Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)