Talk:Jimmy Savile/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Auction of his effects

We had a reasonably good and sourced para on the sale of his effects:

"An auction of Savile's possessions was conducted at the Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds on 30 July 2012, with the money raised going to charity. His silver Rolls-Royce Corniche convertible was sold for £130,000 to an internet bidder. The vehicle's number plate, JS 247, featured the original medium wave wavelength used by BBC Radio 1 (247 metres)."

However, User:Markdarrly has insisted on replacing it with this:

"An auction of Savile's possessions was conducted at the then named Saviles Hall - Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds on 30 july 2012 with the proceeds going to charity. Amongst the 551 lots offered were items of Saviles clothing, pedal cycles, a deerstalker hat, medals and shirt numbers from various marathons that he had completed and his trademark gold jewellery. Prices ranged from £25 that was paid for 3 empty cigar packs upto the £161,200 that was paid for Saviles 2002 Rolls Royce Corniche Convertable - complete with the registration no JS 247. Inlight of the subsequent allegations that have been made against him, Saviles Hall has been rebranded and is now known as New Dock Hall.

This has been discussed on my talk page. I won't bother pointing out the spelling and grammatical errors, and I won't bother reverting again because (1) it's trivial and (2) I'm tired, but other editors might like to take a view and edit accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If you think that the above few lines in an article this size about an event that raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for charity because people were willing to pay for items (even items that were meant for the bin) is reasonable then I must disagree with you. It seems that some editors have jumped on the Savile bashing bandwagon and have become blinkered about the recent allegations. Markdarrly (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Without being aware of this discussion I edited that section anyway. The non-ref of the auctioneer's website has been replaced by one from Mail Online (best I could find at short notice). I've fixed the grammar issues with the latter hall renaming section and added another ref, again replacing the non-ref from the auction house which I am highly doubtful would have covered this anyway. Having seen the earlier version I would be quite happy to revert to that for the auction section, with my ref (or another independent ref) appended.. danno_uk 20:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I support reverting to the original version. There are still errors ("july") and the registration number thing was interesting. Rothorpe (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I reverted it and transferred the re-namiing of Savile's Hall to the "memorials removed" section. DeCausa (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The reg no thing is interesting, if you look at a vehicle log book it will state "VRM" which stands for Vehicle Registration Mark. It does not say "number plate" If you want to talk about being accurate, then make sure you get it correct before commenting on other peoples additions Markdarrly (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

'Number plate' is normal English. Rothorpe (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

....as confirmed by Wikipedia no less! ('cept it's not an RS...) DeCausa (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that you will find that a number plate or a vehicle registration plate is a piece of (usually) laminated plastic that the information ie the registration number is written on.Markdarrly (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

See Metonymy. Rothorpe (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

see "www.commonsense.co.uk" If you were asked by a police officer for details about a car, he or she would not say "what is the number plate" they would ask what the "reg number" is. Markdarrly (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Commonsense indeed. That's why when the DVLA say Have a question about number plates or how to find your ideal number plate? on their personalised number plates webpage we don't think they're just selling bits of plastic. DeCausa (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

When a cherished number is sold, that is what they are selling, "The registration number" and that number comes on a certificate of retention that allows you then go to a shop and have that registration number spelled out onto a "number plate" the clue is in the word plate. You dont purchase a number plate from the DVLA, they do not sell them, as I have said before, you purchase a "Registration Number" Markdarrly (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And yet the DVLA website says they're selling "number plates". You should write to them and point out their error. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Engaging in pedantry about a turn of phrase because you're riled about a previous edit reversion doesn't really contribute positively to one's ongoing standing within the wikipedia community with whom you're going to be interacting going forward. Just a piece of advice Mark. danno_uk 22:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)::Im not "riled" by the revision, if other editors want to follow an agenda, thats up to them. As for the reg plate, when I am told that what I have written is incorrect when it is not, I am obviously going to defend myself. And as for "ones ongoing standing" I would rather argue a point than leave it wrong just for the sake of a bit of wiki cred. Markdarrly (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW I will contact the DVLA, but only after I have spoken to British Home Stores about why they dont sell homes and Comet about when the new range of comets will be in stock. Markdarrly (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND. -- KC9TV 02:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the actual auction item was the plates. Do we know it was the DVLA registration? It could have been simply the physical plates as a separate item, with the original registration transferring to the new owner of the car. Leaky Caldron 11:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Who knows? Well, we are (well, most of us are anyway) Brits, or Britons (the Americans used to call us Britishers, amongst other names), and we are supposed to be quite pedantic, but is this extreme pedantry not a little too far? Well, let just err upon the side of caution, and just use "number plates". A sale of the "registration number" usually means purchasing or buying a number off from some-one or some entity, somehow (I do not if this is in fact impossible; I am at present not a licensed driver), or directly from the DVLA of the DfT/old MoT (personalised registration), without the actual yellow and white plates. I would very much doubt that the buyer or purchaser were after the number more than the actual white and yellow number plates. -- KC9TV 01:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"Predatory Sex Offender"

The article currently states: "The police described him as a "predatory sex offender" and are pursuing over 400 separate lines of inquiry based on the testimony of 300 potential victims via fourteen police forces across the UK.[4][5]" Where exactly is a cite for that police quote? It seems highly unlikely that the police would have released a statement to that effect - it would prejudice the outcome of any investigation. It is also at odds with the CPS statement here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/director-of-public-prosecutions-confirms-urgent-investigation-into-failure-to-prosecute-jimmy-savile-over-child-abuse-allegations-8224641.html. Unless the "Predatory Sex Offender" statement can be properly cited should it not be removed? 213.246.82.22 (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It was the lead story on pretty much every news outlet on 9/10 October e.g. here. DeCausa (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It might have prejudiced any court case against Savile but as he's dead there won't be a court case with a jury that could be influenced by media coverage. danno_uk 20:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Who said that Savile acted alone? A trial with a jury that could be influenced by the media coverage of Savile's allegations is quite probable. He may have carried out attacks with other people who are still alive and liable for a trial now that people have started to come forward with allegations. Just because he is now dead, care should be taken about what is written as potential jurors could well be reading this article at this time. Markdarrly (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sub judice and contempt of court only really set in when there are "active proceedings" of or for a trial. -- KC9TV 03:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

They won't be relevant to a website hosted on servers located in Florida. But in any case I suppose responsible editors shouldn't want to put anything in the article which contributes to a mis-trial but perhaps that's not consistent with WP:NOTCENSORED DeCausa (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the same restrictions still apply to editors physically resident, present, based or otherwise domiciled in the United Kingdom and upon the British Islands (British Isles). There was this interesting case of a person from the other side of Yorkshire, that is the historic East Riding, known by the name of Simon Sheppard, who unsuccessfully argued in California against deportation and extradition, also as an evading fugitive, that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in the Bill of Rights of the United States, also extended to him. -- KC9TV 00:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a different point - that's about extradition in relation to a criminal offence committed in the UK. The chances of a UK WP editor being done for contempt of court is vanishingly small. Even though I'm a solicitor, that's not legal advice and I don't accept liability if anyone ends up in Wandsworth nick! DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Predatory is a term being quite widely and directly used for Savie, by those experienced in such crimes. Quick examples - attributed as used by UK police on ITV News ("Police say Jimmy Savile was a predatory paedophile" [1]), BBC ("Police have described ex-BBC presenter Savile as a predatory sex offender" [2]),Telegraph ("The BBC ...did not actively collude in the crimes of Sir Jimmy Savile. Nor, in all likelihood, did it engineer a cover-up of his predatory paedophilia" [3]), Telegraph again ("There are many explanations of why Jimmy Savile was not exposed during his lifetime as the predatory paedophile we now know him to have been" [4]), Ester Rantzen via The Guardian ("She said: "Savile was a predatory paedophile" [5]). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Revert by Ghmyrtle

I've reverted this revert by Ghmyrtle, and bringing it here for discussion. The revert states sources are "misrepresented", states "one site" is unreliable and the "other" is over-emphasising for effect; in fact the statements are not contentious, quote original speakers' words from police and CPS, and are citable from numerous sources, and these seem very unfounded concerns. Two of the 3 reverts seem to have no good reason given at all. The 3 reverted statements are:

• "was described as a 'national treasure' and an 'icon'." - Google shows "national treasure" was a term used to describe Savile by CNN, Economic Voice, Telegraph and Guardian columnists (described as blogs but covered by WP:RS), The Guardian, Daily Mail, Scotsman, New York Times, and Reuters UK, and 'icon' or 'iconic' were terms used among others by ABC online, Wall Street Journal, Irish Examiner, Guardian, Huffington Post, Scotsman and ITN. That's just a few from the first links. The BBC quote removed itself stated "Police believe former TV star Jimmy Savile, a national icon, may have been one of Britain's worst pedophile offenders. Some of Savile's alleged 300 victims had appeared on his TV shows".

• "Accusations had been made during his life but to little effect or publicity" - no good reason given, self evident statement, is anyone saying this is contentious or unciteable?

• "Formal police investigations were opened on 19 October 2012 to identify crimes by others related to Savile's activities" - no good reason given, cited by BBC, including statements that "The Metropolitan Police launched a formal criminal investigation into Savile's alleged offences on 19 October" and that "Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer is to review decisions ... not to prosecute Jimmy Savile in 2009"

I don't see any grounds for the revert, and the reasons seem unfounded. Sources are high quality and most of the revert has no explanation at all. That said, numerous other sources exist which can be used as well or instead, for the same facts, if the quality of sources had been a concern. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the sources, but the changes you want to the lead read a little tabloidy/unencyclopedic to me. I think the lead does warrant some juxtaposition of his former reputation with the allegations to provide part of the explanation for the notability of the issue. But I just think what you did was too overblown, both in quantity and in style. (Also, I don't think the reference to the investigation into other people is warranted/relevant for the lead - although it would be for the article.) I'm not sure if that's anything to do with why Ghmyrtle reverted you. Your edit that Rothorpe reverted appears to have got slightly mangled so wasn't readable. DeCausa (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I see you've now corrected that last edit, and it's the same as the first edit. I see also that there is some repetition (and contradiction) with the last para of the lead now. It certainly doesn't work having two big chunks on the allegations in the lead - that's making it look disorganised. The original with a brief mention of it in the first para with more detail in the last worked better. DeCausa (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, I mangled one, I've thanked Rothorpe for catching it. As to the point you're saying, the difficulty is it needs to convey extremes of both sides, in a way that the reader gets the gist. He was lauded and very highly regarded in his life, and was damned horribly after his death. I don't think the style is tabloidy, it's one of those cases where you actually do need to use the correct terms, and the corect terms are ones that tabloids might use. The evidence is in the citing - the same terms were used by the most sober and non-tabloid sources too. It's a strange intro to try and write, for sure. But I think we do need to be using the terms that everyone else is using, because for once (rarely) they may actually be the right ones. Usually I'm taking such terms out of articles, as they are almost never correct. Oddly, in this case a correct representation probably means using them. I agree the juxtapose is shocking and a common tabloid style but here it's correct usage and not an unreasonable juxtapose to describe him. In his life "A". After his death it was discovered "B". It's about that accurate in this case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the effect of covering allegations in 2 different paragraphs. Perhaps split it this way - one on his life as it was seen. Second on allegations and discoveries after his death. Third on his "Overview biography" (coalmines, etc). Logical 3 paragraph split. That also might improve the problem I have too, namely that the "life view" and "posthumous view" (the two most important aspects) aren't juxtaposed in the intro so a reader doesn't read one then the other directly - and that might be a way to handle it too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)The first and most general point is that the balance that should be set in the introductory paragraphs has been the subject of a considerable amount of discussion on this page over the last few weeks, and any new wording should take those discussions into account. On the specifics:

• "was described as a 'national treasure' and an 'icon'." All the sources for this have been published, mostly in blogs and opinion pieces, over the last few weeks - since the allegations became public. The phrases have been used in those articles as a deliberate counterpoint to the sexual abuse allegations. However, the sentence as now written suggests, as a factual statement, that he was seen by reliable sources in his lifetime as a treasure and icon. Whether or not such terms are encyclopedic anyway, I have not seen any sources that described him in those terms in his lifetime. He was a presenter and fundraiser - factual statements, unchallenged. "National treasure" and "icon" are non-factual, highly debatable terms used posthumously for effect - and should not be used here, either in parentheses or not. As DeCausa says, they are tabloidy.
• "Accusations had been made during his life but to little effect or publicity" - true, but again a bit tabloidy, and inappropriate for the opening paragraph because of the need for an overall balance in the introduction. It's effectively a point of detail and, again, tabloidy.
• "Formal police investigations were opened on 19 October 2012 to identify crimes by others related to Savile's activities" This is a biography of Savile, not of other people. We have a separate article on the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, and statements like this should be added there, not here.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: I think the original structure had it right. First para - basics of what he did, factually, including reference to the current scandal. Second para - his career as a presenter and fundraiser, honours, etc. Third para - fuller explanation of the abuse allegations. If you leave that completely out of the opening paragraph, you are instantly creating a biased non-neutral impression. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

PPS: And why on earth do we need so many citations in the lead? I've always understood that they should be minimised in the opening paragraphs - the introduction should summarise the whole article, and if statements are cited in the text they do not need to be cited in the intro. Do the changes made today summarise the article content, or are they adding new claims? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The point Ghmyrtle makes about the current (ie. pre this edit) balance of the lead having been agreed over the last few weeks is an important one. Given this and the problems with the repetition/contradiction and appearance of disorganisation in the edit I've reverted while any change is being discussed here. The stable consensus version should be the one on view per WP:BRD. DeCausa (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Fact check needed.

• As a start, it isn't essential he was described a given way in his lifetime. But in any case Savile was discussed in the terms stated well before this year's events. 2008: "national treasure and cruise fanatic Sir Jimmy Savile wears it well" [6], 2011: "Hundreds of mourners gathered Wednesday for the funeral of TV host Jimmy Savile, a British cultural icon" (AP, guardian) [7], "Broadcasting legend Sir Jimmy Savile" and "When asked if the broadcasting icon would have approved of today's event" (independent) [8]. It's easy to forget how massive he was in that sense, and our job as encyclopedists to represent his life accurately both ways.
• Not sure I agree that a statement that accusations were made during his life, is inappropriate or unbalanced. If Savile is currently understood to have been one of Britains more notorious pedophiles, identified as such after death, it's very relevant to at least mention in the intro that some accusations were made in his life.
• Broadly agree that this one is arguable both ways. A person looking up Savile is likely to want to know this though, in the sense of aftermath and associates. But it can be done differently.
• Cites added because it seemed some were reverting on the basis that the facts were "misrepresented", "unreliable" or "over emphasizing", despite being neutral cites of police and reputable media.

@DeCausa, point of info for you - BRD is "Bold, revert, discuss" - in other words action taken on the basis that if it's disputed it will go to the talk page for discussion. This was already at the "discuss" point on the talk page. Nobody's going to bite for it here, but worth noting another time, yours wasn't "per BRD", a poor description. It was simply "reverting per talk page". (As an ordinary revert it's completely within editing norms).

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• I accept that it's important to make clear that he was seen as an important figure in his lifetime (within the UK, that is). However, I do not think that using words like "icon" or "treasure" is the best way to do it. The facts that he was a presenter and fundraiser are unarguable and uncontentious. Words like "icon" are, inevitably, opinions. Simply stating the facts that he was a major media personality for 30 or so years, raised lots of money, and was given important honours is a better, factual, way of stating his importance.
• The other issues are basically questions of balance and neutrality. Adding citations does nothing to address those questions.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we're getting closer here. The first is a place I do disagree. Many people get knighthoods, are seen as important, become celebrities, or raise millions (or other very significant activities) for charity. But of those, only a few become not only important and recognised and do good, but seen as household names, or a special place in the culture or the national heart, and that is a very uncommon thing indeed. In his life and at his death, Savile had that, and that fact, supported by citations, isn't mere editorial opinion, it's exactly what editorial policies contemplate - we report facts about what was said and felt, as documented in reliable sources. In other words, Savile's standing or non-standing as an iconic part of the UK is indeed opinion. However Savile being widely described in multiple RS as an icon or national figure (or similar terms) is not. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Did he really have "a special place in the culture or the national heart"? I'm sure there are posthumous sources that claim that he did, to make a good media story by contrasting it with his current notoriety, but that doesn't make it "true" or neutral. "Household name" maybe, but that's not a very encyclopedic term either. We should strive to be neutral, and using obviously opinionated or partial terminology does not help in that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just cited several sources, including one from 2008 -

1/ as to whether it was actually so, a person does not get widely described by reliable news sources and commentators at his funeral in those terms if not one. But that's not the point because

2/ we aren't trying to judge if he was, but trying to report what reliable sources stated of him, and enough reliable sources do say that he was seen in those terms in his life and at death, that we should mention as well that they do (and did) describe him as such.

I think you're still confusing opinions v. facts about opinions, or of the belief an opinion would only be valid if expressed during his lifetime rather than by a newspaper stating he "was" seen that way in his lifetime. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No - I'm saying that we shouldn't cite opinions in the introduction to the article at all, when factual statements about what he did can be used instead. If your point is that those statements are needed to balance more recent "opinions" (stated as such) that he was a predatory serial sex offender, we should in my view remove those statements. They can be contained in the article text, but not in a summary introduction - because they do not summarise, they present a single point of view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And you're mistaken, because these aren't "opinions" in a wiki sense, but evidence and cites showing widespread others' significant opinions and widespread others' significant views, and that's completely different (look at WP:HOAX if you need to see just how different). This isn't anything to do with "balancing", nor is it in any way a "singular point of view" (whatever that would be) - and it's everything to do with representing accurately a major piece of encyclopedic fact about the person who is the subject: - during his life, and visibly at and since his death, he was seen and widely described as a legend, or icon, or iconic, or a national treasure, or words of similar scale, and that was not one or two minor "fringe" bloggists but a mainstream accepted significant assessment of the subject in many sources.

Even after current matters came out, when reliable sources discuss the claims, they referred (and still often do refer) to him as having been seen as these things previously. It is that level of societal standing that is significant enough to need the 6 - 8 words in the intro to reflect it in order to neutrally represent him. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

At best, you are giving undue weight to a minority view. Most sources clearly did not, and never have, described him as a "national treasure", "icon", or anything of the sort. Some did, but we should not give those undue weight, particularly in a supposedly neutral encyclopedia entry. The Guardian obituary - "shrewd", "strange", "intelligent", "ubiquitous" - but not "iconic". The Telegraph - "eccentric", "mysterious", "an odd chap", "a national institution" - but not a "treasure". Even the BBC - "distinctive", "exhibitionist", "unconventional", "unusual". The sources that described him in the glowing terms you suggest are in the minority, and they used those terms purely for effect and contrast, not to display the accuracy and objectivity which we need to show here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of { CNN, Economic Voice, Telegraph, Guardian, Daily Mail, Scotsman, New York Times, Reuters UK, ABC online, Wall Street Journal, Irish Examiner, Guardian, Huffington Post, Scotsman, ITN, Liverpool Echo, Associated Press, The Independent, Times of India, The People, BBC, NY Times (qualified as "seen by some"), The Express, Globe & Mail, Politics.co.uk, The Times ... gave up listing them at this point } you consider evidence for "in the minority" and "purely for effect and contrast" or are blatant POV on the matter. Every one of these is citeable and overall took about 5 minutes to verify this was a very visible, little-or-not contested, and significant viewpoint. For once I'd appreciate if you check your facts here instead of asserting claims that everything's biased, minority, or POV for effect, that don't seem to have any foundation in evidence. Links to check most of these are above, you don't need help to do this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point, again. Those sources make such statements for effect, as contrast - they are not necessarily true or balanced. We should not take simply one side of their statements as reliable. To do so is unnecessary, given that we can provide factual information on how he was seen before the allegations came to light. The most reliable sources, as I've shown, did not describe him in terms like "treasure", "icon" or "legend" - they were much more qualified and equivocal in their summations. To use such terms as you suggest is misleading. Such statements should have no place in an introduction that exists to summarise and introduce a balanced biographical encyclopedia article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And again, the issue isn't what you, personally, believe or I, personally, believe. It's what is considered mainstream or significant views as evidenced by reliable sources. That you wish to consider every major newspaper or media source to automatically be using such terms just for effect or contrast (contrast against what? many of these date to before 2012 and cannot be a response to it) is your privilege. Fortunately we don't have to argue your or my view. This is evidence that this was a mainstream view - in a very wide range of very reliable sources. Your evidence from reliable sources that it was not, or was a minority view not worth mention? So far zero. Actual linked RS evidence for your personal belief, not mere personal assertions that that's the case, please. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. I'll return to the discussion if and when anyone else agrees with your position. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

@FT2: You've misunderstood. I was saying that you had been Bold, you had been reverted and it was now under discussion. You shouldn't be going back to revert while it was under discussion. BRD. Hope that's clear for you now. DeCausa (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Even that's not quite right. BRD is a communal norm for one way to ensure bold editing can be tried when firm disagreement isn't evident. Not every revert or edit is part of a BRD cycle (though it's a good model for many situations), and ordinary reverts are completely usual. This was "reasoning of revert incorrect, cites noted on talk page, reversing as edit disagreed with, but if still disagreed let's discuss on the talk page", not BRD. Anyhow, as I understand your underlying point and you probably understand mine, shall we now let this tangential point go as it's done its job of sharing views? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Query on sex offences mention in lead

In the lead a single sentence discusses Savile's sex offences in the first paragraph, and they comprise the entirety of the third paragraph. WP:LEAD says nothing on the matter, but to me it seems odd to repeat the information in such a short space of time. This is in no way an attempt to detract the importance of the allegations, and I hope it is not taken as such, but I believe that for conciseness and general readability/flow it should be mentioned in the first or the third paragraph, not both. As it (the prose) stands now, the double mention simply seems to have an air of redundancy about it. Any thoughts? Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

the lead and all portions of it have been under much discussion, see multiple sections of this talk page. as a matter that is currently evolving, it is hard to develop a consensus of what is appropriate weight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The gist of the comments that led to the mention being made in the first paragraph is that it would appear to be as biased not to mention the abuse claims in the opening paragraph as it would be not to mention his work as a celebrity and fundraiser. The fact is that he is now notable both for his career and for the abuse allegations, and therefore both should be mentioned in the opening couple of sentences. This is an unusual situation, and we need to present a balanced picture. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Mark Thompson

Another 400 allegations..... http://t.news.msn.com/world/300-potential-abuse-victims-in-bbc-scandal?cid=ansnews11 Now the CEO of the NYT Mark Thompson is denying that he know anything about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.146.254 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

And how do you wish to incorporate this into the article? As a reminder Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing your outrage, nor slinging venom against living people which will get you blocked. I have modified your comments per our policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

" raised an estimated £40 million for charities" in first paragraph?!?

Why would this belong already in the second sentence of a person's article??? Michael Jackson raised much more money and this is only mentioned in the 20th or so sentence of his article. --94.221.85.194 (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Because it is one of the major things Savile was known for. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

True, although the detailed figure may be better in the article text, rather than in the opening paragraph where it sits a little awkwardly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, prodigious philanthropist is a strange way to describe him given what we now know. Prodigious psychopath would be closer to the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.194.122 (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"Prodigious philanthropist" is a direct verbatim quote from a report in The Guardian two years before his death, and serves to show how he was widely seen at that time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Except we know it to be incorrect so why is it still in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.194.122 (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You have proof that he isnt responsible £40 million for charities? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Philanthropist is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.194.122 (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's in "quotes" - thus demonstrating that it's not necessarily "true". The full sentence, "He was described in The Guardian as a "prodigious philanthropist"..." is certainly true, though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Membership of The Athenaeum

Under the heading Personal Life, second paragraph, following:

"He was chieftain of the Lochaber Highland Games for many years, and owned a house in Glen Coe. His appearance on the final edition of Top of the Pops in 2006 was pre-recorded as it clashed with the games.[51]"

Please can it be updated to add his membership of The Athenaeum Club:

"In 1984, proposed by Cardinal Basil Hume he was accepted as a member of the illustrious the Athenaeum Club on Pall Mall, a private members' club noted for the number of Cabinet Ministers, senior civil servants, Peers of the Realm and senior bishops amongst its members."

References for this: Sir Jimmy Savile causes anguish at the Athenaeum|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/celebritynews/9596850/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-causes-anguish-at-the-Athenaeum.html%7Caccessdate=30 October 2012|newspaper=The Telegraph|date=10th October 2012|author=Tim Walker

cite news|title=Jimmy Savile's relatives speak of their turmoil|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/laura-donnelly/9638018/Jimmy-Saviles-relatives-speak-of-their-turmoil.html%7Caccessdate=30 October 2012|newspaper=The Sunday Telegraph|date=27 October 2012|author=Laura Donnelly|author2=Edward Malnick MonicaCognomen (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the Athenaeum Club membership. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Take away "Sir"!

The media no longer refers to him as "Sir Jimmy Savile", why does this article do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.204.186 (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

see above Talk:Jimmy_Savile#Knighthood_expired_on_death_and_therefore_it_should_not_be_.27Sir.27. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

and your assertion is wrong

• [9] 25 Oct 2012
• [10] 22 October 2012
• [11] October 20, 2012

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Savile is referred to as "Sir Jimmy Savile" only once in the first sentence of the article. This is in line with Wikipedia precedent, and the article should stay that way unless he is formally stripped of the title at a later date.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly he is no longer a Sir, and secondly the only reason his title hasn't been removed is because he doesn't have it. It seems strange that the reason Wikipedia continues to refer to him as Sir (against the wishes of the victims I should note) is because he isn't one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.51.191 (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We will continue to edit wikipedia based upon the guidelines and policies that have gained the community's consensus. The victim's wishes will need to be addressed elsewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't think that Savile has done anything wrong I'm not sure you're really the best person to comment on consensus. As I said, firstly he does not have the title. Secondly the only reason it hasn't been removed yet is precisely because he doesn't have it. Thirdly as others have pointed out the *majority* of the current media reports do not use the title when referring to him. Wikipedia is currently the only publication still routinely referring to him as Sir. There is a broad consensus across the UK that he should not have the title. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2012/oct/08/should-jimmy-savile-lose-knighthood I suspect the only reason that it is still being used here is because of the systemic bias in Wikipedia that downplays assaults on women.

And another relevant source. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9636594/Jimmy-Savile-Catholic-Church-seeks-to-strip-star-of-Papal-knighthood.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.194.122 (talk) 08:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The Papal knighthood is completely unrelated to whether he is called "Sir". I agree with TRPOD - if the knighthood is rescinded, we should change, but not before then. Incidentally, unless you can provide a basis for the idea that TRPOD "doesn't think that Savile has done anything wrong", I suggest you withdraw that slur per WP:NPA. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

From the papal knighthood article "David Cameron, the Prime Minister, hinted earlier this month that the honour could be removed. However, the Cabinet Office said that honours ceased to exist when a person died, although there is a campaign to change the law so that they can be revoked after death."

"none of the allegations have been proved" TRPOD 25 Oct, this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.194.122 (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2012‎

You are confusing Papal Orders of Chivalry with Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom. They are quite different things, awarded by entirely different people. Saying that "none of the allegations have been proved" - which is an accurate statement of the legal position - is not the same thing at all as saying that they are untrue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No I'm not. The quote at the end refers to the British knighthood. It is the source for my assertion that the only reason he hasn't had the title removed is because he doesn't have it. There is no 'legal position' to talk about as he cannot be tried after death. There is live audio recording of his abuses (when TRPOD made his comment), and we now have live video evidence as well. In addition to the hundreds of victims with matching testimony. To claim there 'is no proof' at this time is frankly abhorrent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.194.122 (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile no longer has his knighthood, but then neither do any of the other dead people who are referred to as "Sir" in the WP:LEAD section of an article. Making an exception for Savile out of line with Wikipedia precedent would look like giving in to a desire to strip Savile of his knighthood, which only Parliament could do by changing the current rules.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the Wikipedia precedent for dealing with the nation's most prolific paedophiles then? I'm not sure there is one.

If i ever said "there is no evidence", I apologize for mis-speaking. But as of yet, there have been neither any convictions nor any investigations that have produced conclusions that the allegations are factual. And until such, we V WP:UNDUE WP:OR need to fully and factually represent that status. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There clearly are investigations that have concluded that the allegations are factual. At this point you're just trolling.

• There's an interesting report on this at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20108980 --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The Papal knighthood has nothing to do with his Knighthood in the UK from which the "Sir" is derived. Leaky Caldron 19:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The argument for leaving 'Sir' in the article is that it is Wiki policy to do so after a person's death. Can the Wikipedians who claim this please send me a link to the policy.

Thanks Mr Miles (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide the diff of someone saying "it is Wiki policy to do so after a person's death". Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, the phrase used to justify including the 'sir' was 'Wikipedia precedent", not policy and it seems not to be a Wiki policy. In which case I propose we remove the 'sir' preceding the name Jimmy Savile in this article. Because knighthoods can't be removed from a dead person (if Savile were alive, his would have been striped), and pretty much all reliable sources from now on will not be preceding Jimmy Savile's name with 'sir'. I propose a vote for consensus. Mr Miles (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus isn't about a *vote* of course. As cited earlier in this thread reliable sources have continued to use the "Sir". If WP normally maintains the "Sir" for bios of the deceased, absent its formal removal by the UK government, the only reason to have it removed here would appear to be to signal disapproval of the individual. That's not what WP is about. DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it isn't. And 'Sir' is agreeably ironic. Rothorpe (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal removal of knighthood in this case is not possible under existing laws so that point is moot. Re: 'WP normally maintains the "Sir" for bios of the deceased', this is incorrect - WP doesn't have a policy on the usage of 'sir' in bios, thus, whether it is used or not after a person's death is simply up the the consensus of the editors of a particular article. Therefore this issue hinges on whether or not the weighting of reliable sources is to put 'sir' before Savile's name. It is disingenuous of you to claim that RS have continued the use of 'sir' as clearly they have not. The top 8 newspaper in the UK by circulation have all dropped the sir, as has the BBC, as have scholarly articles such as this one by the BMJ: http://www.bmj.com/content/285/6349/1177. You comment that my wishing to remove the word 'sir' is a sign that I disapprove of Savile is borderline ad hominem and frankly bizarre as currently I doubt anyone reading the article 'approves' of Savile. Mr Miles (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

1.Look at the earlier posts in his thread and an earlier thread and you will see the RS that use "Sir". 2. I do not believe any other WP bio has removed the "Sir" on the subject's death. It's not a question of "policy" but if you want to garner consensus support for making this change I suggest you need to put forward a reason why this bio should be different from all the others, if it is not to signal disapproval of the individual. The "balance" of RS is not a convincing reason: how many of those articles use his middle names? 3. Of course this can be changed by consensus. But as can be seen from this Talk page, there has been to date no consensus to make such a change. DeCausa (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• The Guardian is a newspaper of the loony-left, and the British Broadcasting Corporation is also a left-wing news organisation – both have a natural, non-neutral left-wing bias; furthermore, Wikipedia is NOT here or established to "right great historical wrongs". He had two knighthoods, both a Papal temporal knighthood commander of the Vatican City from the Pope and Bishop of Rome himself, and a Knighthood Bachelor from the Queen "of England", when he died, and therefore, a "Sir". Well, life is tough! It is NOT really the business of Wikipedia to undertake historical revisionism, or, to essentially "change history". -- KC9TV 05:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Well then we should be thankful that we're blessed with your obviously neutral and non-biased point of view then! eyeball226 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"Jimmy"

I've put "Jimmy" into the name at the start of the article. Someone felt that the fact that he was named Jimmy in the article title made the nickname "obvious". However, my experience of questions asked on talk pages here lead me to feel that not everyone would necessarily find it so. Britmax (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Awkward wording

Do you think we could change "members of the opposite sex" to "women"? I think it carries the same meaning for a lot less reading. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it is almost certainly an indirect quote from the book; 'women' is used shortly afterwards. Rothorpe (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the very young age of many of those with whom he is supposed to have had sexual relations, "women" may not be appropriate anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"Females"? Members of the opposite sex sounds a bit twee/repressed 1970s-speak. But then maybe the context makes that appropriate. DeCausa (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't User:Martinevans123 say he has the book? Maybe he can quote the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(I think he said that he wished he had invested in a copy before the current scandal broke). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(Couldn't you ask him, to make sure?) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"Females" as a plural noun is now considered more of an Americanism. It is generally considered a slightly rude (mildly offensive) word over here, perhaps considered too sexist for polite conversation for British eyes and ears, even for the slightly politically-incorrect. The fact that this is Wikipedia does not mean that we have to write articles in the same style as The Sun, or that of an American rag. -- KC9TV 01:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No it's not! where on earth did you get the idea that "females" is an americanism?! DeCausa (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• From anecdote, or, by living here in England! I certainly have never heard of the word "females" being used interchangeably with the words "women" or "ladies", certainly not on the BBC or on Channel Four! The term "Females" is usually used by them to refer to other animals – in zoological (animal) programmes, especially with the voice of Sir David Attenborough – but (almost) never humans.
• Well, you may be forgiven, because – and for the benefit of the unlikely non-British reader – two of the many "dialects" spoken in and around London, Middlesex, Essex and Kent are called "Estuary English" and "Mockney", and many actually manage to speak them with all sorts of "annoying", strange, weird and "stupid" American words and other Americanisms. Mr. Blair e.g. spoke of "periods", instead of "full stops" [12]. Why don't we just use three words, "women and girls"? Next, you would probably argue that because the word "Autumn" is a French word, and because Shakespeare had used the latter term, therefore we here in England should instead say "The Fall"! Some certainly did in the comments' section of a very recent article in the Daily Mail [13]! I am only a Northerner, and I cannot speak English properly either (and yes, we in North never call a David a "Dave"!), so I suppose that we are even!
• See [14], [15] and [16]. Possible sexist connotations. Cannot really be used, except as a direct quotation. -- KC9TV 09:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "females" is not a sexist one by any stretch of the imagination. "Male(s)" and "female(s)" are terms routinely used in the sciences, and people freely use them, as well, in everyday conversation. There is nothing controversial about them. This is a non-issue. -The Gnome (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we concentrate on the wording, please, instead of going off on tangents. We should use the text of what he said in the book if anyone has that (I've left a note for Martinevans123). "Women" seems inappropriate. "Women and girls" would be OK if he said that (is it likely that he actually referred to "women" at all? - "ladies", perhaps), but "females" or "members of the opposite sex" are both acceptable for the time being. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am still finding "members of the opposite sex" is grating with me; if it's a quote it should be in quote marks, if not I prefer "women or girls". --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry KC9TV, but quoting a heap of mainly American blogs about the use of "female" does not prove its usage one way or another in the United Kingdom, letting aside that they are merely blogs (the personal opinions of a few individuals of no great note). The use of "female" and "male" is still perfectly normal and acceptable in Britain, as are the plurals "females" and "males". It would appear that the Yanks are now going through the process of changing the "acceptable" term for "female" and "male" every couple of years, in the same way they have done with "black" or "white", "homosexual" or "heterosexual". Fortunately, we have so far remained immune to this particular bit of "chip on the shoulder" Americanisation. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not talking to DCI Hunt, I hope! Wikipedia:Use modern language, not 1970s' or 1980s' English. (Or Yorkshire or Lancashire English either!) May I also remind you, that this is also ultimately an American site, and that "foreign", or non-British readers might take offence to the unfortunate use of certain peculiar words. Please, just remember where the main servers sit! -- KC9TV 00:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was AGAINST policy to censor articles, since as an encyclopaedia, it is here primarily to report factual data on a subject. This would be contrary to your request to 'not offend' a certain section of the readership. If you're genuinely THAT concerned about negating 'possible offence' to a section of readership, I suggest you put your energies into other more inflammatory articles (Islamaphobia, blasphemy, holocaust denial, devil worship, slave trade) that 'might possibly' cause offence to 'some' people in every country, instead of worrying about a single word in one article that seems only to be offensive to you. MrZoolook (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I loved that show! Wouldn't we be using British English on an article about a British person? --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say shouldn't we. Savile was British, very ultimately. He never even went to Vietnam (did he?) But I think a direct quote from the book is needed there. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What an interesting discussion this turned out to be. I changed it to "women"; we already have a verbatim quote there. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Any general articles?

Refering to this page I would like to ask: are there any articles about abuse cases in UK and USA in general, giving an overview? Simplicius (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2012

We also have found out over the last few months Savile was a Celtic fan and Big Jock Knew

92.233.158.100 (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If a reliable source knew this as well, it might be added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's just sectarian trolling - see Big Jock Knew. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"Sung to the tune of Jim'll Fix it", for up to 20 minutes at a time... (allegedly). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Avoid the word "pedophile" - Savile seems to have been a "ephebophile" or possibly a "hebephile"

Although "pedophile" is a commonly misused term in the news, Wikipedia should aim to be encyclopaedic. To use the term "pedophilia" for any sexual obsession in minors below the legal age of consent (which differs from country to country) is devaluating the term. "Pedophilia" means a sexual interest in children who have not yet entered into puberty, i.e. usually those under the age of 11-13. Sexual obsession in pubescent girls or boys, i.e. those aged 10-11 to 15-17, is known as "hebephilia", while sexual interest in teenagers who have passed puberty, i.e. usually those who are 15-19) is known as ephebophilia.

From what we've heard so far, Jimmy Savile seems to have been a "ephebophile" or possibly a "hebephile", i.e. he wasn't interested in small children, but in young teenagers who had come into puberty or had just passed it. The current British law states that the age of consent is 16, and as he was over the age of 18 that makes several of the offences he is accused of illegal. But we should avoid equalling illegal sex with minors with pedophilia, as pedophilia is an internationally accepted term which is defined according to the age of puberty, not according to the age of consent, which differs from country to country - and has also changed several times in history. Had Jimmy Savile been active in the UK before 1885, all those girls would have been "legal", as the limit was 13 between 1875 and 1885, and 12 before 1875.

While the age of consent is still 13 in Spain, in most European countries it's 14 or 15, while several US states have 18 - and in Tunisia it's 20! So even if it had happened today, Jimmy Savile's activities would have been regarded differently depending on where he had been doing it. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The word isn't used in the article anywhere in the context of the offences that have been identified. Just his denial when asked and his defence of Glitter. Leaky Caldron 15:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a repeat of a debate that has occurred several times previously. It is not helpful to add amateur medical diagnoses to an article, but what is clear is that Savile's activities would have been illegal under UK law if the person was under 16 at the time, or if they occurred without the person's consent.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This article had been included in Category:Pedophilia through this edit - I think it's right that Thomas Blomberg has now removed that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I commented here about this. Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

As did I. And I agree with your comments, which are reasoned and well- informed. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Glad I could help. Flyer22 (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Savile has been accused of pedophilia. Unless you don't think that 8 and 9 year olds are prepubescent. [17][18]

How will these victims prove their case? Or have they already found some kind of justice with the help of the Mail On Sunday? Will the labelling of their alleged attacker in this way win them greater damages? Will it help us to appreciate that most of Savile's victims were teenagers? Does the wikipedia reader benefit from this categorisation? Perhaps we need a list that would be handy for morning TV presenters when interviewing Prime Ministers? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You questions go beyond our remit as Wiki editors. The secondary sources state pre-pubescent abuse, that is pedophilia. Mr Miles (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe some do. So how does the wikipedia reader benefit? That's a categorisation one would expect to find, oft repeated, without any quotation marks, in that particular secondary source. I'm just not sure that the Mail on Sunday's reporters have exclusive access into the mental processes of a dead disc jockey. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of peadophillia have been made by witnesses and of course reported in many news sources including the broadsheets. Any dead djs state of mind is irrelevant.Mr Miles (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be resistance among some editor against using the term 'paedophile' in this article, care to explain as allegations that JS was a paedophile appear in many RS? Mr Miles (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems that two victim's allegations have been reported by many sources. Does that make them more believable? More true? Or both? Savile can't be put on trial like, for example, Mr Gadd. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to re-read wiki policy. It is beyond our remit here to decide whether allegations are 'believable' or not, we simply summarise secondary sources. Your commentary here suggests you may be in danger of editing ultra vires. Mr Miles (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's hard to know what the exact age percentages are of all of Savile's alleged victims yet. And without that knowledge we seem to be at the mercy of tabloid journalism. I'm also suggesting that the word "paedophile" is a medico-psychological-psychiatric classification term that is misused in common parlance. I am not sure exactly what consensus has been established here. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The allegations were made by several children well under the age medical definitions give for paedophillia. Wiki summarises the medical opinion as being between the ages of 5 and 12. Victims that were 8, 10 etc have made allegations. There are no grey areas or 'misuse of common parlance' here it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Mr Miles (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

In any case, tagging it on to 'sexual abuse' is tautology, and seems 'pointy'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not 'tagged on' it is a separate kind of abuse the the other. The difference between being a rapist and a paedophile. Allegations of both in this case. We can have two sections if you wish? Mr Miles (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Allegations that a person with JS's public profile was a pedophile is immanently notable Mr Miles (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The word "paedophile" is used by tabloids in a non-precise way. Its use in Wikipedia would usually amount to an amateur medical diagnosis, so it should be avoided unless it is from a medical professional.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The tabloids may well use the word pedophile in a non-precise way on occasion, but here they are not and neither are the broadsheets and neither are we. Pedophilia has a clear definition as discussed previously in this thread, it is not medically ambiguous term, the accusations against JS are clear pedophilia. Can you find an example of sexual abuse of an 8 year old that is not pedophilia, if you can I'll bow to consensus. If not, you can request mediation, but it will support my position. Mr Miles (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"The allegations were made by several children " - how many, please?

Also here's the opening section of the article you mention: "As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty varies).[1][2][3][4][5] An adolescent who is 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.[1][2]" Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's not edit war over this and get the article locked. The whole paedophile/hebephile/ephebophile thing is a side issue. The way in which the media uses the word paedophile is quite different from its meaning as a medical diagnosis. This is why it is inadvisable to add it to articles, even when it is used by the media.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The majority view on this page - Thomas Blomberg, Leaky Caldron, IanMacM, Flyer22, Martinevans123, Rothorpe, myself - is against including the word in the sub-heading, so I've removed it, again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

And me. These psychological problems are only crimes if you use the tabloid press as a dictionary, which unfortunately people do. In my view its uncertain status means we don't have to follow them here. You might as well accuse them of having the measles, or cancer: you don't accuse people of being ill. Crimes that may be relevant are child abuse, rape, assault and so on, not one of the barely understood paraphilias. Britmax (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

And me too. Whatever the word's precise technical meaning may be, it has been used far too indiscriminately by ignorant hacks. It seems to include, at one extreme, someone who likes murdering toddlers, and, at the other, somebody who once 40 years ago had a momentary consensual fondle with a person who was two weeks short of the age of consent. We should not add to the hysteria by misusing the word ourselves. -- Alarics (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The media's persistent use of the term in the context of "evil" (the name of anybody with an interest in minors in their criminal profile is always prefixed in tabloid articles with the word "evil") is directly responsible for a climate in which young adults who feel distracted by paedophilic thoughts can never seek help. Some child abusers would not be child abusers had they felt able to seek psychological help earlier.Alrewas (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Britmax (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The picture of Savile

Infobox image with Gaussian blur

Hi, I would like to make a suggestion that the picture of Jimmy Savile is changed, because of the fact that it contains other people who probably do not want to be in a picture with this man in light of the recent 600 odd sexual alligations against him. Would it not be more acceptable to have a picture of him on his own? Wikiheid Wikiheid (talk • contribs) 00:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The usage is limited by WP:NFCC, and the two people in the background of the infobox image are not very prominent. This is arguably more of a problem with the 1982 Leeds Marathon image, which might benefit from cropping. These are the only two images on Commons showing Savile's face clearly.[19]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with whoever wrote this (the first para) and as far as I can make out WP:NFCC does not preclude fuzzing out the faces so that people's mothers cannot recognize them. So I did that. There's presumably the same issue with various other language versions of wikipedia, but I guess the english language entry is likely to have far more readers than the others. Charles01 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a version of the image with Gaussian blur on two of the faces in the background. I tried not to make it too obvious and distracting, as this would be a problem in itself. Would there be a consensus to use this?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I've no idea how many people are reading this, but my vote says "go for it". Although if I were the young gentleman in the kilt I think I would hope for more blur on my face than, till now, you have applied. Ditto the less young gent with the blue cap and the beard. Though the beard itself seems already to be its own blur. Regards Charles01 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Also blurred the left hand side face a bit more as requested.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Papal award from his name

I edited the article removing the KCSG form Savile's name at the top of the article. Papal awards expire upon death and therefore while it may be historically relevant to mention that they received such an award, it is not appropriate that it form part of their address/ name/ title after death. Jackregan (talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that a bestowed knighthood, OBE and KCSG all expire on a person's death. This means that removing the KCSG only is inconsistent. The Vatican has said that it regrets bestowing the KCSG but has no official mechanism for rescinding it. This is much the same as what the UK government said. See also Talk:Jimmy_Savile/Archive_3#Knighthood_expired_on_death_and_therefore_it_should_not_be_.27Sir.27.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with removing the honorifics is that it looks like tabloid style spite. It also leads to inconsistency with other Wikipedia articles, as bestowed titles usually expire on a person's death.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

How convenient. The guy is proved to be the worst serial rapist in British History and suddenly no mention of Papal Honours. Don't forget to go and strip off all the honours in the opening sections of all of these Category:Knights Commander of the Order of St Gregory the Great, because of this one monster. It's the "Cillit Bang Encyclopedia" ... Bang! and the Grime is Gone. 109.153.202.189 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A rather pointless comment. Nobody is trying to remove the crime. And yes, had I wondered across other articles which wrongly ascribed KSCG designations to dead people, I would have removed them too. But I didn't... I ran into this one. These designations expire upon death. End of. This is formal and well-known in the case of Papal honours. It is a far more murky area in the case of British honours as no official ruling has ever been made on the matter.jackregan (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Its grime, not crime. It's Catholic grime. It's not pointless. It's hypocrisy. 109.153.202.189 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not big on honorifics, and a formal list of all of the letters after a person's name would normally be found only in a publication like Debrett's. The UK government and the Vatican have identical positions on this issue; they regret the awards to Savile but have no formal way of rescinding them. The real issue is what is consistent for a Wikipedia biography of a dead person.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No. The Vatican has long had a formal declaration that honours expire at death. The British system has not. That is the key difference. Ergo, calling Savile KSCG is incorrect, regardless of whatever he might be called or whoever else (yes, wrongly) might be called it too. The Vatican has no formal way of rescinding them because it doesn't need one after death. Because they no longer count. Why the British have no formal way of rescinding them after death is anybody's guess. jackregan (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This BBC source says that an OBE and knighthood expire on a person's death. In any case, the article has got to mention the awards that he received in his lifetime, no matter how controversial they are today. It is MOS:HONORIFIC that is the real guideline here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay people, the last thing I want to do is get into a Wikipedia editing war or a talk page spat. I value my weekends. If you reinstate it, I won't change it. I would end by asserting that while the article should mention the historical fact of the awards being received, it should not include KSCG as part of his *title*. That's my point. As I say though, do what you like jackregan (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Revise majority of article

My opinion is that this article requires a major rewrite in light of the sexual abuse aspects of Savile's life. A biography article is an imperfect interpretation of a person's life, and in this case in a tertiary source, is constructed from the pieces of the story related through secondary sources. Obviously those secondary sources have recently changed the biographical details of Jimmy Savile's life to such an extent that much of the legacy material in the article is now incongruous to that biography and requires an overhaul. Also, the meaning of older references has completely changed and WP should reflect that. So, for the re-write, I propose that:

- The Early Life section is probably okay

- The Radio section should include information of when Savile abused children at BBC

- The TV section, should contain a summary of the many occasions Savile abused at BBC Television, but also detail instances where Savile used his TV fame as a lure and cover for abuse.

- Fundraising, sponsorship and voluntary work section. This requires a complete re-write, much of the secondary research now concludes that Savile used his charitable work as a means of gaining access to more vulnerable children and also as a blackmail vehicle to silence suspicion. Rather than describing good works, his activities should now be explained in the article as deliberately aimed to enable his sexual preferences. This would accord more with the secondary sources.

- Personal Life section. Bizarrely, this section doesn't even mention Pedophilia.

I understand that events have changed quickly on the ground, but I think the editors should let go of their previous hard work and accept that the old biography is for a man who no longer exists. Jimmy Savile, as he is now understood through the secondary sources is notable primarily as a prolific and famous pedophilia, not as a DJ, TV presenter and philanthropist. Mr Miles (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to hurry. The article will find its natural balance in time. Rothorpe (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr Miles your suggestions that we re-write history based on premises that are still purely allegations. Nope. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What is written in Wiki article is not and should not be 'history', but rather a summary of the secondary sources relating to the subject. Those secondary sources are now saying something this article is not. That is a problem. It seems that some of the editors here are not best placed to rewrite as they're not accepting what are considerably more than purely allegation. Mr Miles (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of what you are suggesting is unproven hypothesis and commentary - "... much of the secondary research now concludes that Savile used his charitable work as a means of gaining access to more vulnerable children and also as a blackmail vehicle to silence suspicion..." - and should not be included in the article unless there are reliable secondary sources that state that as fact. Your other suggestions seem to be, essentially, asking for the material to be reordered so that some of the information in the "Allegations...." section is incorporated into the chronology of his career. In time, once the allegations have been investigated, that may well be appropriate. But, now is not the time to do that. Although there is a very strong probability that he was a serial sex abuser, the investigations are still taking place, and at present we are still in the position of reporting allegations made about someone who was until quite recently regarded generally positively. As Rothorpe says, changes to the article will happen over time, as there is more certainty over the whole of his life. I've added a sentence to the start of the "Personal life" section, to try to clarify that the section deals primarily with how he was seen during his life and at the time of death - which needs to be stated, even if it conflicts with how he is seen at present. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a tertiary source, we don't get to decide whether or not the allegations have been 'appropriately' investigated or whether we consider a person to be 'regarded generally positively' - you are acting Ultra vires. If you want to be involved in those kind of processes, become a secondary source, e.g. in a peer reviewed establishment such a uni, or a journalist. Our job is to summarise the secondary sources in a way that is verifiable, is NPOV and does not give undue weighting. Almost every reference used in the sections I referred to is from a newspaper that predates 2012, and the references from 2012, predate the abuse revelations. Given what has been revealed and the scale, that is WP:UNDUE Mr Miles (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow entirely your argument, but I think we agree that the question is one of balance. You think the balance in the article is too far in one direction - other editors (see threads above) think it is too far in the other direction. See also WP:RECENTISM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll add: it doesn't matter if these are allegations or convictions. That is not the point. If just one newspaper had reported one allegation of inappropriate behaviour, to include it in a brief summary of JS's life would be to give that allegation undue weight. But this is not one newspaper, not one allegation, and not just inappropriate behaviour, it is a scandal that will have huge repercussions for the BBC, involves an abuse of vulnerable people on a serial level across many institutions and charities, involves multiple police investigations including into the police service itself, it is incredible. If every one of these allegations is proven to be false, this Wiki article will still be peppered with the events, because they were so significant in and in so many reliable secondary sources. Mr Miles (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read the detail of WP:RECENTISM policy. None of the points match the fact pattern in this case. Mr Miles (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, but anyway please note that we have a separate article on the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. This article is a biography, and should be balanced; that other article covers the scandal and its implications. We should aim to reduce the overlap, not increase it. This article should not cover the implications of the scandal for institutions like the BBC - they should be fully covered in the other article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

In the WP:RECENTISM policy description, the defence of recentism cites the wiki:Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004, similar to the JS events? But you don't agree. The article is a biography that contains no reference in the story of JS's life to child abuse. JS's most significant career was a the BBC, but no mention in that part of his bio should mention the scandal that he created for the BBC? You are not NPOV. I've done wasting my time here. Mr Miles (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could rename the "Personal life" to be "Public image", without substantively rewriting it. Probably the "Honours" section should be moved down, also. Morwen - Talk 10:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... OK, but I've moved a couple of the paragraphs to other sections, as they are not about his "public image". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good point. See, everyone! Compromise is possible. (I hope.) I think interspersing the details in the Radio and television sections would be practically difficult, if only because there's still not very much specific about what exactly he did. I'd say they are more than allegations. We had a similar problem on Harold Shipman, where it wasn't entirely clear at what point in his life he started killing people. Consequently we've ended up with an article where "Early life and career" makes no mention of the murders, because otherwise it would break the narrative flow. Morwen (Talk) 11:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no simple answer. Either:

1. we do a strict chronological run-through of his life, mentioning things that the public did not know about at the time; or
2. we divide the article into how he was seen in life, followed by the section on the posthumous allegations; or
3. we reverse the order, so we go through the allegations first, followed by a summary of his career; or
4. we have some sort of messy combination, as now, which broadly goes through his life first and the allegations later, but refers to some of the allegations in the "career" parts of the biography, and hives off the "Honours" section to the end.

None of those is satisfactory, but I don't see how we can get a very satisfactory biography given that it's premature, in my view, to try to come to a reasonably final, neutral, balanced assessment of his life as things stand at the moment. Any thoughts? My view is that (1) and (3) would be even less satisfactory than (2) and (4). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

My !vote is for (4). If people want to go ahead and draft another of the versions to see how it would look like on a subpage, they should go ahead, but my view is that it would likely be very clumsy and poor style. With time - when official reports come back, and so on, (1) might be an easier thing to write. Morwen (Talk) 16:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that in the long-term this article will look more like 2 or 3 but with the balance being 90% in favour of the allegations i.e. reflecting where his long-term notability lies. But WP:CRYSTALBALL: for the near future, (4) is the best that can be done. DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For anyone thinking of supporting the mission of Wikipedia in any way, articles like this one should discourage all such acts. Wikipedia is a "pay for play" resource, where establishment figures, dead or alive, can expect to have their reputations continuously whitewashed by a dedicated group of 'editors'. These 'editors' not only delete truthfully and verified details of crimes from the main articles, they now delete discussions of such deletions from the 'talk' sections. If statements of fact about criminality cannot be safely removed from the main article (as with Jimmy Savile), standard PR techniques are used to minimise the impact of the text. Wikipeida, like Wikileaks, Facebook, and Google, has its roots in the security services of the USA and UK. Unlike the later three, Wikipedia is not primarily attempting to track users, or gather 'intelligence' on them. No, Wikipedia is a propaganda outlet, one that passes itself of as a product of 'ordinary' people, but one that suffers from more censorship and manipulation than even the mainstream media. The censorship of discussions about the articles themselves should terrify all of you. There can be no excuse for erasing entries in the 'talk' section, unless such deletions are driven by DIRECT legal action, or a need to remove 'spam' (and 'spam' is never defined as opinions not liked by the moderators who disguise themselves as high-privileged editors). Jimmy Savile was connected at the highest levels of British society, and his protectors include Prince Charles. For the main article on Savile to still read as a press release from his own PR company is disgusting, and profoundly dishonest. The narrative about Savile was generated by Savile himself. The truth about Savile is that he was another master manipulator, with a strong taste for re-affirming his power by constantly sexually abusing the young people that were drawn to him. Those editors of Wikipedia with the very worst reputation for whitewashing articles in favour of the establishment and Israel admire men like Jimmy Savile above all others. Savile was a bold, incredibly perverted sociopath who never once tried to hide his true nature. The video from Savile's TV show showing him in a state of extreme sexual arousement because a little child was sitting against him is a terrifying example of how the BBC really works. Savile wasn't one monster against the world. No, Savile represented a powerful and incredibly evil section of society, a section that sees extreme power and extreme acts of evil as the same thing. This group has members dedicated to protecting the reputation of its members, including online in places like this. It is not the case that these people know one another- that isn't how it works by-and-large. No, the Wikipedia 'editors' currently whitewashing articles about 'Savile' and others involved in abuse in the UK see their duty as making the world a much safer place for current and future 'Jimmy Savile's to operate with minimum chance of early exposure or punishment. 77.98.38.164 (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If what you say is so certain, why are so many inquiries still taking place? And I'm struggling to find evidence that discussions here have been deleted - they have been archived, as is normal practice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The comment by 77.98.38.164 is a nice piece of soapboxing but it misses the point. Wikipedia is not about righting great wrongs. Wikipedia is only as good as the reliable secondary media coverage, and during Savile's lifetime there were numerous mutterings in the background about his sexuality but he never faced criminal charges. Furthermore, he used legal action to prevent the media from discussing the Haut de la Garenne allegations. We also know that some newspapers decided not to publish allegations against Savile during his lifetime because of the risk of libel.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

...and of course those pieces of information are included in this article, the article on the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, and others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I find the reference to Israel by 77.98.38.164 crude. Wikipedia is not the blogosphere, where personal prejudices can be indulged all day long and nobody cares.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Crude" hardly covers it. Stark staring bonkers would be more to the point. Surely there must be a limit to the extent to which this kind of lunatic-fringe conspiracy garbage can be allowed to fill up WP talk pages? -- Alarics (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I did think about just deleting it as trolling - he's put similar rants on other pages - but no doubt that would just fuel the conspiracy theory. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I got as far as "Wikipeida, like Wikileaks, Facebook, and Google, has its roots in the security services of the USA and UK." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

77.98.38.164's comment should probably be hatted because it fails to assume good faith, but it is a classic example of the sort of thing that has been going around the blogs. As satisfying as it may seem to blame everything on huge conspiracies, a more likely explanation is that Savile and Cyril Smith got away with it for years because child protection was in the dark ages in those days.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This sentence: "The truth about Savile is that he was another master manipulator, with a strong taste for re-affirming his power by constantly sexually abusing the young people that were drawn to him." seems to me perfectly fair, even if it is just an unprovable opinion. But the suggestion that Prince Charles in some way "protected" Savile is offensive and provocative lunacy. Is Broadmoor in Berkshire or Birmingham? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bill Oddie said something similar.[20]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that, I can believe, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment For what its worth, I think that the main article (not the barking-at-the-moon comment by 77.98.38.164, who must have been traumatised on the discovery that the Earth is NOT flat!!!) is exceptionally well written and deals with some very unpleasant allegations fairly and well. I think that the article is a credit to Wiki and I congratulate the lead-editors for their stewardship. They have dealt with the subject well and the majority of the detail about the allegations have been dealt with in a separate article, which is a very good template for such things. To re-word the opening section any further could possibly lead to a more salacious, tabloid-type tone to the article which in my opinion should be resisted at all costs. Manxwoman (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"This article is a biography, and should be balanced; that other article covers the scandal and its implications. We should aim to reduce the overlap, not increase it."

Should the allegations continue to gain weight - and there is an argument that they have gained sufficient weight already, and had carried weight for a long time even prior to the subject's death, but in the interests of integrity police investigative weight may be a requirement too - then I would disagree with the assessment quoted above. The WP article on Fred West discusses him primarily as a serial killer, not as a builder. Some sources are now suggesting that many aspects of the subject's (i.e. Sir Jimmy Savile's) professional and charitable activities were chosen by him for the purpose of gaining access to those he might abuse. If that is the case, the article would have to be rewritten completely to discuss him as a prolific criminal, not as a showman or fundraiser. His former status as showman or fundraiser would be rendered irrelevant, upsetting as that may be to those of us who grew up enjoying his showmanship or respecting his fundraising. Alrewas (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Fred West was not famous for his building. For most people (not his victims, obviously), who Savile was and what he became posthumously are equal parts of the story. Rothorpe (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That's true. I probably am inclined to support suggestions in the above discussion that his criminal activity should, once facts become more concrete than at present, be incorporated into the chronology of his professional career, as the professional career enabled the criminality. A compartmentalised approach would seem unbiographical in this case. Are you aware of precedents which you might follow? There are many historical characters about whom some evidence of criminal or morally questionable conduct was unearthed posthumously, which is sometimes included in the "After Death" section of WP articles, and at other times under a dedicated section, but I'm struggling at this late hour to think of a case in which, immediately after death, a mountain of source material on the scale you may be faced with here emerged, threatening completely to negate the previously accepted nature of virtually every aspect of the subject's life.Alrewas (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Janet Street Porter on Question Time, October 4th: "I feel the reason why these women never came forward before was nobody would have believed them because Jimmy Savile raised so much money for charity and he used the money that he raised for charity as a bargaining power to buy silence from national newspapers, and if ever there was a time when someone might have blown the whistle on him he would [by implication] threaten those newspapers and those reporters that that charity money would not go to those hospitals."

What Street Porter describes is little different to the case of a child abuser who showers the mother of his victim with gifts and buys her wilful ignorance that way. The fact that the WP article is about the Wonderful Jimmy Savile and that television audiences were taken in doesn't mean that his charity work must necessarily be treated any more reverently than one would the stratagem of good deeds deployed by the ordinary child abuser. Serial child abusers are very resourceful people when it comes to currying favour with other adults and silencing their child victims. They have to be good at that for the abuse to become serial. Any compartmentalised approach whereby Savile's charity work is not treated in that context might be considered naive and a disservice to those child beneficiaries of the money he raised who were also abused by him.

". . . the suggestion that Prince Charles in some way "protected" Savile is offensive and provocative lunacy."

Whilst I found some of 77.98.38.164's comment rather colourful, I wasn't offended by that bit. In my personal life, I'm a staunch Royalist, and besides, although I don't know Prince Charles personally I very much doubt that he would wilfully have protected Savile from censure. However, leaving my personal political convictions aside, as one must when discussing such matters, I'll say this: a serial child abuser will use his respectable contacts (i.e. anybody who is respected within his social circles) to his advantage, to create that veneer of decency which he must nurture in order to distract those who may harbour suspicions. Might his contacts in some cases be guilty of wilful ignorance? If an ordinary child abuser as prolific as Savile, recently exposed, was known to have been a regular guest at my very modest home, the police would certainly wish to interview me. The "being an associate of a suspect is completely irrelevant" approach is sound so far as Wikipedia articles and discussions are concerned, but it's not the way the police conduct their investigations under normal circumstances. These may be very abnormal circumstances and perhaps some of Savile's more, shall we say irreproachable, associates will never be interviewed. I don't think to say that is to be a conspiracy theorist. It's just pointing out the mundanely obvious. Alrewas (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair comment, although I find any comparison with Fred West a bit difficult. I certainly wasn't "offended" by the ranting ip either. But I still find the suggestion that Prince Charles "protected" Savile is indeed offensive and provocative lunacy. Perhaps the ip meant to say something like: "Savile's image was protected by the friendships he had nurtured with a number of high profile figures, the most significant of which was Prince Charles." I would wholly support such a statement, although to be included in the article it would have to have been made by a source a bit more reliable than me, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed this article will eventually reflect the fact that this man was ONLY an abuser of children. A fine knighthood he was too; did the Queen lay a sword on his shoulder? What a fine institution it is!--Akafd76 14:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Akafd76 (talk • contribs)

He would not have "been" a knighthood: it is a title you hold. This article will never say he was "only" an abuser of children: he was still a disc jockey and charity worker. These things should be mentioned if only because he couldn't have expoited the positions without having them, although the main reason for mentioning them is because he did have them. Let's leave the airbrushing and revisionism to the Stalinists, eh? Britmax (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, tuche! Though at least he would have been purged for something under Stalin not elevated to a knight of the realm. Save that eminence for Mick Jagger.Akafd76 12:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Akafd76 (talk • contribs)

Hmm people were "purged" by Stalin just for various thought crimes, weren't they? Maybe we need to go over to Lance Armstrong's article and take out all those embarrassing Tour de France wins? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)