than "He was known for presenting..." The old wording ("..best known for...") was a hangover from the article as it existed a few weeks ago, and I think it's quite appropriate that it has now been changed. The article should present a balanced view of his biography - obviously that balance has been changed by the revelations of the last few weeks, and will no doubt change again over time as more is written about him in future reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As a point of accuracy there are currently over 200 *victims*, not witnesses. I believe the number of witnesses is significantly higher "The National Association for People Abused in Childhood has received a staggering 2,000 calls offering information since details of Savile's decades preying on youngsters began to emerge." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9611090/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-organised-all-girl-therapeutic-parties-at-Broadmoor.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.160.127 (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the source given says "over 200 potential victims have been identified", so I have changed that in the article. But not sure exactly what the "information offered" has been in any of those 2,000 calls. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that use of "best known" can be WP:ORish/weasily. However, I think its complete deletion has missed an opportunity. The dramatic change in his reputation doesn't quite come out in the lead (although it's implied). I'd suggest something along the lines of "Although he was best known during his lifetime [for Top of the Pops etc], since his death [emergence of sex crimes allegations]." The fact of the complete turnaround in his reputation, not just the reasons for the turnaround, should be in the lead. DeCausa (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you may be right. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be content with that - it would pretty much return the intro to what it was like prior to the edits by Manxwoman two days ago. If we do that, should we then change the order of the second and third paras back to what it was as well? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: I've been bold and had a go at rewording it along those lines - happy to discuss (if I can access the internet, that is..... why is it so difficult to change ISP??) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was a complete turnaround in his reputation. A lot of people thought him a bit odd, and the Theroux documentary from 2000 should be proof of that. He was specifically asked about the rumours then, so they were certainly publicly know =n by that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.160.127 (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Rumours and his general, vaguely creepy, oddness didn't really affect his reputation. See, for example, the now infamous BBC tribute programme last Christmas. DeCausa (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This situation has turned into what happened to Frank Sinatra. When he was alive, nobody would go on the record to say that he got mafia payments, but after he died people were more free to speak and speak they did.Markdarrly (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Any commentary and analysis of this sort MUST ABSOLUTELY BE SUPPORTED BY SOURCES - not merely wikipedia opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

BBC as a primary source

The BBC is not a reliable source here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.27.100.140 (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, though it is not as cut and dried as that. I agree that it would be preferable, in general, to draw on non-BBC sources, at least on reporting on matters within the purview of the BBC inquiries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The BBC is clearly a primary source "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Besides which their own journalists have stated that the BBC has issued "repeated misleading statements." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/revealed-newsnight-emails-that-accuse-bbc-of-jimmy-savile-coverup-8218971.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.160.127 (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. As I said, it would be preferable to use secondary and tertiary sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

When did this guy magically come from a "devout Catholic" family?

Last month there was no claim of this. Now magically he's a devout catholic, something someone just decided to make up. Wikipedia needs to pull its collective head out of its ass. Whatzinaname (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

[U]ser by the name Panjigally magically decided to add it after the all the scandal broke out. The bio previously clearly showed he was roman catholic. Whatzinaname (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

while the "devout" description appears to have been created out of whole cloth, please stop removing the entirely appropriately sourced description of "Catholic" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

his religion was already listed in the bio of the page. No need to repeat it.. Since it's plainly obvious people where only adding this out of bigotry and the previous version was perfectly acceptable for long time, it will be removed as undue. Whatzinaname (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. When you say "his religion was already listed in the bio", I assume you are referring to the infobox. The infobox is supposed to contain information that is cited within the article text. The article text therefore needs to contain this information, which is both properly referenced and relevant to the article. Please do not revert again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Normally a person's religion is not a big deal in a BLP, but Savile was a Catholic and his Papal knighthood is the subject of controversy, the same as his UK knighthood.[8]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED; and in order to be eligible for that particular Papal knighthood, even if it is a temporal (but not "secular") one, and not a religious or a spiritual one from the Church, according to the rules of the Order in which the particular knighthood belongs to, being the Order of Saint Gregory the Great, one MUST usually be a baptised and a confirmed Roman Catholic in full communion with the See and the Bishop of Rome, and therefore, on that alone, Savile's religion was indeed pertinent, whether the Papal knighthood was in fact controversial or otherwise. -- KC9TV 04:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

National Health Service

The third paragraph ends with "The scandal led to enquiries into practices at the BBC, and in the National Health Service being set up." This does not initially make sense unless you know the background and could appear as a malicious edit. Having read into this further, I can see that it is trying to state that enquiries were set up at both the BBC and the NHS but the sentence structure is awkward.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmagic (talk • contribs) 15:26, 23 October 2012

Yes - I'll tweak the wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL: BBC not in the lead

Today [9], the lead says: In October 2012, almost a year after his death, Scotland Yard launched a criminal investigation into historic (after 2/3rds of lead praisal). May we not expect to read words like "Ribbon", "ITV" , "October 2012" and such? I myself am not interested in his charty work as much as the lead suggests. -DePiep (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The opening paragraph mentions the BBC twice, and says: "After his death, allegations of child sex abuse and rape were made against him." The order of the introductory paragraphs has been discussed several times on this page already, and changed several times - the current consensus is that the current order and structure represents a fair balance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 October 2012

Please change The scandal has led to inquiries into practices at the BBC, and within the National Health Service to The scandal has led to inquiries into practices at the BBC, within the National Health Service and the Department of Health. 83.105.62.177 (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes - now done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A "philanthropist".....  ?

A philanthropist is someone who does good for humanity - not necessarily someone who raises lots of money for good causes. It's a philosophical term, not a description of what someone does financially. Yes, Savile raised lots of money for charity, but a balanced view would be that that good is, at least, outweighed by the harm he did. It was reasonable to call him a philanthropist when he died, as the extent of his good deeds was known at that time, but not his evil deeds. It is not reasonable or balanced to call him a philanthropist now, because the extent of his evil is becoming clear. "Philanthropist" is not a balanced term to describe him. "Philanthropist and paedophile" would be balanced - but is nonsensical. Best to leave the word "philanthropist" out entirely, except in noting in the text that he was thought to be one when he was alive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

hogwash. the blackwashing occurring in this article is disgraceful. The man donated and raised tremendous sums of money for the public good. period. that his other activities may and its still MAY as none of the allegations have been proved, do not take back the benefits to the public that his donations created. life is messy and complicated and not simply black and white/ good guys and bad guys. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My dictionary says: Philanthropy: Love of mankind; practical benevolence. Practical benevolence - yes, in that he raised lots of money for good causes. Love of mankind - very definitely not - he was a serial abuser of vulnerable people. You can't use the word to mean just one of those things, without - quite wrongly - implying the other as well. I propose that instead of "philanthropist" we use the term "fundraiser" - which is a neutral description of what he did. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You are either selecting only one, or only part of the many definitions or your dictionary sucks.

dictonary.com provides this SERIES of definitions: 1. altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usually manifested by donations of money, property, or work to needy persons, by endowment of institutions of learning and hospitals, and by generosity to other socially useful purposes. 2. the activity of donating to such persons or purposes in this way: to devote one's later years to philanthropy. 3. a particular act, form, or instance of this activity: The art museum was their favorite philanthropy. 4. a philanthropic organization. Absolutely ZERO reference to the fact that if someone kicked a bunny or stole a child's candy that they no longer are a "philanthropist" or practicing "philanthropy". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've answered these points on RedPen's user talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Copying my response:

I think he did rather more than "kicking a bunny" or stealing candy. My point remains that, if you describe him as a philanthropist, you are indicating (supposedly, neutrally) that he was someone who did good for mankind, who has an "altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement". I don't believe it is possible to take that position at present - though, if the allegations were to be disproved (pretty unlikely, I should think), the position might change in the future. A philanthropist is, by definition, someone whose good deeds towards humanity outweighed their bad deeds. You simply can't say that now about Savile in a neutral, balanced, biographical article - apart from whether or not it's "true", it's clearly and obviously contrary to reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

your answer is based on the not yet proven assumption that he DID something more than kick a bunny. Folks such as Rockefeller and Carnegie also were not perfect and yet are WIDELY described by the term "philanthropist". (the conversation should probably take place here) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"Proof" is going to be difficult now that he is dead - but it is increasingly clear where the balance of probabilities lies. Can you locate any recent reliable sources - published within the last month or so, when the full picture of his life has started to become known - that describe him as a "philanthropist"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The onus is on demonstrating that he was a "philanthropist" not that he wasn't. As both the definitions quoted above clearly show, the word combines motivation (altruism and love of mankind) as well as action (charitable giving). The sources in the article for "philanthropist" are given "pre-revelations". There is enough out there that now casts doubt on the reliability of sources that made assumptions as to his motivation and which pre-date the emergence of the current allegations. In other words, sources prior to the last couple of months are now not WP:RS for anything that touches on his motivation for charity. That is not the same as expressly saying he was not philanthropic. Simply it is unsafe to use an old source for the word. DeCausa (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

[10] [11] [12] proven that he was widely considered a philantropist. It is now in the ballpark of the refuters to show that that view has changed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully accept that he was called a philanthropist - indeed, a "prodigious philanthropist" - [13] - but that does not mean that such a description is a neutral and balanced one for an encyclopedia written and updated today, when a fuller picture of his life has begun to emerge. (As DeCausa said, in fact.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Having just googled philanthropist + Jimmy Savile it's quite clear that "philanthopist" is only used now in ironic juxtaposition with the allegations. You won't find anyone announcing that he's "not now considered a philanthropist" because it's so blindingly obvious that it would be crass to do so. But the Guardian has said that he was hiding under his philanthropic cloak to commit acts of terrible depravity. I think if the word "philanthropist" is used it needs to be qualified by that. But none of this is the point. As I said before, "pre-revelation" sources are now unreliable. DeCausa (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)