Talk:Jimmy Savile

Very serious allegations of paedophilia

A documentary on the prime UK national commercial TV channel, ITV, will be aired on 3rd October 2012 "investigating alledations that (Savile) sexually abused teenage girls. (Source: TV & Satellite Week Magazine 29 Sept 2012.)

This is discussed above. It is notable that the documentary will be broadcast when Savile is dead and not in a position to sue for libel. There is a WP:BDP issue here, and the BBC has already dropped these allegations because Savile was never charged or convicted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

We aren't really meant to predict what next week's TV will be, or even mention it, until it has been broadcast (even if The Telegraph does). Once someone has died, former managers and publicists are not always quite so keen to seek injunctions which might protect their former client's reputation. It seems that the media always has a way of finding its own level, by one means or another. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted to removed this per WP:CRYSTAL but it looks like the media hoo-ha will be significant. The BBC dropped the allegations because no contemporary complaints were found in the BBC archive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

But ITV never had Jim'll Fix It, did they. Not sure we have WP:OUIJA yet, do we. Martinevans123 (talk)

This story has been bumping around since January 2012, and it looks like ITV will air the allegations. The media has wanted to make claims like this about Savile's private life for years, but it is significant that they never did so during his lifetime. Savile was not known as a litigious person, but he did call in lawyers in 2008 over the claims relating to a children's home in Jersey.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, allegations of this nature were made before he died, and may well have been looked in to by the police at the time, because they were made during the major police investigation in Jersey. Danrok (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Surprising to hear news reports today (Sunday), in advance of Wednesday's ITV broadcast, on BBC Radio 2, including a short eye-witness account and Esther Rantzen saying that "the jury is no longer out" on the matter. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The tabloids have already given a preview of what will be in the documentary [2], producing a response from his relatives, one of whom said that he was ""disgusted and disappointed".[3] All of this is very reminiscent of what happened with Jonathan King in the early 2000s, the only difference being that since Savile is now dead, he cannot defend himself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The story has clearly now moved on from what was said at the time of his death, and the latest allegations have been reported prominently in UK media. Not just the tabloids - also the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Times, the Independent, etc., and on BBC TV news. I've added a link to the latest BBC news report, but no doubt there will be more to add in coming days. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the focus has moved on now to the ITV defending its decision to broadcast, e.g. [4]. And Savile's nephew has expressed his concern over the possible damage to his legacy, including the charity work, which apparently continues. Rantzen has been particularly outspoken. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In this edit, reference is made to the 2008 story about the Haut Garenne case, which was previously raised here. Is it sufficiently noteworthy to be included now? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that in the light of breaking news, it is potentially VERY noteworthy and apposite. Manxwoman (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The 2008 Jersey allegations should now be mentioned in the article, because Savile called in the lawyers over them. The material was removed from The Sun's website and cannot be found there today. Raising the Staines allegations during Savile's lifetime might well have prompted a similar legal response.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

But, on second thougts, this seems a little perverse. If allegations were removed from a website as a result of a legal challenge, surely they should not be re-reported here? Not contempt of court, and not in breach of any injunction, but wholly contrary to most people's view of "natural justice"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Obviously this is made partly more notable by the magnfiyign effect of the forthcoming ITV documentary and associated media frenzy, although this obviously has made no material change to those original allegations. Perhaps it is notable in its own right, given that Savile himself began the legal procedings, but still raher borderline I feel. If The Sun incident is kept in, though, I think it should be made clearer how it was concluded. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the legal proceedings were (quietly) dropped, as I cannot source a conclusion... Manxwoman (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no legal requirement for the details of any out-of-court settlement me to be made public, of course. So we will probably never know. Should all the material on alleged child abuse now be grouped togther in one separate section? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Would make sense... Do you want me to have a go? Manxwoman (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. But note my second thoughts above. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I did word it ambiguously, so that it is clear that Savile denied the allegation, as opposed to stating the information as fact. Manxwoman (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What is now happening, predictably, is that more material is being added, including lengthy quotes from other celebrities. I'm minded to start reverting some of this - it doesn't add any substantive information to the article, merely commentary on a current media story. We need to be impartial and balanced here, and not merely add commentary and unsubstantiated allegations into the article simply because they exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Esther Rantzen material is non-notable. She has been making the rounds of the TV studios but had probably just heard the same gossip and rumours as everyone else.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that quote should certainlty be trimmed, if not removed. She is right, of course when she says that she "has to believe them" - that's her self-appointed media role. But since when did the Pope give knighthoods? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I totally disagree. a) She is the founder of Childline, a registered charity that deals in child-abuse, so she should be regarded as qualified and b) the Pope DOES gives religious knighthoods, see Order of St. Gregory the Great. I am going to undo the rv. Manxwoman (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant hnighthoods in the British honours system. I see it's fully included in the article. Glad to see that Esther is reading her wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Esther Rantzen is also a mega self-publicist. She is entitled to her views, but would not be able to substantiate them in a court of law.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I do not think either of those comments are relevant. Rantzan would not have to defend herself in law as it is an opinion having seen a preview of the programme. The programme makers may/will have to defend themselves, which is different. Rantzan acknowledged expertise as a result of Childline carries considerable weight and without her "gift" for self-publicity, Childline would be financially struggling. Manxwoman (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've cut out most of the quote, which is barely relevant at all. The "There were always rumours...." bit might be worth keeping, just about. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Having seen the documentary, Rantzen's comments came across as very eloquent and well-balanced. I think it might be worth adding back more of what she said, particularly about the "unwitting collusion" that she felt had taken place in the BBC. She was also quite visibly shocked by the footage that was shown to her. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to revert, as I do not want to get into an editing war over something like this, but I am shocked, truly shocked, that you should call her comments over something so revolting as these accusations "barely relevant" when she states that she was aware of an independent witness who saw such abuse taking place. We are talking about the possible sexual abuse of children here: "Might be worth keeping, just about"???? Shame on you. Manxwoman (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever our personal feelings might be, they are not very relevant. We are writing an encyclopedia, not selling newspapers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Emotion can cloud the mind sometimes. Manxwoman (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It is also now worth recalling that Lynn Barber asked Savile in plain language about this issue in an interview in January 2000.[5]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take note that the alleged victims are of both sexes, and amend the wording "women" or "girls" in due course. The newspaper reports of some of the victim statements are carefully worded to avoid a gender pronoun. It is an important issue for alleged male victims and for child protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.216.93 (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The WP:RS currently used, the report from The Telegraph, mentions only women and uses the feminine pronoun throughout. Do you have an alternate or additional reliable source which supports your claim? I would imagine that the gender of the victims will be made clear in the documentary when it is broadcast. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The gender of the victims will not be revealed since there are no confirmed victims. He was acquitted due to lack of evidence. Depending on how neutral you approach that statement, the allegations were either baseless, untrue, or he got away with something in a perfect crime scenario.83.70.170.48 (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There was no "aqcuital" as there were no charges, let alone any court case. The question here is over the gender of those who are or were alleged victims. Sorry if that was not clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The documentary gives no suggestion that Savile had any interest in boys. So unless there are other sources for such a claim this cannot be assumed. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Further to this theme, there is now at least one published allegation from a male victim at [6] or [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.187.187 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 October 2012

Given that the term "paedophilia" is so emotive, it is important to note that none of the allegations concerns paedophilia, properly understood. Paedophilia is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Not a single one of the children that Savile is alleged to have kissed, molested or raped was pre-pubescent. The youngest was 14, as far as we know. 31.54.43.87 (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is very similar to what Jonathan King says here. The age of consent in the UK is 16.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. I'm aware of the age of consent, though that has nothing to do with the definition of the word "paedophile". I am not familiar with Jonathan King's case, but he makes a useful point - if we really did base our definition of the word on the particular age of consent, that would mean that a 21-year-old male making moves on a 20-year-old male before the gay age of consent was lowered would have been a paedophile - which is a ludicrous way to define things. Paedophilia has a specific definition and while the word is widely used in a very loose way colloquially, it's important we avoid this in encyclopedic contexts (and therefore it may be helpful to be careful about the use of terminology on the talk page as well). 31.54.43.87 (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

See Pedophilia: "The words "pedophile" and "pedophilia" are sometimes used informally to describe an adult's sexual interest or attraction to pubescent or post-pubescent teenagers and to other situations that do not fit within the clinical definitions. The terms "hebephilia" or "ephebophilia" may be more accurate in these cases." We do need to be accurate over terminology in the article itself, but I don't think it's necessary to change the heading of this discussion thread, as it was written by its initiator. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Jerry Lee Lewis set off a huge controversy in 1958 after claims that he had married his 13 year old cousin (Lewis said she was 15). Some cultures accept this type of marriage, but they would be illegal in the UK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Tend to agree that the term is a very loaded one. It was claimed clearly on several occasions that Savile was attracted to teenage girls. One eyewitness, however, estimated the age of one girl, who was a guest at a Chinese restaurant and later in Savile's bed, was between 12 and 14 and "probably about 12". No clear images were presented of what any of the girls looked like at the time, although the clear suggestion was that they were the same age as the girls who appeared on stage with Savile in the Clunk Click programme, i.e. teenagers. The very public televised incident with Coleen Nolan, on Top Of The Pops, and her comment on it, which was broadcast separately some time ago, might be a useful addition to the section. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Coleen Nolan clip is on YouTube here, but she was not in the ITV1 documentary. However, she told Alan Titchmarsh in October 2012 that Savile invited her to a hotel when she was 14.[8] This should probably be in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

She certainly was in the documentary, as was the clip? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, the clip of Nolan mentioned above comes from 2007 though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be against starting to list every allegation of improper conduct individually. When they are substantiated, of course; and if they become the centre of specific investigations, of course - but I don't think the Nolan allegations fall into those categories. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think perhaps you're right. The Nolan incident was hardly "an allegation". What I found more shcoking in the documentary was that, certainly early on, Savile made very little effort to hide his activities. In fact he seemed almost proud of what he was doing. There was just an ever-growing "consipracy of silence" in the media bubble around him. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have restored information about a nine year old girl at Haut de la Garenne (undo by Ianmacm) and information that Michael Grade heard rumours about Savile's behaviour. Yes, one of the allegations is sourced from the Sun newspaper. Remove the citation if you wish, but please note it is also cited in the Daily Mail as was evident in my first edit. The reference to knowlege of rumours in the BBC the cites the BBC's own webpage. Ianmacm's claim that he removed my edit because it was sourced to Sun newspaper ingnores the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waugh Bacon (talk • contribs) 11:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Waugh Bacon (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There were several reasons for reverting this: a) The Sun is not an ideal source. b) A laundry list of all the allegations does not add to the article. c) "it was claimed yesterday" in the source is weasel wording. This is not the same as the Jersey police announcing a formal complaint. For the sake of policies such as WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, the article should not recite all of the claims unless they relate clearly to an investigation. Contrary to the claim in the edit summary, the headline "Jimmy Savile groped my sister...aged 9" is not found in other more reliable sources. This leads to a WP:RS issue. The material about Michael Grade was moved, not removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You say there were several reasons for reverting this.

"a) The Sun is not an ideal source." The claim that Savile assaulted a nine year old and an eleven year old came from two sources, the Sun and the Daily Mail. You could have just removed the cite link to the Sun article, leaving the link to the Daily Mail, but instead you deleted my edit. Why not just remove the cite link to that source, which would still leave the allegation intact and sourced to another newspaper? You say, 'Contrary to the claim in the edit summary, the headline "Jimmy Savile groped my sister...aged 9" is not found in other more reliable sources', except for the Daily Mail that is. Is the Daily Mail also considered to be an unreliable source by Wikipedia? (I am no fan of the Daily Mail, in case you are wondering, I would just like to know whether you are maintaining a neutral point of view or are dismissing a source because you don't like what it says). If you genuinely believe the Daily Mail to be an unreliable source you must have to spend LOTS of time editing out cite links to that paper. As for the use of weasel wording the paragraph about Savile includes, 'On 30 September 2012, it was reported by UK newspapers that up to ten women claimed that they had been sexually molested or raped, by Savile during the 1960s and 1970s'. Do you intend to remove this? The title of the paragraph is 'Sexual assault allegations', so lets acknowledge just what the recent edits are all about; allegations.

"b) A laundry list of all the allegations does not add to the article". I hope most people would agree that claims that Savile abused a child as young as nine substantially changes the nature of allegations, probably permitting the correct technical use of the word paedophilia in relation to his alleged activities.

"The material about Michael Grade was moved, not removed". You did not make this clear in your edit summary.

Waugh Bacon (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the ITV1 documentary was broadcast, several new people have come forward claiming to have been abused by Savile. Under normal circumstances, if this happened, WP:SOURCES would apply if the claims were made only in a tabloid newspaper. There has been a reversal of fortune for Savile and there is now a tendency to report any new material uncritically. The claim about the nine year old girl is a good example, because despite the attention-grabbing headline, the story accompanying it is not very strong and is based on the old tabloid technique of qualifying it with "it was claimed yesterday". In other words, "she said this but we have no way of knowing if it is true."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

'She said this but we have no way of knowing if it is true'? The whole paragraph IS ABOUT allegations! "There is now a tendency to report any new material uncritically ?!" Do you think we should be either critical or uncritical ?? I thought the idea was to cite sources and maintain a neutral point of view ? I think Peteb16 (See Reliable sources below 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)) covered how we should word our edits. "Several new people have come forward claiming to have been abused by Savile ?" I think the count now stands at over 40 with Janet Street Porter also stating that she was aware of the allegations and Paul Gambaccini 'waiting 30 years' for the allegations to come out. A former nurse at Leeds General Infirmary, June Thornton (Daily Telegraph, 5 Oct 2012) claims to have witnessed abuse. A former patient at the hospital has also come forward. It has been reported that an audio recording from the BBC programme Savile's Travels has emerged appearing to reveal him behaving inappropriately with a young girl. The audio can be found at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9589207/Jimmy-Savile-abuse-audio-recording-emerges.html A cruise ship captain is reported to have confined Savile to his cabin before throwing him off a ship because of his behaviour with a 14 year old girl. I am tempted to include some of the above in a future edit. What the allegations demonstrate is a reluctance to deal with what was perceived as appauling behaviour over decades with the complicity of many 'responsible' adults. I hope they won't be seen as additions to a list as they suggest Savile's behaviour took place in many different surroundings and under different circumstances. Waugh Bacon (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I also see that KC9TV claims that the Sun is a reliable source, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. See KC9TV 07:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC) comments below. Is it in fact Wikipedia policy to strike out information sourced from the Sun? Waugh Bacon (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The Sun and the Mail have a questionable track record of reliability (Elton John and Philip Mould spring to mind). Tabloids may also have paid the participants for their stories, and promised more money if a person is convicted. It is best to avoid using UK tabloids as a source for material on Wikipedia when more reliable sources are available.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that, though I do know that some people don't have a problem with tabloids. Someone below (Mail on Sunday article) claims that 'This article in the Mail on Sunday is probably the best one to come out of the current controversy'. Oh !!! It was you !

Waugh Bacon (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile appeared on a documentary with Louis Theroux part of the dialogue at 14:15 says "you also used to be a wrestler didn't you?" he replied "still, am, I'm feared in every girls school in Britain" "meaning?" "that was a pleasantries, in yorkshire it's called a J.O.K.E.". He also later at 44:57 claims he says in interviews he that he hates children to throw the tabloids off the hunt as he's afraid of being accused of being a paedophile but claimed to not be one. - source http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GnvEdh3vAq8#t=2682s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.78.155 (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it will not be long before the section on the sex scandal and possible cover -up related to Savile will need its own article. This is a major scandal, a major event with very wide possible ramifications. I think also that things changed today when the director-general of the BBC apologised to the victims: ""The first thing I want to say is that the women involved here have gone through something awful . . . and I would like to apologise on behalf of the organisation to each and every one of them."

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/independent-woman/celebrity-news-gossip/bbc-chief-says-sorry-to-victims-of-alleged-sex-abuse-by-savile-3253798.html

He did not deny the abuse or even say that there was any question that their allegations were false. No one in fact in the British media is making any effort at all to say that there is any doubt that Savile was a serial abuser of underage victims.I think the article can now appropriately reflect the overwhelming consensus that Savile committed dreadful predatory sexual abuse over a long period of many years.Smeat75 (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Should we be including claims made in tabloid newspapers? I've removed a reference to the Sun, which I'm sure is not generally considered a reliable source and didn't add any substance to the article anyway, but references to articles in the Mirror, Mail, etc., remain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As long as the information is presented in such a way as to state "such-a-body of the tabloid newspaper The Thingy said such-a-thing" then the reference is valid. Otherwise we're trying to present what the newspaper said as fact and we cannot do that regardless of how reliabile it is. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Have edited and replaced info from The Independent (usually reliable) that goes to show possible collusion at the BBC, which I suggest is at the heart of the problem. Manxwoman (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The tabloids have gone to town on this. The UK tabloids (Sun, Mail etc) are regarded as having questionable reliability over gossip and BLP issues. The other main issue is WP:RECENTISM, because there is no need to recite all of the allegations and counter-allegations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree totally, but the Independent piece (repeated elsewhere) is of importance as it adds a new and equally disturbing strand to the possible cover-up at the BBC, which I predict will be where this story now goes. Manxwoman (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

We also need to keep an eye on WP:NPOV. The media have tipped the balance on from wanting to report good things about Savile and keep quiet about anything that would oppose that, to wanting to report every single negative rumour they can find and keep quiet if anything comes up to counter it. If we're influenced by that, the result is a heavily biased article which doesn't conform to Wikipedia policy. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have just completely deleted the new info as to a cover-up, in spite of the discussion above. Reason would be a polite response before arbitarilly deleting... Manxwoman (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The material about Douglas Muggeridge has not been deleted, but it needs some qualification because it comes from a former BBC press officer and Muggeridge died in 1985, so cannot give a direct account of what happened.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

""copyedit, this claim comes from a former BBC press officer, Douglas Muggeridge is now dead" "so cannot give a direct account of what happened". So is Savile. Your point is? Manxwoman (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The tabloids have tried to portray this as a "BBC cover-up". The reality is that these stories had been going around for years, but without a successful complaint or prosecution, it would have been potentially libellous to repeat them in public. Douglas Muggeridge, Esther Rantzen and the tea boy in the BBC canteen may well have heard these stories, but they would have had difficulty in substantiating them. The same is still true today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The wording I used, while using a source who must also be aware of the libel laws, which do not apply if someone is dead, was very carefully chosen as to show that Muggeridge had asked if any papers were running with any similar story about Savile and young girls. This contradicts the BBC statement and therefore has every reason to be included. I'm not sure I am happy that you appear to have "taken over" the decision making position on this page and seem to be calling the shots, without consensus. Manxwoman (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Libel laws still apply in this case as we do still need to be careful about libellous claims about the BBC. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware that you could libel a corporation... Manxwoman (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed you can. I would refer you to the McLibel case. The BBC, however, like the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, and Channel Four, is a QUANGO, or similar, of Her Majesty's Government, or a Government agency, and normal rules for simple companies and corporations probably do not apply. -- KC9TV 07:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of other people watching this page. I'm sure that any of us who disagree with the edits made will make our views known - there is no need to get consensus in advance for every change, per WP:BRD. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but certainly a fundamental edit as had been made, which went to show possible collusion and therefore take the story into a much more serious realm, should not be just cut out. It seems, however, that a rather grudging inclusion has now been made. But I stand by my comment above. Similar edits could be misinterpreted as an editor having an SPV. Manxwoman (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The headline in the Independent story Boss of Radio 1 'knew Jimmy Savile was abusing young girls' has quotation marks. This is a favourite journalistic technique for saying something without actually proving it. The story is based on the recollections of a former BBC press officer, and Muggeridge cannot comment on it. The BBC also insists that no documents in its archive reveal complaints about Savile during this era. The claim about Muggeridge should not be presented as a fact.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comment "Muggeridge cannot comment on it" is presumably factitious as if we followed that reasoning, then we should not include any of the allegations made within and without the documentary, as Savile is dead and cannot comment on it either. Where are you going with this line of thought? Manxwoman (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Independent story mentioned above is largely anecdotal and dates from nearly forty years ago. This means that it does not carry the same weight as the evidence showing that Richard Nixon lied about the Watergate break-in. For the sake of WP:NPOV, the article should not imply that Savile was a child abuser, or that the BBC deliberately attempted to cover it up. None of the evidence is strong enough to say these things.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course the Independent story deals with matters from 40 years age. The alleged crimes are also 40 years old... Where in the article does it say that the allegations are fact? To compare it with Nixon is plainly naive. Would you rather that no mention of the scandal appears at all until St Savile returns from the dead and answers the allegations in person? We could just reduce the entire article to one paragraph and say he was a DJ and tireless advocate for charity and young people... Manxwoman (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Ian is trying to point out that nothing presented by any newspaper or TV documentary must be treated as fact or regarded as evidence of anything. Therefore putting it there to try to, in your words, "show possible collusion" cannot be done. We must simply say 'a newspaper reporter says this in this newspaper' and leave it at that. Your obvious negative thoughts against Savile (which I share) are coming out in the way you are behaving as a Wikipedia editor, especially the way you are talking to other editors. We must stick to the facts and there are no facts, just newspaper reporters with pitch forks shouting 'He's a witch!'. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the article should try to avoid going from one extreme to the other. Given the length of time involved, it is unlikely that the exact truth of any of these allegations will ever be determined. Had all of this come out thirty years ago, Savile would probably have faced charges like Jonathan King. Savile is probably smiling in his 45-degree grave over this, because despite a load of mudslinging, there is still no conclusive evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Both Peteb and Ian are correct, I am letting emotion get in the way with my edits and I apologise if I have offended either of you, but still, the article is reporting reports and I cannot find anywhere that is saying it is fact. Of course it is and remains allegation only, but just as the Catholic church was eventually implicated in the child-abuse by certain (several) priests, so I predict the BBC will be found to have colluded in a cover-up and I am trying to say as much without an overt accusation. Manxwoman (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No offence taken, I was concerned I was offending you. I was just hoping to stop the tension before it got worse and I'm glad I succeeded. If there are other breaches of Wikipedia policies in this article, you're entitled to remove them. I'll admit I've barely read the section as the more I read what Savile is believed to have done, the more I feel myself becoming less able to be impartial as an editor and just want to bring him back so we can hang the... see what I mean? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Sun (or anything except the Daily Sport or the Sunday Sport) is a reliable source, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The general reliability of the Daily Mail, again, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is never really in serious question. If we were to strike them out as unreliable, then surely by the same token we must also dismiss The Guardian also as unreliable. -- KC9TV 07:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The BLP policy surely, as the name suggests, only applies to and protects "living natural persons", and not the named "subject" of a death certificate. Libel, slander, or defamation in general, of the dead, or, against a deceased person, is not, at least since Victorian times or the 19th. Century, generally a crime, nor actionable in a court of law as a civil matter, or known to be such, either in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, or in most states or parts of or to the United States of America (save perhaps Louisiana or Puerto Rico), as far as I am aware of. This is a crime, or otherwise actionable, only in Continental Europe under the European civil law or under Roman-Dutch law, and states elsewhere under similar legal systems. Anything against Savile in particular, proven or otherwise, in my opinion, should only be removed if they were unsourced, or obviously, manifestly false, or obvious blatant hoaxes. -- KC9TV 07:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has raised the BLP policy in relation to this article since his death. But of course there are plenty of other policies and guidelines that apply to this article, notably WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT (as part of WP:NPOV). Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:BDP is part of the policy. Even when a person is dead, certain types of statement may affect living people. Although a dead person cannot sue for libel, the fact that a person is dead does not mean that the normal rules of reliable sourcing and NPOV no longer apply.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really "recent" when in all likelihood his death certificate is probably now available for all to order from the Home Office. Your definition is probably stretching a little too far. We are not e.g. still waiting for his Inquest from a Coroner. This policy probably applies instead only to the likes of e.g. Lord Lucan, who is, as far as I am aware of, also never convicted, even in absentia, of any crime as such. -- KC9TV 07:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

From GRO anyway: [9] Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

While editing Lord Lucan's article, the real problem would be accusing living people of assisting or hiding him, which would be potentially libellous. The same problem has cropped up after the ITV1 documentary, as some of the allegations affect people still alive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although not named, the staff at Duncroft, for example, were accused of being wholly complicit in hiding the abuse and in one case punishing a girl who tried to speak out. It is possible, although perhaps unlikely, that some of those staff are still alive and could be traced. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Daily Record autobiography revelations

Have you read the commentary of Jimmy's autobiography 'Love is an uphill struggle' reported in the Daily Record.

Savile admitted to a string of relationships with young women and teenagers.

In one example, Savile – who died last October aged 84 – describes an encounter with a young runaway from a remand home who was being hunted by the police.

He said: “A high-ranking lady police officer came in one night and showed me a picture of an attractive girl who had run away from a remand home.

“‘Ah,’ says I all serious, ‘if she comes in I’ll bring her back tomorrow but I’ll keep her all night first as my reward’.” Savile describes how the girl came to one of his dances that evening and stayed the night with him before he handed her over.

He added: “The officeress was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues for it was well known that were I to go, I would probably take half the station with me.”

On another occasion, he asked organisers of a charity event to choose a group of young girls to spend the night camping with him after the disco.

Etcetera...

Does some editor have a copy of the book, who can make the additions to the article impartially. Zfishwiki (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thing, rather than struggle, apparently. But uphill nonetheless. Alas no. I think any owners might be reluctant to admit to having a copy just at the moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Also a piece by Hugo Rifkind about this book on The Times website. Philip Cross (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Report here. It raises the question of how "shocked" people should be by a book that he wrote (or authorised) for open and widespread publication 38 years ago. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This must be a rare book, the only second hand copy of "Love is an Uphill Thing" on Amazon costs £51.92.[10] Any rich Wikipedians here, because I'm not going to buy it purely for research purposes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You just missed one on eBay for £2.96. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If you read those quoted sections in the context of the superhero that Savile was originally portrayed as then you wouldn't assume there was any connection with child abuse. It's only now it is being read in the context of someone who is being portrayed as a child molester that it's obvious what really was going on. But it still can't be used impartially as he doesn't actually admit to laying a finger on any of them, or at least he doesn't in any of the given excerpts. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine that the pages are not littered with scanned copies of the girls' birth certificates. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see whether contemporary reviewers of the book were "shocked". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The last copy of 'Love is an uphill thing' is going on amazon for £220+£2.80p&p. They don't seem to realise that the same book in hardback format: 'As it happens', is only going for £17.50 on the same website. Haven't checked ebay. I got my copy of 'As it happens' for £6.99 (tee hee!) Better get your copy soon before they realise their mistake. Zfishwiki (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul Gambaccini comments in Huffington Post

"Gambaccini went on: "On another occasion, and this cuts to the chase of the whole matter, he was called and he said, 'Well, you could run that story, but if you do there goes the funds that come in to Stoke Mandeville - do you want to be responsible for the drying up of the charity donations?' And they backed down."" [11]. Worthy of any (separate) mention? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Gambaccini said this on the ITV1 breakfast show. It is an interesting anecdote, but I'm not sure if it is notable enough for the article. Gambaccini and Emperor Rosko were the only Radio 1 contemporaries to comment, the others had nothing to say.[12]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps surprising, given that The Great Gambo was a relative newcomer, starting in 1975. Rosko was much more of a Savile contemporary, but he left in 1976. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Gipsies

Misspelt in footnote 28 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.193.120 (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Corrected - thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the word the Evening Times used, it should really be "gypsies". I think the preferred term is now Romani, but we can't change a published news title. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"Gipsy" is "chiefly British variant" says Merriam Webster online. Rothorpe (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

My "Shorter" is distinctly off-line, but concurs. But you know these Scots - don't they know the Queen's English? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

What with Balmoral and all those kilts, some of them probably think she's Scottish. Rothorpe (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Mail on Sunday article

This article in the Mail on Sunday is probably the best one to come out of the current controversy. It was written by Dan Davies, who knew Savile reasonably well and is working on his forthcoming biography Apocalypse Now Then. The article has plenty of detail and avoids sensationalism. Like many others, Davies heard numerous anecdotes about Savile and young girls, but concluded that there was no knockout evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Without having read it, it's unlikely we can use a tabloid article here. --John (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The Mail has a Jekyll and Hyde personality. Yesterday it had some wild allegations about John Peel which should not be added to his article. The Dan Davies article is much better; if it appeared in the Sunday Times it would be considered a suitable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Chapter 10 of his Margrave of the Marshes does not go into much detail about Peel's exploits with young girl fans, although he does admit that he had an "enthusiasm for shagging". His time with Shirley Anne is rather glossed over. He was quite well known, however, for his sardonic wit and for his tall stories. It's hard to know the context and the tone of those comments quoted by Davies. I think it's obvious from the picture that Peel didn't take himself, or his stories, that seriously. But it's worth buying a copy of the MoS, of course, just for that picture. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see what reliable information, if any, comes out about other showbiz celebrities from that period. We may be seeing the tip of an iceberg. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A question: do any of the allegations against Savile date from a period other than the 1960s and early 1970s, when he would have been in his thirties and forties. AFAIK, none of the allegations date from the late 1970s or beyond, which is a bit odd.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any, but I'm not sure why it would necessarily be "odd" - as well as the fact he was getting older, he had a higher profile (presumably well paid) TV show involving children - so perhaps had more to lose from being exposed - and may well have reflected on the fact that the culture which permitted such behaviour in the 1960s was increasingly seen as reprehensible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Have I Got News for You" transcript controversy

The article does not mention this at the moment. The transcript of an apparent conversation between Paul Merton and Savile on the show is here. This dates from 1999 and is a hoax. It also apparently set off legal action from Savile.[13] Merton said that it was a fake on the radio a few days ago.[14] Not ideal sourcing here, but perhaps this should be in the article in some form.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There is an excellent account of how this hoax was written (in 1999), placed online (in 2000) and came to public attention (in 2004), along with links to the threat of legal action. Perhaps the author can point to a formal publication, or intends to publish this account [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.198.141 (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Alleged victims of both genders

Perhaps the existence of allegations from male accusers should now be included, because there are many sources, inluding alleged incidents involving a boy of nine [16], a boy of twelve who has now filed a police report [17] and alleged male victims in Jersey [18]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.198.141 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Separate article for sexual allegations controversy?

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

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

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

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

Roger Ordish, the producer of Jim'll Fix It, was on Channel 4 News last night. He commented about on a question about whether child protection was an issue at the BBC in that era, saying "I have to say I don't suppose it was, It's an awful thing to say isn't it?"[19] Allegations about who stuck their hand up whose skirts at the BBC Television Centre in the 1970s are never likely to be proved in court due to the length of time involved, but it is still a relevant question today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is true that a knighthood and OBE expires on a person's death, but this relates to the possibility of stripping Savile of his knighthood, which was discussed in the media today.[20] The rules might have to be changed to allow for this. Anthony Blunt and Fred Goodwin were stripped of their knighthoods while still alive. Winston Churchill (among others) is dead, but is still referred to as Sir Winston Churchill.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At what point should we state the 'allegations' as fact?

Initially this story was a matter of controversial allegations about a much-loved TV presenter, but it's rapidly developed to the point where, with the amount of evidence that's emerged over the past week or so, it seems difficult to deny that Savile was a paedophile who sexually abused young girls. The question is: should we flat-out state that as established fact? Or should we continue to refer to 'allegations'? If the latter, at what point does an allegation become factual, given that he's dead and can no longer be put on trial? Perhaps after the police investigation has concluded?

It's not just Wikipedia who's struggling with these issues of course, but the whole British media. I suppose we just have to follow what the reliable sources say. Personally, I'm tempted to add him to Category:English rapists right now, but to avoid a dispute I'll hold back until there's a clear consensus to do so. Robofish (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no "evidence" at all. It's all allegation, eyewitness account, hearsay and second-hand reports of rumours. Nothing has been given under oath, or under caution, or by the legal rules of evidence. Unless there is a trial, which is not possible, or a public enquiry, very unlikely, there won't be any real "evidence". There will be a police investigation, which may produce a body of findings and there may or may not be a subsequent BBC investigation which may or may not be reported. But the opportunities for direct corroboration now seem very slim. So I'm not sure we will ever see the "proof" that some are looking for. Not that most people now doubt the total truth of what at least 100 women have said. Has there been any similar case in recent years? even in recent decades? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The police have apparently said today that "At this stage it is quite clear from what women are telling us that Savile was a predatory sex offender" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19887019. I think they have would have phrased that differently if he was still alive - how could he be an "offender" if he wasn't convicted of an offence? Anyway, it doesn't necessarily mean that he should be described as a "rapist". We should wait until any enquiries are completed before we categorise him (not that I'm in favour of characterising people anyway, but that's another argument). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Joshua Rozenberg pointed out on BBC News 24 that a dead person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence. This means that although many people have come forward with allegations, the usual standard of proof will never apply. Perhaps there will be an independent inquiry, as with Harold Shipman. He was convicted of 15 murders, but the widely quoted figure of up to 300 deaths was never proved due to the length of time involved and the fact that a judicial inquiry is not a court. This article should be wary of repeating allegations as fact for the same reason.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Point of pedantry - not a paedophile - all the allegations are post-pubescent, although underage girls. Doesn't make it any better of course, but there is a distinction. They will have to remain allegations until the police have concluded their investigations, and possibly some sort of inquiry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.169.67 (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not true that all the allegations are of abuse of post pubescent victims. :::::http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/local-news/updated-stoke-mandeville-hospital-at-centre-of-jimmy-savile-abuse-investigation-as-police-chief-confirms-dj-was-a-predatory-sex-offender-1-4352345 "> A man, 49, alleges he was fondled by the TV star in his Rolls-Royce at a Mandeville fundraiser when he was nine."http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4570674/Jimmy-Savile-groped-9-year-old-girl.html "JIMMY Savile abused a girl of NINE at a notorious children’s home in Jersey, it was claimed yesterday." Therefore the word "paedophile" is appropriate.Smeat75 (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Should the section "Sexual assault allegations" be moved to next after section "Death"?, since the allegations only came out after he died. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think not. Some of the reports pre-dated his death, and it would generate even more disruption to the chronological flow if the sections were changed around. I think that, as more becomes known about "Operation Yewtree", it may be that a new article should be created for that, and some of the material about the allegations could then be moved across - of course, while still ensuring that his biography article isn't sanitised in any way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Headstone

Please provide an edit noting that the Savile family have had his recently erected headstone "It ws good while it lasted" removed, citing for example <ref>{{cite news|title=Jimmy Savile's headstone removed from Scarborough cemetery|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19893373|newspaper=[[BBC News]]|date=10 October 2012|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6BIvcC3Kg|archivedate=10 October 2012|quote=Work to remove the stone - which bears the inscription "It was good while it lasted" - finished at about midnight.}}</ref>

I would do it myself but it's incidental to my usual concerns and the wiki police routinely block my accounts :) 142.91.77.145 (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC) (Vanyka 2011)

This has been added. "It was good while it lasted" now seems to sum up Savile's reputation. This headstone was originally due to be replaced anyway, as the word "chieftain" was spelled wrongly on it.[21]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian. Appreciated. If you or anyone else has time, can you add the archive fields "|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6BIvcC3Kg|archivedate=10 October 2012|", in the BBC ref above. These web pages don't stay up for ever (though I don't know specifically what the BBC policy is) and it's good to archive them, webcitation.org being an especially useful resource (instant response as opposed to the months long wait from a noted competitor). 142.91.77.177 (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC) (Vanyka2011)

BBC News web pages are arguably the best citations of all for avoiding deadlinks, as they rarely expire (here is one from 1999). It is online newspaper pages that tend to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did some research and this confirms: "In general our policy is only to remove pages where the information provided has become so outdated that it may lead to actual harm or damage". Nevertheless I would encourage archiving. 142.91.77.177 (talk) (Vanyka2011) —Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Sun's front page headline today is "REST IN PIECES", with this photo apparently showing the headstone broken up and in a skip.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Subtle. Not even a gold coloured skip. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Sun has always been clever with its headlines. But if it ran its 22 February 1983 Samantha Fox topless debut “Sam, 16, Quits A-Levels for Ooh-Levels” today, it would be guilty of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (cf. NSPCC guidance)... cast not the first piece.

Good article here. I think it's balanced and neutral 142.91.77.136 (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC) (Vanyka2011)

For The Sun, it's reasonable, although you probably wouldn't see "smashed - just like his reputation" in The Times. But they still can't resist the third-hand hearsay about the bride being groped by Savile as he gave her a lift to her wedding - a "friend of the (unnamed) last woman to see Saviles grave". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I meant this Wikipedia article - didn't really read the Sun article :). But I'm not a snob about the Sun and I don't see why it shouldn't be cited, still less the Mail (which after all has a fine record of activism - notably over the Lawrence case). 142.91.77.157 (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC) (Vanyka 2011)

"Lol". My apologies. I'd choose The Sun over Wikipedia any day, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

;) 142.91.77.163 (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC) (Vanyka2011)

How far did he go, and when?

• In the paragraph "After his death, allegations were made ...", how far did he go, and when? The news that I have seen/heard here in England only seem to have mentioned girls, and only fondling and similar. Accusations that mention "rape" and/or "boys" are serious, and good direct proof is needed first, not what has been passed on between several hearings-and-rememberings and readings-and-rememberings getting things wrong and exaggerated each time. I apologise if I am wrong here. Note "Point of pedantry - not a paedophile - all the allegations are post-pubescent, although underage girls." at the end of the next but one section above. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Claims have been made about the abuse of boys, and of girls as young as 9. Whether those claims have any substance is, of course, another question entirely. But, we can report the claims so long as they have been reported in reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

All of this is still at the stage of allegations and a lot of it is very old. The point of pedantry has been discussed in this thread and is not entirely convincing as the age of consent in the UK is 16, and Savile would have been in his thirties and forties at the time of most of these allegations. Had he been alive, Savile would have been facing criminal charges.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but there is a difference between "sexual abuse of minors" - a criminal act - and "paedophilia" - a psychiatric disorder. The fact that tabloids often think that they are one and the same thing doesn't mean that we should follow suit here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

True, UK tabloids love the word "paedo", even though the strict psychiatric definition of this word involves pre-pubescent children. The words Hebephilia and Ephebophilia have many people reaching for the dictionary, though. And when did a mob ever shout "HEBO!" or "EPHEBO!" at a prison van arriving at a courthouse?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• In USA spelling "paed-" becomes "ped-"; watch out for words (e.g. pedometer) where "ped-" means "foot". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• I haven't reverted these changes today, but they have been discussed on this page previously. Rape, and the abuse of boys, have both been alleged. The fact that they appear not to be taken seriously at this stage by the police does not mean that the claims don't exist - they have been made publicly and reported in non-tabloid newspapers - this mentions allegations by boys, and this refers to rape. So, I think it's fair that they be mentioned in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Tabloids

• although WP:BLP is not a direct concern any more, I don't think we should be using The Sun as a source for anything at all. The Daily Mail is perhaps more arguable. What do others think? --John (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Apart from the usual WP:RS issues, the Sun and the Mail are not fans of the BBC and waste no opportunities to bash the BBC and imply massive wrongdoing. In a thread above I explained that UK tabloids often pay people for their featured stories about celebrities , which can lead to legal issues over admissibility of evidence. The Sun is not really suitable for citations, the Mail is more borderline.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• I take the Daily Telegraph, not cheap newspapers. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The article as it is right now (in a very inappropriate state considering the recent revelations) attests to the fact that The Sun was one of the very few British media organisations to try to bring Savile's criminal activities to light :"In March 2008, Savile started legal proceedings against The Sun newspaper which had, wrongly he claimed, linked him in several articles to the child abuse scandal at the Jersey children's home Haut de la Garenne." And now it is shown that The Sun was not wrong at all. The Sun cannot be ruled an unreliable source just because one or two editors do not like it. Smeat75 (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Also seconded. I would highly recommend that you bring this up also at the Wikipedia:RSN. I thank you. -- KC9TV 16:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have done that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_British_tabloid_newspaper_.22The_Sun.22_a_reliable_source.3F but I think I will wait for a few days to raise the whole article at the incident noticeboard or the neutral point of view one. Smeat75 (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Article needs to be pulled apart and started again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restructuring the opening paragraphs

Per the discussions above, I've had a go at restructuring the lead. Happy to discuss further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I believe the entire article needs reworked, as the fact that he was a child molester is now the overriding narrative of his life. For an example of how that could be done, see the article on Jerry Sandusky. While Savile died before everything REALLY blew up, the situations are not dissimilar, in that both men were famous for one thing before their perversion came to light, but now that the fact that they were serial child molesters has come to light, the other aspects of their life have become fairly secondary. LHM 17:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

One big difference is that Savile will never be convicted of anything. What might have happened in a court of law is, in his case, speculation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that his perversion now subsumes the rest of his story. Just as the fact that Hitler isn't saved from the verdict of history because he killed himself before he could be tried for his evil, so Savile isn't saved from the verdict of history because he can never be convicted of his perverse crimes. LHM 17:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I do think that's better Ghmyrtle, thank you, obviously this article is going to be in a state of flux for some time, but I think for right now it is essential that that quote "Police described him as a "predatory sex offender" be given a very prominent position right at the start of the article as you have done. It is not for wikipedia editors to second guess questions of evidence or motive but to report what relevant authorities say.Smeat75 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately my reordering has now been reverted a couple of times by editors who haven't commented here. Hopefully, they will explain why. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I have reverted my edit per request from Ghmyrtle that the order reflected a current consensus. I will just add my voice that such an ordering is pandering to the current scandal mongers and very bad form for Wikipedia. I support the scandal being mentioned in the lead but NOT as the primary focus as the second paragraph. The only reason there is any scandal is because of all of the other contributions and actions the man had made. THOSE need to be the focus of the coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If were a betting man, I'd offer good money that, in 20 years time, he will be remembered as a notorious sex offender who happened to have had a couple of popular TV and radio shows, rather than as an influential and much-honoured media personality about whom unprovable allegations were made posthumously. It doesn't do WP's image much good to give the appearance of being so out of touch with social mores. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for reverting - but it's now been undone again, here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

PPS: And again. And again..... By experienced editors as well. Dispiriting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

i find it odd that i would have to say this, but it is a good thing, particularly for an encyclopedia, to be "out of touch with social mores" that place high value on tabloid page sex scandal allegations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I doubt you'd win your bet. How many notorious sex offenders can you name off the top of your head? (Unless you're a specialist of course!) He'll be remembered as the TV DJ who was a sex offender, if precedent is anything to go by. Rothorpe (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I had no idea there was a discussion, I think its wrong to say "after his death" before what he was known for. It wreaks of recentism. Look you better fix it fast otherwise I might buy you one of these..♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey. Back off! am bidding on that. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

My view is that by not giving priority to his predatory sexual abuse (as the police have described it), we (Wikipedia as a whole) are in danger of being seen to sweep it a little too far under the carpet. To anyone under the age of, say, 40, he is simply known as a sex pest. Those numbers will increase, and the numbers who have fonder memories of his charity and TV work will diminish. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, and yes in 20 years he'll be known like Gary Glitter is today, but he lived first then the allegations came after his death. It looks out of place appearing before the other stuff regardless of whether he molested kids from 1940. I don't think the current paragraph in any way diminishes it and I see the other editor agrees.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Potentially I think this could escalate into one of the big celebrity scandals, basically that celebrities such as Savile were exempt from being punished and the fact he basically used his career and charity work as a front to maximise his chances of "liasons". If you watch the Louis Theroux documentary he himself said something about being "Britain's most feared man in girl's schools". But I heard he used to go around girl's schools teaching wrestling and such I think which says it all really... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 October 2012

Please flag this page as {{POV-check}}. Thanks 2.30.250.230 (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I agree with the tag and there is an active discussion taking place on this talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The normal editing process in the next few days and weeks should sort this out. People hoping for a tabloid-style lynching of Savile are going to be disappointed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought that the point of adding a tag was that the person adding the tag had some concerns, which they would raise here for discussion. What are their concerns? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am not sure I see the point of that tag. We *are* checking the article for neutrality and it is ending the day much better than it started, thanks to Ghmyrtle's re-writing of the lead. More does need to be done, I am not entirely happy with the section continuing to be called "Sexual assault *allegations*" any more as "allegations" sounds like there is no particular reason to believe them. It would probably be better titled "Sex abuse scandal" or something like that. However this article is obviously here to stay on wikipedia while news stories come and go, there is no desperate hurry to fix everything all at once, we have made a start, by consensus, and can continue in that way.Smeat75 (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agreed to add the tag mainly to draw readers' attention to the fact that there is a discussion on the article's neutrality actively taking place, not necessarily because I believed that the article was grossly non-NPOV. If an editor in good standing believes the tag is no longer necessary I will not object to its removal. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I would expect to see the word "scandal" in a headline by The Sun or The Daily Mail. I might expect to see it here if it had been used in a headline by The Times or The Guardian. But I'd still not be totally sure it was necessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, then since the police have now publicly stated that Savile was a "predatory sex offender", perhaps the section would be better titled "Sexual offences". The word "allegations" being used repeatedly is no longer appropriate or neutral now that the relevant investigating authorities have declared that he was indeed a sex offender.Smeat75 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As Ghmyrtle pointed out, this is factually inaccurate as he was never convicted of any offences - and never will be, of course. Scotland Yard also seem quite happy to call them "allegations." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not factually inaccurate that the police have stated that Savile was "a predatory sexual offender" as Ghmyrtle correctly put into the lead today. I do not think that repeatedly referring to "allegations" and "claims" is neutral any more. " Commander Peter Spindler, head of serious crime investigations at the Metropolitan police, which is co-ordinating the inquiry, but the reports "span four decades of abuse", the majority relating to incidents in the 1970s and 1980s. Five police forces have received allegations about the TV star, he said.

Asked whether it was now possible to say definitively that Savile, who died in October 2011 at the age of 84, was a serial abuser of young women, Spindler said: "I think the facts speak for themselves around the number of women who have come forward and spoken about his behaviour [and] his predilection for teenage girls … It's a pattern of behaviour that is being presented to us." http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/09/jimmy-savile-police-investigate-national?newsfeed=true.So when he was asked "Is Savile guilty?" the head of the inquiry said "The facts speak for themselves",in other words, "yes".Therefore this article needs to reflect not the opinions of wikipedia editors but the investigating authorities.Smeat75 (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"In other words" you are making a conclusion that is not explictely stated in the source and is therefore completely against policy to add to the article.. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not added anything to the article yet, but am about to. This is a unique situation as Savile will never be put on trial but this article is failing to be sufficiently neutral in that it does not make it clear enough that there are now no authorities who are doubting that Savile was indeed a "predatory sex offender", as the police say. If anyone can find a source with a quote from an equivalent authority that says anything along the lines of "Savile will be vindicated in the end and the claims of abuse will be shown to be false" then that should go into the article, but there are no quotes like that to my knowledge.Smeat75 (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I wholly agree with RedPenOfDoom here. If we relied on the police to tell us who was guilty and who was not, we'd be living in a very different country to the one we enjoy living in today. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "sex offender" usually has a statutory definition here in England, usually meaning a person, usually, but not necessarily, having already been found guilty and convicted of a criminal offence, whose name is or was registered upon or entered onto the Sex Offenders Register within the Police National Computer. Unless that his name was ever, or is now, upon the Register, and short of a conviction (or an Act of Attainder from Parliament declaring without the benefit of trial his guilt), notwithstanding of what words that the Metropolitan Police Service or West Yorkshire Police Force, or even that the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister, might care to use to refer to him, I would refrain and desist from actually referring to him as such without a qualifying word of some sort, such as "alleged", "suspected" or "accused". -- KC9TV 21:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "we", the editors of the article, should refer to him as a sex offender, we should include, as we have, and as it is right to do, the sourced quotes that make it clear that this is what the police are stating he was.Smeat75 (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The last use of the archaic Bill of attainder seems to have been for the Williamite Settlement forfeitures of the 1690s. So perhaps a little unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hence the Parentheses. I would like to go into the historical aspect of that particular subject in some detail, but to do so at this avenue and juncture would probably be grossly off-topic. -- KC9TV 01:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

But I see that the new main article has been called Jimmy Savile child abuse scandal. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that is something I have felt needed to be done for several days.Smeat75 (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

yeah I think the time is right now, as was said below I can see this main article becoming 90% about his child abuse.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight and reorganisation needed in the lead

The entire second paragraph of the lead focuses too much on these recent allegations against him. It's out of control. This is a clear example of WP:Recentism. I propose that it be trimmed down and - more importantly - moved to the end of the last paragraph if we're to keep the lead concise and chronological. Something like (note: rough proposal):

"During his lifetime he was widely described as a philanthropist and received honours for his efforts, including the OBE in 1971 and was knighted in 1990. After his death claims were made after his death that Savile had sexually abused young teenage girls at the height of his fame in the 1960s and 1970s, and there were calls for him to be stripped of the honours that he had received during his lifetime."

Even the above could be shortened. -- Peter ^{Talk to me} 22:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussions above about how best to reword this paragraph can be solved too by shortening the text. -- Peter ^{Talk to me} 22:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You are suggesting the paragraph providing the information that he was (as police have said) a "sexual predator" be placed in a paragraph leading with a summary of his honours, OBE Knighthood and the like. I'm concerned this would mask this aspect of the article, hide it from view, do you not agree? Leonig Mig (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought, mentioned at the bottom of the lead is fine, at the top wreaks of recentism.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's in the nature of this exercise that we swing from one view to another. The lead was expanded a few days ago, and earlier today I moved what was then the last para (on the abuse story) to become the second para, on the basis that it was the consensus here that it should be given greater weight. Since then other editors have joined in, with contrary views. My view is still that the sex abuse issue should be included as the second para, before his career and honours are mentioned. That, in my view, clearly reflects its current importance. In 20 years time the view may have changed, and someone may have changed it back, but we can't guess what the long term perspective on his life will be. We need to reflect current mores, put the sex issue upfront, and not allow WP to be in the position of having to defend an out-of-date perspective on the man's biography. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we not should not give a perspective on anything but base it on neutral fact. He lived, he died then became a notorious paedophile. So that's how it should remain I think. Nobody is saying anything should be ignored but during his lifetime which the biography covers he was who he was, or who everybody thought he was at least.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Para 1 is a short summary of who he was. Para 2 a summary of his life. 3 a summary of the allegations after he died. This structure is sound. More emphasis could be added by appending to the short summary. Perhaps "He is currently the subject of a police investigation concerning sexual assault of young girls". Leonig Mig (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's fine now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Rothorpe (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

New lead looks good to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Best keep treating the allegations as allegations until some sort of formal official committee has sat and decided about them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Changing section name to "Reports of sexual abuse"

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

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

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

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

Issues with this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Savile on the Canberra

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

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

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

Charitable work

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

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

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

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

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

Friendship with the Thatchers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit protected

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

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

Honorary doctorate?

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

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

In a separate development, the University of Bedfordshire said an honorary award it gave Savile in 2009 would be rescinded.[22] Kittybrewster ☎ 16:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Necrophilia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit protected

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

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

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

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

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

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

Has he come back from the dead?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Treasure

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

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

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

"Goodness gracious"

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

Edit request on 21 October 2012

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BBC as a primary source

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

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

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

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

when did this guy magically come from a "devout catholic" family

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

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

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

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

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

Normally a person's religion is not a big deal in a BLP, but Savile was a Catholic and his Papal knighthood is the subject of controversy, the same as his UK knighthood.[23]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

National Health Service

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

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

LOL: BBC not in the lead

Today [24], the lead says: In October 2012, almost a year after his death, Scotland Yard launched a criminal investigation into historic (after 2/3rds of lead praisal). May we not expect to read words like "Ribbon", "ITV" , "October 2012" and such? I myself am not interested in his charty work as much as the lead suggests. -DePiep (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

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

How many of the claims will turn out to be untrue?

It has been said that over 200 people have come forward to make accusations against Savile since this story broke, but the figure of 200 will obviously be on the light side as some victims would have either passed away or not be willing to come forward at this juncture. I find it rather hard to understand why at least some of these victims did not come forward to make accusations whilst he was alive - it has been reported that the odd person got the odd complaint years ago but not to the extent that have popped up recently. If just 10% came forward, that would mean at least 20 complaints, and that figure would not have been secret a for long once the press got hold of the story. I do not profess to understand the workings of the abuser or those that have been abused but it does beg the question - did Savile have such power over his victims that they were so terrified to come forward or are some of the now presented cases just a case of get what you can while you can in this time of recession? It seems that this guy will turn out to be the "Harold Shipman" of the sex abuse world, which says a lot more about the people that allowed him to get away with it than it does about Savile himself. Markdarrly (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• In recent days at least one British popular press cheap rag frontpaged a wild accusation about necrophilia. With that sort of sensationalism floating about mouth-to-mouth and on the internet, Jimmy Savile should be formally tried in absentia, with a good defending lawyer, or the nearest to it that that that can be done, to properly officially decide what can be proved that he did it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The English common law system does not allow trials in absentia. The inquiry by Dame Janet Smith cannot reach guilty or not guilty verdicts. It is still a puzzle why more of this did not come out during Savile's lifetime, but as mentioned previously, The Sunday Mirror came close to publishing allegations against Savile in 1994, but dropped them because of libel concerns.[25][26]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This page is a forum for discussing the article, not Savile's death, British society or the English legal system. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I have raised the above points so that editors are reminded that moderation may be required with regards to the tone about the number of accusations that are at present levelled against Savile. Markdarrly (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Complaints were made during his lifetime, but they were not believed. In fact one girl who complained was locked in solitary confinement for several days as a punishment for making the complaint. I hope that answers your question.

Edit request on 25 October 2012

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

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