Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Title

Wouldn't Jimmy Savile child abuse allegations be a better title? Yes, it is a scandal, but the word is a little loaded.--ukexpat (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, moved page. My opinion is that this has blown into a big investigation and undoubtedly reports will continue to surface. I think it quite rightly deserves an article and I think details of the investigation would bloat out the main article and result in OVERDUE. The Thereoux dopcumentary definitely needs mentioning where he said about him being "the most feared man in girl's school in Britain" and denying it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I just point out, although I personally have no problem at all with the way it is worded, strictly speaking it is not a police "investigation" - in fact, the police have specifically denied it is (yet) an investigation or inquiry. It's not at all clear WHAT it is and one would assume/suspect an investigation will be launched but, as of 11th October, 2012, it is still not officially recognized as such. Sorry, don't want to be picky, as I said, I have no problem with the way it is worded, just depends on how cautious you wish to be about factual and current reporting. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.51.21 (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but I find it hard to believe that it won't become so. And the fact his own family trashed his grave stone says an awful lot.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The gravestone was removed and destroyed to avoid the graveyard as a whole becoming a target for vandalism. You shouldn't assume it's because the family knew of his activities - they may have done, but you shouldn't assume it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything. I read something along the lines of "disgraced family remove £10,000 head stone which took a week to make in just hours and placed in a skip to respect victims". It may well be that it was to avoid vandalism and violence directed at it, but the way the article was worded is as if his family were disgraced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Daily Mail" or "The Sun"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

In thinking about renaming the article, we should bear in mind that the "story" is not just about the allegations against Savile personally. There are increasing concerns about a wider cover-up - as one (quite small) example, the fuss over the supposed dropping of the Newsnight item - also, more importantly, the supposed "hushing-up" of hospital staff. If there is a word for something that is not quite yet a "scandal" (though probably soon will be), but goes beyond "allegations", I'm not sure what it is - but we should use it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Take your pick from the following synonyms: aspersion, backbiting, backstabbing, belittlement, calumny, crime, defamation, depreciation, detraction, dirty linen, discredit, disgrace, dishonor, disparagement, disrepute, dynamite, eavesdropping, gossip, hearsay, idle rumor, ignominy, infamy, mud, obloquy, opprobrium, reproach, rumor, scorcher, shame, sin, skeleton in closet, slander, tale, talk, turpitude, wrongdoing.

OK I don't know what the point of that (unsigned) list of synonyms is but The Guardian is referring to this issue as a whole as "the Jimmy Savile scandal"http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/12/jimmy-savile-bbc-hospital-court?newsfeed=true, the Telegraph calls it the "Jimmy Savile sex scandal"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9605294/Jimmy-Savile-sex-scandal-40-victims-come-forward-to-speak-of-abuse.html, and the Independent calls it "the Jimmy Savile child abuse scandal"http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/stoke-mandeville-hospital-still-has-questions-to-answer-over-the-jimmy-savile-child-abuse-scandal-8209619.html?origin=internalSearch

These are the main UK "respectable" broadsheet newspapers except for the Times which is behind a paywall. The BBC News website refers to "Jimmy Savile scandal."http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19931003 In my opinion it is rather ridiculous that a few editors object to using the word "scandal" in the article title, a scandal is plainly what it is, all the authoritative sources are now referring to this matter as a scandal, in fact *not* to admit that this is a scandal is now pushing a point of view in my opinion, the title should be changed to "Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal" which is the neutral way to refer to it and which covers the child abuse, the "patient abuse" at the hospitals, allegations of rape of females over the age of consent, and possible collusion or negligence by authorities at the institutions where the abuse took place.Smeat75 (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The cancellation of the Newsnight item on Savile is an important topic, it should be definitely be covered.It is a big issue with regard to the reputation of the BBC.

On the question of this article's title, personally I do not see why the article should not be called "Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal", if this story is not a scandal I do not know what is, I know some editors feel the word is too "loaded" or "tabloid -ish", but unless they can come up with something better I think it should be used anyway. Also it is no longer a question only of "child" abuse as the grisly reports of Savile's molesting paralysed patients and ones recovering from brain surgery or cancer at the hospitals where he volunteered indicate.

I know wikipedia is not a newspaper, but I think this article can provide a useful summary of a fast moving and very important story with many profound implications for a wide range of British institutions. It might be a good idea to have a lead, then a section for the BBC, then one for National Health Service institutions, (Broadmoor, Stoke Mandeville, Leeds General Infirmary), then one for children's care homes (Duncroft special-needs school,Haut de la Garenne Jersey). Most or all of these institutions are going to run investigations and inquiries into what happened. I know we cannot reference every newspaper report, every allegation, but I think there should be an effort made to give readers some idea of the broad outlines of this story, which every day I become more convinced is of historic importance, as it develops.Smeat75 (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think "child" is a bit of stretch, yes he is said to have fondled girls as young as nine, but his sexual interest from what I've seen really does appear to have been adolescents, a lot of girls are fully developed by 14. I don't think he's the paedo in the sense of playing with 4 year old boys, his sexual preference was clearly very young females and probably got a buzz out of taking their virginity which really isn't uncommon at all. But the way his career was set up to maximise his exposure to them is indeed uncommon and pretty creepy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above points, and have moved the page to Jimmy Savile child sexual abuse scandal, per WP:BRD. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better.Smeat75 (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Auction

People are now complaining about the items that they bought at the auction.[1] Might be worth a mention in the article (BTW, the Corniche was quoted as going for £130,000 at the time).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that seems about the most peripheral and trivial claim so far. I'm sure the guy's disappointed that he won't make any money out of it, but it really is not suitable for this (or any) article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The lawyers said that "none of us [the buyers] had a leg to stand on". Still, had the Newsnight or ITV1 documentary been broadcast earlier this year, the auction would probably never have occurred.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It was a speculative investment and he paid what he thought it was worth based on the information available at the time. Subsequent information that has come to light has caused it's value to fall (most probably). Happens all the time with any kind of speculation - shares or whatever. Unfortunately, his chances of hiring it out for children's parties are probably slim now! --2.102.108.80 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Its new owner, from Poole in Dorset, said he bought the vehicle over the telephone "on a whim", but now his plans to hire it out for weddings and children's parties are ruined. Well - Halloween is coming... if he needs the money badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.74 (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Current first sentence of the article

Opening of the article currently reads: "In October 2012, British entertainer and philanthropist Jimmy Savile, who had died a year earlier, became the subject of a national child sexual abuse scandal, with over 120 allegations of inappropriate behaviour with young girls over four decades of his career."

This is already out of date - Guardian today : "The Metropolitan police has revealed that the number of sex abuse allegations against Jimmy Savile has increased significantly in the past three days, with Scotland Yard now pursuing 340 lines of inquiry involving 40 potential victims. Scotland Yard said on Friday that it had officially recorded 12 formal criminal allegations of sexual offences and that it expects that figure to grow."http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/12/jimmy-savile-met-inquiry

And it is not accurate to say that the allegations are all of "inappropriate behaviour with young girls", we do not know that for sure, there has been at least one man to complain that he was molested as a child. Also some of these allegations may be of rape with females over the age of consent, or of hospital patients who were molested against their will. I am not sure how to fix this, I will have to think about it, I will try to work on the article over the next few days, if anyone else wants to have a go, that is fine with me.Smeat75 (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

How do "lines of enquiry" constitute "allegations of inappropriate behaviour"? Some lines of enquiry might relate to one, same allegation. The story itself said 12 criminal allegations have been recorded, not treble figure amounts. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Project Yorkshire?

There is a tag from Wiki Project Yorkshire on this page, is that necessary? I don't see that this has anything any more to do with Yorkshire than many other places in Britain. I have left a message on their talk page asking them if they really want that here and asking them to remove it if they do not.Smeat75 (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I added it here as we have the parent page tagged. A bit pointless keeping an eye on the parent page without the sub-pages that go to make up the whole. Keith D (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Added the UK project as this does seem to be a nationwide scandal and the government are now involved. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.74 (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

John Peel

There are now media reports alleging that John Peel had an affair with a 15-year-old girl, reports that seems to involve a terminated pregnancy, unprotected sex shortly after boasting on-air of suffering from a venereal disease and a postcard from the late 1990s which does nothing at all to clear his name. Source The BBC has now been forced into a major rethink on its decision to name a new wing of Broadcasting House after Peel. Source How does Wikipedia deal with this latest development? --86.40.110.74 (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in this article, why not post this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Peel?Smeat75 (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done --86.40.110.74 (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Minor changes to sentence in the lead

The article has been greatly improved in the last few hours, it now at least mentions all the major areas. I am going to make a minor adjustment to a sentence in the lead - "During his lifetime, Savile was never convicted of any sexual offences—despite several investigations, which revealed that there was insufficient evidence to even charge him, let alone convict him" by changing the last bit to "which concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge him". Not much was "revealed" to the public at any rate and convictions are not decided by investigations, so I think my amendments make the sentence more neutral.Smeat75 (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Latest update on complaints

Telegraph says: "Scotland Yard said yesterday that the number of likely victims had reached 60 with 340 lines of inquiry pursued by 14 forces. The NSPCC has received more than 100 complaints. Peter Watt, the head of the NSPCC’s helpline, said: “The number of incidents reported have reached treble figures making him a hugely prolific sex offender – one of the worst I’ve ever heard of.”http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9606494/Jimmy-Savile-police-officers-repeatedly-failed-sex-victims.html, so the number of "likely victims" has risen from the 40 in the current opening sentence. And do editors think that quote from the head of the helpline should be in the article? If so can someone put it in, I am more comfortable asking others what they think first before I try to insert material and also to be honest I am not very proficient at doing stuff like making the footnotes turn out the way they are meant to be with the link in it and so on.Smeat75 (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Article needs renamed

Jimmy Savile forcibly raped people above the age of consent, age 16 or older. I suggest moving this article to Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. Thoughts?--MrADHD | T@1k? 15:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree - there are multiple reliable sources that support that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Jimmy_Savile#Very_serious_allegations_of_paedophilia above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is - the story moves on day by day, and it's clear that the allegations now go beyond children. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Gravestone

Seems odd there is no mention of his Grave stone being removed in the 'actions taken' section, especially as it's discussed on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.150.13 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done --86.40.98.9 (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The basic problem is how to identify which parts of the relevant material that has been added at the Jimmy Savile article - that being one example - should also be copied over to this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Criteria for including individual incidents and reminiscences

I'm a little concerned that editors are adding - in the "Overview" section, mainly - individual anecdotes and reminiscences of Savile's behaviour which add very little that is of encyclopedic relevance. Do we really need to know, for instance, that a (non-notable) Irish journalist spoke to him about allegations in 2007? Clearly, we could, if we wanted, source innumerable other examples - but unless they are from notable sources (like, say, Esther Rantzen), or illustrate new areas for investigation - I think they should be removed. The critical factor may be whether they are reported in more than one reliable source - that is, that they have been re-reported in sources other than those first reporting them. Anecdotes that come solely from one source should in my view be removed, to avoid the article becoming bloated. After all, the section is headed "Overview", not "Everything we can find through a Google trawl". Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Orla Barry paragraph has borderline notability, its main notability comes from the fact that it was one of the few times that he was asked on air about this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I agreed that this was non-notable; we do not need a comprehensive record of every single story like this, but merely a summary of the most important ones. I took it out. --John (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Orla Barry is a presenter with national radio station Newstalk so is not "non-notable" whatever you may think - she asked him about on air years before his death when her colleagues in Britain evidently could not be bothered. Its inclusion is perfectly valid. As well as this it was the only reference to Savile's long-term presence in Ireland. Now there is nothing. --86.40.195.203 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

But a reporter's memories of what was said to him is not notable. We know that many people asked him similar questions in his lifetime, with similar answers. The fact that one of them (not notable enough to have an article here) was Irish is not very important. If there are claims of abuse having taken place in Ireland, rather than the UK, they may well be worthy of inclusion. But this detail isn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That someone does not yet have an article does not in itself mean they are "not notable enough to have an article here." Wikipedia is a work in progress. The interview with Orla Barry is being widely reported elsewhere in the media. [3] [4] [5] [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.200 (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough to comment on the Belfast Telegraph, but none of those other sources would be valued here. --John (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's also not clear from the reports if the interview was ever broadcast when Savile was alive. If it was (and if the Belfast Telegraph is deemed a reliable source - I don't know either), it could perhaps be briefly mentioned in the background section with the other references to what was said publicly in his lifetime. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: I've added some material from the Louis Theroux interview in 2000, in which he directly questioned Savile about the paedophilia rumours. To me, the Orla Barry interview - even if broadcast, and even if the sources referring to it are reliable - does not add anything of substance to that, and came later in any case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

She's giving an interview on Irish television now about it. It's not much good for here but it a further indication of how seriously it's being taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.200 (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Arguably more interesting is the reminiscence from Paul Connew that the Sunday Mirror came very close to running a story about Savile abusing girls at a children's home in 1994.[7] The newspaper spiked the story because of the inevitable libel concerns.[8] To give another example, in 2006 Lance Armstrong settled a libel action over claims that he used drugs, with the website of Schillings assuring us that "Mr. Armstrong has always vigorously opposed drugs in sport".[9] How times change.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that is more interesting and noteworthy. --John (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a blog though. And the other is an opinion piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.200 (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Orla Barry was not unique in asking Savile about this, other UK journalists had tried but got very little in the way of a response. The real worry was setting off a libel action.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we compromise on briefly mentioning the Barry interview, but not giving it undue weight - which is what I've tried to do in my last edits? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Broadmoor

The article includes the following:

It is reported that Savile had hospital keys and access to patient rooms. One former patient reported that Savile had "shoved his hand up her nightdress" after walking into a women's television room.[10]

The source is unclear, but it appears to be talking about Steven George, a transgender man (also described in this article), who is referred to in the next paragraph by his former name. The Sky News article cited uses inappropriate pronouns to describe the incident, and I believe following its lead may be a BLP violation; I feel it should be replaced with a source which reports the incident with more clarity and which is not potentially libellous. I'm removing the section; if someone wishes to rewrite the section using a different source, it can go back in. (I'm not sure if Pink News is considered an appropriate source.) --Poppy Appletree (talk) 05:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Calls for independent investigation

Slightly confused by the sentence "The Culture Secretary, Maria Miller, said that she was satisfied that the BBC was taking the allegations very seriously, and dismissed calls for an independent inquiry which were later reiterated by Labour leader Ed Miliband." Corret me if I'm wrong, but isn't Miliband calling for an independent inquiry? Currently it reads as though Miller and Miliband are in agreement that the BBC can investigate itself. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't read that way to me - the "calls for an independent inquiry" were "reiterated by ... Miliband". It seems clear to me, but if you can think of a better wording, fine. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

How about "The Culture Secretary, Maria Miller, said that she was satisfied that the BBC was taking the allegations very seriously, and dismissed calls for an independent inquiry. However, Labour leader Ed Miliband said that the BBC should not conduct its own investigation as an independent inquiry was the only way to assure justice for those involved." Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, apart from the "However...", per WP:EDITORIAL. OK if I copy that across? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've taken out the reference to "...the BBC should not conduct its own investigation..." - I'm not sure he said that the BBC should not investigate it, but clearly he said that an independent inquiry was needed (either as well, or instead). Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That looks fine. He seems to want a broader investigation covering several organisations caught up in the scandal, so you're right that it's not a BBC specific thing. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Images

Images of the TV Centre and hospitals where some of the abuse is alleged to have happened have been removed in this edit. I disagree with their removal and think they should be reinstated as "significantly and directly related to the article's topic", per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree that such images are indeed relevant. But would an image of his Rolls Royce car also be admissable by the same token? No organisation is taking reponsibility for the attacks which have been alleged to have taken place there, are they? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought that three images in a fairly small amount of text was overdoing it; not every article about the BBC needs an image of the Television Centre. How about a gallery?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not keen on a gallery in an article like this - if it's an article about a building that illustrates its architecture, fair enough. My feeling about this article is that it may have a lot of (international, and/or younger) visitors who know relatively little about Savile or the BBC, so we should illustrate it the best we can. I'm only keen on the images because some of the abuse is supposed to have taken place in those very buildings - not to illustrate the BBC or the hospitals just for the sake of it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a gallery is less than ideal - too much like some tabloid "chamber of horrors" type sensationalism. But is an image of any building really informative? It was the murky confines of that alcove in Savile's dressing room at the BBC that was the "real" location, and probably some anonymous cell or broom-cupboard at Broadmoor, one suspects. Indeed, at some places, like Duncroft, it seems it wes always his caravan or his car. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sir Jimmy Savile

I dislike him as much as the next guy, but don't you think he should be listed as BBC Presenter Sir Jimmy Savile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamGallagherWright (talk • contribs) 16:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No. "To hear him still described as Sir Jimmy Savile and still celebrated for his charity work is a slap in the face to those of us he used." http://news.sky.com/story/999435/new-victim-claims-savile-abused-her-at-15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.202.174 (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I never understood the whole titles bit anyway, but if he still officially holds the title and it is standard practice within Wikipedia to refer to someone who holds the title by Sir, which I believe it is, then this article should treat him the same way we treat any other person with titles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, he doesn't still 'officially hold the title' - you can only be a knight while you're alive, now he's dead he's not. However, that's not Wikipedia practice, which is to refer to people (at least in the initial sentence) by the titles they were known by in life - see e.g. John Gielgud, Alec Guinness, Elizabeth Taylor. So we should continue to do so here, unless his knighthood is somehow retroactively removed. Robofish (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words in intro

The end of the current intro has a subtle implication that he was innocent.

"During his lifetime, Savile was never convicted of any sexual offences - several investigations concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge him."

We don't know why he wasn't charged in any of the various times he was investigated, insufficient evidence is only one of many possible reasons which have been given for him not being charged.

"Savile was questioned several times by the police over child sex abuse allegations, from 1959 to 2007, but was never charged" provides more information and does not speculate as to why he was not charged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.202.174 (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There are no weasels here. 2007: "the Crown Prosecution Service advised that there was insufficient evidence to take any further action, and no charges were ever brought." and "The States of Jersey Police said there was insufficient evidence for the investigation to proceed." To state or imply anything else would be entirely improper. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have added the sources to the lead so there is no longer any question for anyone who comes to the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You've provided sources for *one* of the investigations, yet your intro states "several investigations concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge him". Provide sources for the other incidents or remove your weasel words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.202.174 (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

the Telegraph is about an investigation at "Duncroft Approved School for Girls near Staines" and the BBC is about an investigation at "Haut de la Garenne". "Two" may not meet your definition of "several" but it is at least as specifically accurate as the rest of the allegation content in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

and since "the rest is bad, so this can be bad too" is poor excuse, I have reworded to relfect as specifically as we can what the sources show, and included sourcing for other investigations as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That reads much better now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.160.127 (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"General" external links

Although I think it is a good idea for this article to have external links as there is too much to cover in the article and this story is going to go on for years, I am sure, and possibly for many years, the links in the "general" section are irrelevant and amount to subtle pov-pushing in my opinion as they are links to articles on, " "Is office harassment really a thing of the past?",""Is sexual harassment still rife in the TV industry?" and ""Jimmy Savile case: At work it's called banter, but there's still a culture of sex harassment in TV". The Jimmy Savile scandal has now moved far, far away from being about sexual harassment in the office or banter, these are horrendous allegations of rape and child molesting and cover-up of these crimes. I do not like to take unilateral actions such as removing those "general" external links which is why I am discussing it here, if others agree could someone please remove them.Smeat75 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Now done, though not in a very careful or considered way as I'm in a rush - further tweaks welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Much better now, thank you.Smeat75 (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

BBC refs

I notice we have an awful lot of BBC sources in this article. I know they're supposed to be impartial, but as they're under scrutiny I wonder whether we should try to use references from elsewhere. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I added a comment about this issue earlier in the "Tabloid" section on this talk page. The BBC has corrected "inaccurate" and "wrong" statements by the editor of Newsnight, Peter Rippon, who has "stepped aside". "A statement from the BBC Trust said: “It is deeply concerning that there have been inaccuracies in the BBC's own description of what happened in relation to the Newsnight investigation." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9625495/How-Newsnight-editor-Peter-Rippon-misled-public-over-reasons-for-dropping-Savile-investigation.html The BBC itself admits that the BBC's description of what happened was "inaccurate" so I do not think the BBC is a good reliable source for its own behaviour, I feel other sources would be better for issues concerning the BBC than the BBC itself.Smeat75 (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The same point has been made at Talk:Jimmy Savile. When reporting on what the BBC has said and done, we should clearly use other sources where at all possible, per WP:PRIMARY. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and I was inspired to raise the point after reading this edit to another article, but concerning the subject covered here. I know there are some news outlets who tend to be regarded as being anti-BBC, but there are others who are more neutral. Generally I'd say references such as The Independent, RTE and The Guardian are safe bets. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Newsnight not mentioned?

BBC is only mentioned sidewayly, and Newsnight has not even a section? -DePiep (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a whole section "BBC comments and investigations" and the Newsnight issue is referred to there, albeit briefly, and may well need expansion. The new section on "Newsnight" consisting of one sentence added nothing new and was not written in very good English so I removed it.Smeat75 (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a source of current news. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

can we mention how BBC Panorama did a programme investigating BBC Newsnight on one channel as BBC Newsnight did a programme discussing BBC Panorama on the other channel. when someone from the future is doing their phd on the collision between theories of postmodernism and the mundane reality of 21st century life they might be interested in that bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.76 (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Davids Walliams and Mitchell embarrassed

There are some embarrassing things being printed in newspapers about books being released around now. [11]

“Dear Jim’ll, Please can you fix it for me to meet Brian Blessed, who plays the King Vultan in Flash Gordon? And please can you fix it for me to be a Hawkman [one of the winged men Blessed’s character leads in the film] for the day? Basically, I just really want to be on TV. Yours sincerely, David [Walliams].”

“It's like Jimmy Savile and child molestation. It rings true without being true. He in no way subverted people's stereotypical image of a child molester, any more than I do their vision of a snooty swot.” David Mitchell.

This is very embarrassing.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.53 (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are either of those embarrassing? Jim'll Fix it was a well-known part of TV history; I'm sure many celebs probably have letters they wrote to the program as kids. Also, both these statements were made before the scandal broke, so neither author should be any more embarrassed than majority of the UK population who thought Jimmy was innocent.

Claim of 300 or more victims

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20081021

Sfan00 IMG (talk)

Now included in the article (it was included earlier, but then removed, now reinstated). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ther is a confusion here

JS souhght women near the age of pubescence. That is paederasty. It is much more common than paodohilia which is seeking sex with very young children which is paodophiliia and quite rare. Can I ask the Wikipaedia to clear this one up. No-one ebver does. 86.184.136.166 (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

whatever the specific meanings in certain contexts may or may not be; we follow the sources and we will be using the common use definition in the manner used in the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

In my experience reliable sources are exceedingly careful to use the word "pedophile" and to avoid the words "pederast" and "ephebophile", as these words are generally seen as used only by pedophiles trying to make themselves look less awful than they really are. "Pedophile", however it is spelled, is the word they have carefully chosen to describe all child molesters, no matter the age of the victims. Therefore we should use that word. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to journalists/media, they are actually exceedingly not careful in how they use the word paedophile which is a medical term/diagnosis. Pederasty specifically refers to a man who is sexually attracted to young boys going through puberty. The psychiatric disorder of mind paedophilia is a medical term defined in the DSM IV diagnostic codes as a sexual preference or exclusive interest in prepubescent children. The ICD 10 psychiatric diagnostic codes include a preference or exclusive interest for prepubescent and/or the early stages of puberty for a diagnosis of paedophilia. Regardless of these arguments, JS's offending history clearly shows him to have engaged in paedophilic activity given the ages of some of his targets, and he was a sexual predator, sexual deviant and rapist to boot and he seems to have been a highly intelligent and manipulative sociopath from what is being reported; he may also have been a necrophile - he simply was a deviant abuser. He seemed to take pleasure in preying on the weak and vulnerable as well - disabled, defenseless, handicapped etc. He was not a very nice man no matter what descriptive words are applied to him but people's interpretations of medical terms are not accurate.--MrADHD | T@1k? 10:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Tabloids

Sources such as The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror etc. are not considered as reliable sources for Wikipedia. Please do not add material that is sourced to them as it will be removed. --John (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That is fair comment. However, a more constructive approach - as I've now done in relation to the Stoke Mandeville claims - would be to replace the tabloid-sourced information with more reliably-sourced information on the same subject. On many of the claims in general - not necessarily each specific individual allegation - reliable sources can be quite readily found. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. I removed it in full faith that if it was worth keeping someone like yourself would replace it using better sources. Note that this principle was reaffirmed fairly recently in relation to this subject. I particularly enjoyed (and agreed with) Tom Morris's view. We cannot use tabloids as sources. --John (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I take the view (sometimes justified) that new or inexperienced editors come to articles like this to act in good faith - at least, any reversions should contain a link to the policy or guidance that exists on the quality of sources, to which they should have regard. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As someone new to Wiki, could someone direct me to the Wiki page that gives guidance on the newspapers that cannot be used as sources please81.187.144.14 (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• WP:TABLOID. --John (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not see anything on that page, John, that says anything along the lines of "We cannot use tabloids as sources" and the question I asked at reliable sources noticeboard that you reference above was about The Sun, not British tabloids generally. I think the answer to your question, 81.187 etc is that there is no policy on wikipedia against use of specific newspapers. If the Daily Mail is disallowed there are many wikipedia articles that are going to have to be re-written. The truth, I think, 81.187, is that if you want to use a tabloid source for this article you will have to go through a lot of argument and possibly have to take it to various dispute resolution boards and so forth and you have to ask yourself if it is worth the trouble or necessary in this case since there is plenty, way more than enough, of material on the Savile scandal in "respectable" sources such as the "broadsheets" that other editors will not challenge you on with regard to sources.Smeat75 (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you honestly not understand that some sources are better than others? Tabloids routinely make things up; broadsheets do not. The BBC is a good source, because it has a well-earned reputation for checking its facts. The Daily Mail or The Sun are not good sources, because they do not have such a reputation. --John (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"The BBC is a good source, because it has a well-earned reputation for checking its facts." that was John on 14 Oct. Today,"A statement from the BBC Trust said: “It is deeply concerning that there have been inaccuracies in the BBC's own description of what happened in relation to the Newsnight investigation." From article "How Newsnight editor Peter Rippon misled public over reasons for dropping Savile investigation..Peter Rippon, the editor of the BBC’s Newsnight programme, made a series of "inaccurate" statements about his reasons for dropping an investigation into Jimmy Savile, the corporation has said."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9625495/How-Newsnight-editor-Peter-Rippon-misled-public-over-reasons-for-dropping-Savile-investigation.html The BBC has now corrected "inaccuracies" and statements that were "wrong" in the editor of Newsnight's "explanation" of the dropping of the segment on Savile, and the editor, Peter Rippon, has "stepped aside". The BBC is up to its eyeballs in all this,the BBC cannot be trusted as a completely reliable source any more than The Sun newspaper, which was the only British media organisation that tried to bring Savile's behaviour to light while he was still alive.Smeat75 (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Smeat75 - thank you for your clarification. John - the reason I raised the question is that I was suprised to see you saying that where the Sun or Mail are used as a source, the content would be removed - suggesting to me that you were quoting Wikipedia policy. This seems strange since should a person of interest give an interview to the Sun, it would be odd if a quote could not appear in a Wiki article. And before you ask, I accept that some sources are better than others and that it may well be correct that there is a sufficiency of sources elsewhere for this story. But to my mind that is not the point. Surely comments on policy must be as equally valid irrrespective of which talk page they are on?81.187.144.14 (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

John - The BBC a "good source" on its own misdemeanours? How? Its "well-earned reputation" has taken a battering on this. --86.40.98.9 (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry unregistered IP editor, I am not interested in your opinion of the BBC. There are other good sources like The Guardian etc and tabloids can seldom or never be used to improve Wikipedia articles. --John (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I do not quite understand! Do not for a moment perceive this as a personal attack, gentlemen, and I beg your pardon, Sir, but do you, John, actually live, or had you actually lived for any length of time, here in England, Scotland, Ireland, Man, Jersey or Guernsey? Or, where do you actually live? Well, I certainly do – well, at least in one of the places – although not always so; I am not sure about the English- and Afrikaans-speaking parts of Southern Africa – Zimbabwe, South Africa, Botswana or Namibia – and how things work over there, and what the local tabloids might look or read like, but here in England, there are tabloids, and there are tabloids! The Independent (The Indy) is so loony-left that it is probably also a left-wing tabloid, similar to The Daily Mirror and The Daily Star! Its printed form is of course already a tabloid. As an irresponsible reader – along with probably at least half of the British population – I can assure you, that The Daily Mail – a newspaper somehow especially popular with British women – in fact, contrary to what you might care to think – notwithstanding of a lot of irresponsible racist, homophobic and general xenophobic, and other populist, sensationalism – is in fact NOT CONSIDERED by at least half of the general British public that unreliable of a newspaper, and does not in fact (usually) given to "make things up"! Before a potential insult to potentially more than one-third, if not half, of – almost the entire womenfolk, in – the British population, I would like to some serious proof to support the claim that "The Daily Mail makes things up", please! -- KC9TV 03:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

New source describing background culture of the BBC light entertainment department

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned this one yet. http://www.lrb.co.uk/2012/10/27/andrew-ohagan/light-entertainment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.194.122 (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't be surprised, seeing that it was only published yesterday and everyone who edits here does it voluntarily in their own spare time - but it looks like a very interesting article. I'll add it to the external links for the time being, and we can consider if it should be referenced in parts of the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if I sounded demanding, not my intention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.194.122 (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Operation Yew Tree

The police operation looking at who Savile may have helped with sexual abuse is called Operation Yew Tree. The Yew tree is a common tree found in graveyards. (BBC Radio 4 news-find another source?) 86.146.109.248 (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really sure what point you're trying to make here. If you are saying that the police operation is named because of its connection to graveyards, then you need to find a source that reports that. Otherwise, it is just you adding two and two and (possibly) making five. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly well-known that police operation names are random (they are not chosen by Adam Blade): see [12]) and "the aim is to choose names that are completely neutral so they will hopefully be totally unrelated to the case." Savile isn't accused, as of the date of this posting, of killing anyone, so your point appears to be completely lacking. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Also beware the (un)reliability of rumours of necrophilia - there are only reports that, as a hospital porter he moved patients to the morgue, and Louis Theroux interviewed him about preserving his mother's clothing. Nothing definite. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Lynn Barber interview

He was asked by Lynn Barber in 1990 if the rumours that he liked little girls were true, and the tabloids had been attempting to find the truth about him for years before that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.120.139 (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The text of Barber's interview is here. I think it should be mentioned in the article - it pre-dates the Theroux documentary by a decade. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEAD assumes prior knowledge and isn't standalone

Per WP:LEAD The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.

The article states Sexual abuse allegations involving the English DJ and BBC television presenter Sir Jimmy Savile (1926–2011) and mainly under-age female teenagers resurfaced in late September 2012, leading to him becoming the subject of a national child sexual abuse scandal..

"Resurfaced" is enough to stop this lead from "standing alone". It's POV, implies prior (though unspecified) knowledge of accusations and is unencyclopædic. I propose a complete rewrite of the lead paragraph of this article in a more neutral style. I'd go ahead and WP:BB but am likely to be accused of defending child abuse, either by Savile or in general, so thought I'd take it here first. So, if anyone can defend the current wording within 24 hours of this posting, please do so. Otherwise I shall re-write. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. It says "following a 2007 police interview and 2008 allegations by The Sun" after "resurfaced" so your comment doesn't make any sense. The lead cannot include every single detail - that's what the rest of the article for. Any attempt to remove "resurfaced" misleads the reader into thinking that all allegations have been posthumous. Please remember WP:NOTDONE and be advised that this is not yet a featured article and that events are still unfolding. And since you've said it yourself it does sound like you're "defending child abuse, either by Savile or in general." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.192.30 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• This is not a !vote. However, you may wish to look through and consider all the other contributions and discussions on this page - to which I don't think you'd contributed until last night - and come up with a firm proposal here, before making radical changes to the introduction. Having said that, much of the introduction dates from when the article was first created several weeks ago, and probably needs some refreshing. Claims of abuse were made against Savile when he was alive, as the fourth para explains, but were not widely publicised, so "resurfaced" is technically correct in a general sense but could certainly be reworded better. There is no specific mention in the current introduction of the ITV documentary itself, which was the catalyst of what has happened since, and in my view it should be mentioned. There is also no mention in the current introduction of the controversies around the BBC, the two BBC inquiries, or the Department of Health inquiries. The introduction does need to be brought up to date, but I'm concerned by your suggestion that it is not neutral. In what way is that the case? We are not here to impose our own view of neutrality on events - we are here to report what has happened and what is happening, regardless of what our personal views about it might be. So, bring your suggestions here and other editors can comment on them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • "Neutral" does not mean that the article should be neutral on the question of whether Savile committed sexual abuse or not, it means neutrally summarising what reliable sources say. There are no reliable sources I am aware of that doubt, as the police say, that Savile was "a predatory sex offender" and that is the neutral position that the article must reflect.Smeat75 (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true. But, like it or not, he was also an important and respected media personality, and a successful fundraiser for notable charities. Equally, those facets are part of "the neutral position that the article must reflect". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, I have never denied that, his huge celebrity is a very important part of all this. The Guardian lists all the currently announced inquiries into Savile and the related story of abuse in care homes which has come about partly as a result of the Savile scandal:http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/08/current-child-abuse-inquiries-list?INTCMP=SRCH

I don't think all of these are listed in the article, perhaps some of them should be.Smeat75 (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added the HMIC inquiry, and the Jersey one. I think that covers them all, though it is getting hard to keep track. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Edwina Currie's comments

One thing I didn't see in this very well-written and well-referenced article is mention of Edwina Currie's comments as given in The Telegraph here. I'm not sure if Ms. Currie's speculations re. potential blackmail should be included, but the fact that she states that she personally appointed him to the position he held in Broadmoor might. Given how meticulous this article is, I thought it best to get consensus here before adding it.

Also, it appears that one of his accusers is his great-niece. I see nothing in reputable sources, as the story appeared in the Daily Mail, but it might show up in a better reference later on. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using the Daily Mail as a source. It would be better if sourced from a non-tabloid, but tabloids are not expressly forbidden as sources. There was a discussion and The Sun was decided to be excluded, but the Mail was not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.51.191 (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There have been multiple discussions about whether the Mail is a reliable source. Sometimes it can be, sometimes it certainly isn't, but it is virtually never the best source for anything worthy of being included in an encyclopaedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Currie's appointment of Savile to the Broadmoor board is mentioned in his biographical article. It's sometimes difficult to know where to draw the line between articles in cases like this, but it seems more appropriate to me that it is mentioned in that article, rather than this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed the Daily Mail tend to plagiarise a lot of articles from the Independent. So if I see a Daily Mail article (the recent necrophilia one) I almost always know there's an Independent article on it. Its OK as a last resort if there is no Guardian, Times, Independent or whatever source.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Started List of pedophiles. Not listed Savile as he was never convicted.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

But, he has been added at Category:Pedophilia. We need to be consistent. I don't think you can be "convicted" of pedophilia anyway - you can be convicted of child sexual abuse, but pedophilia and sexual abuse are not necessarily the same thing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Think it maybe kinda along the lines of Category:Witchcraft. Please note: not suggesting Savile was a witch. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference to Lord McAlpine needed?

Given that this article is ultimately a bi-product of one Newsnight Child Sex Abuse debacle, shouldn't the article include some sort of brief reference and link to the second Newsnight Child Sex Abuse debacle that rapidly followed the first debacle, and involved the false accusations against Lord McAlpine? There is a link of sorts via the Will De'Ath reference 'I know how Lord McAlpine feels', but there is no mention of McAlpine in the text of the article. This seems relevant to giving this article a Neutral Point of View, and to avoid unfairness to living persons - by mentioning persons who have been charged, but failing to mention that at least one person is known to have been wrongly accused, the article may at least arguably be unfairly prejudicing the reader against those who have been charged, as well as against persons criticised for staying silent. I could try to add this myself, but as it's perhaps a bit delicate, I'd prefer a more experienced editor to do it. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There is already a paragraph, Call for single inquiry, that mentions the North Wales scandal - and the two scandals are linked in other articles like Criticism of the BBC and Newsnight. But essentially they are separate scandals, and it would be confusing to readers to give too much attention to only loosely connected matters in this article. We should not comment on whether we think accusations against individuals are fair or unfair - if it's relevant to report that someone has been arrested, we report it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I was not suggesting we should say anything explicit about the fairness or unfairness in the article. But when the article mentions charges brought against living people (who are not Savile, and are only in the article because the charges against them are arguably a kind of spin-off of the accusations against Savile), but makes no mention of hugely publicised false accusations against Lord McAlpine (which are equally arguably a kind of spin-off of the accusations against Savile), it seems to me that this omission represents some sort of distortion of the truth, and a distortion that tends to obscure the possibility that some of those charged may also be the victims of similar false accusations, thus making that omission seem unfair to them, and contrary to Wikipedia's policy that we are supposed to make every effort not to be unfair to living people. The omission also tends to hide from view the possibility that living people criticised for doing nothing may have done so not out of some sort of callousness but because they were worried about possible harm from false accusations. But I assume, perhaps mistakenly, that Wikipedia rules would not allow me to be as fair to the accused as I would like to be, by including links to articles describing past miscarriages of justice resulting from police trawling for paedophiles similar to the current one, as documented extensively at http://www.richardwebster.net/#false Tlhslobus (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you are conflating allegations made in the media, with inquiries being undertaken by the police. McAlpine was not subject to any police inquiries; the allegations were false and later withdrawn; and they were not related to Savile. Those media allegations are not comparable with those being investigated by the police, and they should be dealt with elsewhere. In this article, we report (among other things) the police investigations. The references made to people other than Savile being arrested are relevant, in that they form part of Operation Yewtree which was set up to look into the allegations against Savile. We don't need to reiterate, in relation to every arrest made, that people are innocent until proven guilty, but we can summarise reports of arrests if they provide relevant encyclopedic content. On a related point, the police inquiry is wider than just Savile, and they stated in relation to the most recent arrest that it "falls under the strand of the investigation we have termed 'Others'". So, the arrest was undertaken as part of the inquiry, but the allegations were not directly related to Savile. I've clarified that point in the article, but it's a moot point, for discussion here, whether the fourth arrest should be mentioned in the article at all. It was carried out by police as part of the Savile investigations process, but the police say that it was not directly connected to Savile. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference needed to views of, and 'failure to listen' accusations against, headmistress Margaret Jones?

Given that Wikipedia is supposed to report controversies without taking sides in them, shouldn't this article mention the 'controversial' views of headmistress Margaret Jones, as well as the 'failure to listen' accusations leveled against her by at least one of Savile's alleged victims, both of which are reported in the Daily Mail (a further complication is that the Daily Mail is a source whose authority is questioned elsewhere on this Talk page)? I could try to add this myself, but as it's clearly very delicate, I'd prefer a more experienced editor to do it. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is a need to expand the very brief reference to the allegations relating to Duncroft School, where Margaret Jones was the head. I'd be reluctant to use the Daily Mail as a source - but there are more reliable sources that could be used, including the BBC, ITV, Wales Online, The Telegraph, the NY Times, the Herald, etc. I've now expanded the paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Police investigations into "Others"

Should this article only cover matters relating specifically to Savile, or should it cover the whole police inquiry, which is also investigating "Others"? Should we have a separate article on Operation Yewtree (which currently links back to this article), or should we cover in this article matters which may be directly or indirectly related to the inquiry and investigations? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion this article should stick to Savile, with links to other related matters. This is going to go on for years with many other investigations and "spin-offs", as it were, and there will soon be too much for one article and it would lose the focus on its core subject. An article on Operation Yewtree is a good idea in my opinion.Smeat75 (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that Yewtree might have to be planted. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've now started Operation Yewtree. I think a separate article specifically on the police operation will help clarify the relationships between the different strands of the overall affair. At this stage there is quite a bit of overlap with this article, but that can be pruned as time goes on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Newsnight

First copying over comments from Ghmyrtle talk about reversion to suggested changes about Newsnight investigation of Savile

The revert on Savile Scandal is not helpful Newsnight investigation comes at end of 2011 before Exposure in Timeline although Pollard stuff obviously can come later. Ellizzia (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is not a simple timeline - it tells a story. The information about the Newsnight investigation did not become known until after the ITV documentary, and so it is dealt with in the text at that point. It can obviously be written in different ways, but it wasn't helpful for you to duplicate information already clearly set out in the article. If you want to pursue this, the place to do it is at the article talk page, not here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to say factually this isn't true Sunday Mirror ran the BBC AXE INVESTIGATION INTO SIR JIMMY story on January 8 2012 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-axe-investigation-into-sir-jimmy-157675 and the Oldie ran a longer version in February 2012 which was picked up by the press for instance Telegraph 10 Feb 2012 BBC BURIED SAVILE SEX ABUSE CLAIMS TO SAVE ITS REPUTATION http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9073142/BBC-buried-Savile-sex-abuse-claims-to-save-its-reputation.html That's why it should be reported in story before the Exposure section. Ellizzia (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for those refs, and apologies for my error. We can certainly use the Telegraph ref in the article - the Mirror is not usually considered a reliable source. I think the references need a bit of tweaking, but the basic info can certainly be included at the point you suggest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

BBC sexual abuse cases

Some of the information in the article BBC sexual abuse cases is duplicated here, but a recent AFD closed without consensus. I've started a discussion on the talk page for those who are interested in the way forward with that article, possibly we could merge the relevant information here, and spin the rest off into another article, but we need a discussion on how to proceed. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

IP comment

Expressions of opinion, not relevant to improving the article

Summarising what I have written below as important and not merely opinion I would say 1)The fact that these are all totally unproven allegations that have not been defended in any court. The fact that the police make reports on people is irrelevant.Those reports are often found when examined by defence lawyers etc to be flawed 2)The fact that these matters are taking place under the shadow of the Leveson Report that is highly critical of the press and which suggests controls on its investigations 3)Saviles image should be made more clear. His personality was deliberately designed to be naughty and shocking although it was in reality no different to all those involved in the pop world at the time 4)The laws relating to underage sex should be made more clear. As stated nearly all the male population of Britain are liable to the same attacks and censure as Savile. I write the remarks merely to help in making this business clearer. However if people wish to remove them then they presumably can ..I will leave you to to roll around in this unpleasant mess.80.98.113.13 (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC) This is supposed to be a page intended to improve the wiki article .I therefore cannot see why my comments here have been removed as they throw much more light on the subject. The fact is that this is a shocking business in which the British press and now police have made allegations none of which have been presented in any court and none of which have been defended in any way The allegations and language used are themselves grotesque. To present this person as a 'predatory paedophile always looking for potential victims is in a way hilariously funny. Like everyone involved in the sixties and seventies pop scene there was no one who did not have to almost fight off the thousands of young teenage girls who used every trick every ruse to get near their pop heroes or idols .Although not a pop star there was not a day in his life when he did not attract attention and when he wasnt pestered by eager excited and willing girls . This is not made clear in the report or anywhere Further this entire affair is taking place under the shadow of the Leveson Inquiry and its report recEntly published. The Leveson Inquiry was set up to investigate the methods the Press used --including tapping mobile phones and bribing the police for information-in carrying out their investigations. The report suggests that controls should be put on the press and its investigative methods Without presenting a point of view it is clear that one way the press are fighting back is by presenting the exposure of this person as an example of value of an unfettered press. Unless people have lived though the sixties they can have no idea of the sudden change in sexual attitudes that took place.It should be made clear that Savile created an image that was both caring and kindly but which was deliberately shocking and sexually outrageous There was not a mother in the country who would not laugh at her daughters liking him saying Well I like him too but dont stand too close to him or his hands will be all over you..This was his image and added to his appeal..just as everone has a naughty uncle who always livens things up at the family Christmas party. The more serious accusations can be dismissed as being attempts to rub in even more dirt The laws relating to underage sex and so called pedophilia should also be made clear. With the age of consent being 16 in the UK it means that any sixteen year old boy whose girlfriend is fifteen and who kisses her and indulges in petting etc is guilty of what is now called sexual abuse and is even, according to the police attacking such a girl. He is likely to be put on the sexual offenders register for the rest of his life. If the boy actually has sex with his girl friend he is guilty of committing rape and subject to more serious punishments. The Savile business suggests that there is no time limit for such 'offences' which makes probably nearly the entire population of Britain liable to face the same charges as Savile These are important points and however much you may dislike them they will come up more and more as this sick business continues to evolve These comments should not therefore be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.113.13 (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Just squeezing in again to let a little breath of intelligence into this discussion ..if its edited out again then I will gladly leave you all to your fun.. There seems to be a great concentration here on Police Reports. The Police make many reports all the time on crime and criminal,these are considered by the DPP to see if a case can be made for prosecution. In Britain and the rest of the world not under dictatorship, the police are not a judge and jury in these matters When the case goes to court the defence lawyers will examine the police reports and if necessary so discredit them in cross examination that they be thrown out completely. This happens often The police acknowledge the dangers of relying on their own reports as is shown by the fact that while Savile was still alive several women made complaints about his behaviour forty years earlier. These complaints were thoroughly examined and the police decided there was no case to answer .The police now admit they were wrong on that occasion. If they were wrong then why shouldnt they be wrong on this occasion? The fact remains that there is no evidence for any of these allegations In the reports I have read there are only a few sentences before we come to the point where he touched me etc. What is even more extraordinary is that virtually all of the 'abuse' described took place in full public view where Savile was being watched by hundreds of people in audiences ,discos, family parties etc..and yet he is ceaselessly described as someone who was cleverly planning his evil tricks all the time The idea that he choose his victims carefully etcetc is almost amusing. Here was someone who for a good twenty years of his life never opened his front door to get a bottle of milk without having a dozen pretty girls pushing in and and surrounding him..we wanted to see you Jimmy we've waited hours,we'cold can we come in Can we have an autograph ,My friend wants you to kiss her...If he does let them in and kisses and fondles a few is this really the same as the serious abuse found in institutions etc or families or involving people in respected positions as in the priesthood? As for what the real pop stars were doing whose lives were a continuous endless string of sex orgies ,it doesnt begin to compare! I hope this will stay here but I realise that many people love this kind of dirt rolling, or nose picking ..its a very British thing so if you dont want any intelligent thinking about this business I will you get on with it..at some time there will be books written that will put the whole thing in place in particular regarding the importance of the Leveson report ,which is really what this business is all about,that is ,showing how a brave free unfettered British press exposed this evil man.. so keep Britains Press free from any Leveson created controls!!! Cheers..80.98.113.13 (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC

Report, Alison Levitt QC, January 2013

Came here to check whether Levitt Report has yet been mentioned, and recognised as a more reliable source of information than Yewtree or commercialised and otherwise tendentious reporting in press and elsewhere. It shows a far greater (but imperfect) respect for evidence as distinct from populist bombast based on tabulating uninvestigated and unverified allegations. Remember the DPP and CPS also are in the political arena with backs to cover. Even this report would have been treated with the critical caution required if Savile were now living. If this gets the proper critical scrutiny it deserves, it wiil be shown to contain superfluous and prejudicial remarks and comments which no prosecuting authority should have been allowed to publish before trial, and would be at least debatable in a civil claim. For:

1_ DPP Statement on Savile cases 11 January 2013 see[13]

2_ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of Alison Levitt Report see[14]

3_Full version of Alison Levitt Report, signed on page 116 of 128 "Alison Levitt QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions, January 2013", published by DPP, CPS,see[15].

Qexigator (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course media reports summarising the Levitt report should be covered in the article - without necessarily commenting on how reliable it is compared with other sources of information. There seems to be a distinct shortage of editors revising this article at the moment, which I find surprising. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There is the well-known problem that if Wikipedia must rely for sources on press, broadcasting etc which in turn rely on faulty reports (even if the report is relying on Wikipedia!) Wikipedia may be able to do nothing better than repeat matter in ways unsuited to a reputable encyclpaedia. May I propose that this article should now include at least a passing reference to the Levitt Report, which could be expanded in due course when the issues have become clarified in the public domain (beyond the few better informed blogs which of course are not acceptable as sources)? May I leave that to editors already active here who would know how best to do that? Qexigator (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added a very short couple of sentences on the Levitt report. Feel free to expand it further. Ghmy rtle (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, nothing to add at this stage, but it's a question of time to see whether sooner, later or never, more of the facts about the scandal behind the scandal emerge (cp. "Plebgate" to name but one).Qexigator (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Have now added an update in section Operation Yewtree. Qexigator (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

How intelligent is it to assume that editors here are so dumb that they need IP 80.. to tell them all that? Maybe ACPO, NSPCC and some of the people at BBC, Guardian and Daily Mail. Qexigator (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The word "paedophile"

• Regardless of the details of its dictionary meaning, to most people the word "paedophile" (USA: "pedophile") means "man who sexually interferes with boys": here in England down the years paedophilia accusations have been ad nauseam in the newspapers and television news. I feel that care should be taken in using this word, unless any of the provable allegations mention boys rather than girls. And among newspapers, do not trust cheap lying rags such as the Daily Sport and Sunday Sport. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

We had a variation of this debate at Talk:Jimmy_Savile#Very_serious_allegations_of_paedophilia. The Oxford English Dictionary describes a paedophile as An adult who is sexually attracted to children. This is how it is used in everyday speech, words like "hebephilia" or "ephebophilia" are not in everyday use.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that "paedophile" implies sexual feelings towards boys, rather than girls. That has never been my (UK) understanding - the implication relates to any children, not necessarily boys. But, it is a psychiatric condition - not necessarily acted upon - and should not be confused, here or anywhere, with illegal acts of sexual abuse. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle. It is a delicate area and we should be careful to use words like this one correctly, according to their medical and legal definitions, not the way the man in the pub or a red-top newspaper uses them. --John (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, unless that I were in fact mistaken, I thought that the Daily Sport had folded some years ago! And no, the interpretation is incorrect, or at least no longer so, unfortunately. Neither the Church of England nor the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the usual suspects in those carry-ons, are very strong in most of these parts. Do forgive and pardon me for saying so, Sir, but you must either be a proud son of Saint Patrick, or had up sticks and emigrated many, many years ago, or both! (It was not Stockport, was it?) -- KC9TV 13:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Sport can remain well and truly folded as far as I am concerned, unless it has a large Holland's Pie and chips on it. But it's not the only tabloid. It's rather unclear, however, exactly what you are objecting to here. That peadophilia is a psychiatric disorder? Or to whom is your apparently racist/anti-Catholic bigotry directed? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Look, I suspect that there might be some language differences (that one of us is not in, or from, England), but let me put it this way, and simply – the Daily Sport was CLOSED DOWN some years ago, all-right? A recently-closed-down tabloid is often considered unreliable as a source. -- KC9TV 02:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it closed certainly, and became an on-line newpaper. But I think we can probably agree that it's not really a reliable source for anything, and especially not for correct medical terminology usage. After listening yesterday to Professor Richard Wortley, on Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show, it seems that, amongst the relevant health care professions, the term "paedophile" is not seen as being particularly useful. The preferred descriptor is rather "men/women who abuse children." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We should avoid using the word "paedophile" in the case of Jimmy Savile, as that's a scientific term meaning a sexual interest in children who have not yet entered into puberty, i.e. those under the age of 11-13. The legal age of consent has nothing to do with this, and it also varies from country to country, and has varied greatly in history. In Spain it's currently only 13, while in Tunisia it's 20 - and in the UK it was 12 before 1875 and 13 from 1875 to 1885, when it was raised to the current age of 16. Although not commonly used terms, Jimmy Savile's alleged activities seem to indicate that he was a "ephebophile" or possibly a "hebephile", i.e. someone who was obsessed with young teenagers. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so it should educate its readers, not repeat inaccurate terms used by ignorant journalists.Thomas Blomberg (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Wortley's view is that any medical term, although it may be a short-hand way to describe sexual preferences in an abstract or mental way, does nothing to address the wide range of actual behaviours, or indeed non-behaviours, that may arise as a result. The terms "ephebophile" (or hebephile) and "child abuser" are not synonyms and should not be used as such. But that's just one professional's view, I guess. But very largely agree with what you say here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of his victims were prepubescent, like one victim was aged 8 and a couple others were aged 9 but most were adolescent, meaning he has engaged in pedophilia but probably would not be diagnosed as a pedophile. Given allegations of necrophilia, rape and other sexual assaults some other description may be preferred instead of paedophilia. Perhaps the best description would be sexual abuser? Sexual deviant and sexual predator are other options.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the article? So far as I can tell, the article doesn't use any particular terms to describe him. That's as it should be - we should not use uncertain or unjustified terminology, and certainly not terminology derived from unproven allegations. Why are people discussing this as though there is an issue to be resolved? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The article looks very well balanced to me. Maybe the use of Category:Pedophilia is still slightly contentious for some, for a variety of reasons. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

But it's not in that category.......  ?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's hope that remains the case. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. I'm coming here by way of interaction with Thomas Blomberg, and, seeing as I deal with the topics of pedophilia and child sexual abuse a great deal, I decided to comment here about this. Recently, there was this discussion at a user's talk page and this discussion at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard about categorizing people as pedophiles when we cannot know that they are pedophiles unless they have been diagnosed as such and when the term is being used incorrectly to refer to sexual attraction to people who are clearly pubescent or post-pubescent; the list noted at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard was deleted for those very reasons, but primarily due to mostly being a WP:BLP violation. For reasons stated in that discussion, where I also commented, I agree with Thomas Blomberg and others about not categorizing Jimmy Savile as a pedophile. While he may have had prepubescent victims, a person who has sexually abused a prepubescent child is not automatically a pedophile; although child sexual abuse and pedophilia often go hand in hand, researchers generally distinguish between the two; read this section of the Pedophilia article for more on that. I am also taking this time to note that, as shown in the Hebephilia article, hebephilia is still being debated as to whether or not it is a mental disorder (meaning the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pubescents, not merely some level of sexual attraction to them) and ephebophilia is not considered a mental disorder by experts in these fields because it involves sexual attraction (though a primary or exclusive one) to people who are either almost finished with puberty or have finished with puberty (of course meaning that they have mostly or fully attained an adult body). Not to mention...ephebophilia extends up to age 19...and people who are 18 or 19 are considered adults in most parts of the world. Although pubescents are also biological adults, whether or not hebephilia is a mental disorder is being debated because so many early pubescents, especially boys, still look prepubescent or not mature enough physically. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So what about Category:Pedophilia, on the basis that "some were children at the time"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

What about pæderast? That refers to actions, not psychology. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That only relates to homosexual actions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation

The obvious conclusion is that the sexual abuse claims are true, but shouldn't this article take a more neutral stance and explicitly mention that there has been no official report published on this matter until one has been published? This seems to be an open and shut case, but nonetheless Wikipedia's tone shouldn't be based on public opinion. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The joint Met Police / NSPCC report has now been published. I'm reading through it now. It's interesting that substantial chunks of the Background section seem to be copied verbatim, or almost verbatim, from this and other linked WP articles. The article will need to be updated to take into account reports on its publication. I've added the report itself as an external link, and a brief summary, as reported by the BBC, to the opening paragraphs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This also happened with the Leveson Report.[16]. Cribbing from Wikipedia is a guilty secret of many people.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

[17]So there is a lot of information that needs to go into the article, thank you Ghmyrtle for your work on this article, I think you will make the right decisions on what needs to be included. From first reading of the reports in the Guardian of the Met / NSPCC report, several things leap out at me that I feel are important for the article - there is at present no mention of Gt Ormond St hospital where "the child Savile abused died, but someone who witnessed what happened came forward." Savile threatened the police with legal action if they pursued charges against him "Savile appears to have issued a veiled threat to two Surrey police officers when interviewed under caution in 2009.

A police log of the interview records Savile saying: "I have no kinky carryings on. But because I take everything seriously I’ve alerted my legal team that they may be doing business and if we do, you ladies [the two female officers] will finish up at the Old Bailey as well because we will be wanting you there as witnesses. But nobody ever seems to want to go that far."

and it is reported that Sussex police discouraged a victim from pressing charges due to Savile's fame and power "The CPS report details the case of one of Savile's victims who said she was told by a Sussex police officer in 2008 that no-one would believe she had been abused because Savile was a "big celebrity" and would make "mincement" out of her at a "big court in London".

An important quote: "Detective Superintendent David Gray, who led the inquiry, said: "He has spent every minute of every working day thinking about this. Whenever an opportunity came along he took it. He picked on vulnerable victims and he was clever enough to choose people who he knew would not speak out."

Summary of the report from Sandra Laville at Scotland Yard reads in part:"Savile raped 34 people, including 28 children. He used every opportunity and every institution he had access to because of his fame to target young people. The report reveals Savile abused children at the BBC between 1959 and 2006 – his last offence there took place at Top of the Pops in 2006 when he sexually assaulted a teenage girl on the show.

Fifty-seven of the allegations took place in 14 hospitals and a hospice in the UK. At Great Ormond Street hospital the child Savile abused died, but someone who witnessed what happened came forward.

He assaulted 16 victims at Leeds general infirmary, 1 at Great Ormond Street, and he assaulted someone who was visiting a dying child at the Sue Ryder Wheatfield hospice in Leeds.

He also assaulted children and young girls 33 times in TV and radio studios and there were 14 assaults in schools. Savile was invited into the schools – which have not been named – by children who wanted to appear on Jim'll Fix It, police said."Smeat75 (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) What chunks of text has been copied from wikipedia? Can you paste them here? Wikipedia has copyright for text - it can't be reused without attribution. I have searched the report and there is no mention of wikipedia so attribution has not been given.--MrADHD | T@1k? 15:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Para 5.2 of the report reads:

During the Second World War Savile was conscripted to work in the coal mines. He later began a career in dance halls, first playing records and then moving on to manage them, including the Mecca Ballroom in Manchester. He began working as a DJ at Radio Luxembourg in 1958 and on Tyne Tees Television in 1960. In 1964 he presented the first edition of Top of the Pops and from 1968 worked on BBC Radio 1. Between 1975 and 1994 he presented Jim'll Fix It. As well as his television and radio work he supported charities and hospitals, in particular Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Aylesbury, Leeds General Infirmary and Broadmoor Hospital in Berkshire.

Compare that with the (current) second paragraph of our article on Jimmy Savile which reads:

Savile was conscripted to work in the coal mines as a Bevin Boy during the Second World War. He began a career playing records in, and later managing, dance halls. His media career started as a disc jockey at Radio Luxembourg in 1958 and on Tyne Tees Television in 1960, and he developed a reputation for eccentricity and his flamboyant character. At the BBC, he presented the first edition of Top of the Pops in 1964 and broadcast on BBC Radio 1 from 1968. Between 1975 and 1994 he presented Jim'll Fix It, a popular television programme in which he arranged for the wishes of viewers, mainly children, to come true. During his lifetime, he was noted for fundraising and supporting charities and hospitals, in particular Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Aylesbury, Leeds General Infirmary and Broadmoor Hospital in Berkshire....

That's just the first example of close paraphrasing that I've come across - there may be others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So the example above is close paraphrasing. This is sort of legal. Exact copy and pasting would be a clear cut case. One only holds the copyright to the wording not the ideas there in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it further there is enough copy and paste to bring it to their attention when compared to this report [18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ummmm... suppose the bits seeming to be plagiarised, from Wikipedia had been placed in Wikipedia by the authors of the report or their agent/s. The document and the circumstances of its production and publicity are such a farrago that it is not irrational to see this as a possibility, subject to examined evidence to the contrary. Consider and compare the conduct of the authorities over Plebgate. Qexigator (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

".. examined evidence to the contrary.. "?! There are one or two highly respected and attentive editors (and I am certainly not one of them) who would certainly have noticed if this has happened in any systematic way. And, short of suggesting that these well-established Wikipedia editors have in some way found themselves into the employ of the NSPCC and or (even more bizarrely) the MPS, this simply has not happened. But I'm sure they will speak for themselves, should they feel obliged. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure admin resources would be capable of sussing out such malpractice, and that admin resources have not been abused here or in any other case. But we need to be alert to the fact that external bodies or their agents (including those we would like to think trustworthy) may get up to such a thing if they thought they could get away with it. It is only a short way from the plagiarism which has been detected, and disreputable behaviour in the media and public life is becoming all too frequent. My point however is: technically, where would copyright be? Qexigator (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's your point. I see. That's probably a question which a couple of highly paid barristers could discuss at great length. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)