Talk:Rolf Harris

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015

Add the padlock at top of page and state that it's protected indefinitely. 81.134.127.227 (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The protection padlock is already on the page. Page protection is set to expire 18:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC). --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 20:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It still says it expires on 4th April. 81.134.127.227 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like admin action is required to either unlock or update existing lock. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Should be fixed now. @Martinevans123: The protection template doesn't affect actual page protection, so any non-admin can, in theory and in practice, add or remove protection templates even if the page is or is not protected. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 20:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That's surprising. Why is this article locked? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2015 for change of display photo

Can we replace the display picture for rolf harris to this? [1] 82.70.79.30 (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No, not unless the Daily Mirror removed their copyright on that image. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, this is Harris looking worried on his way to court. It is not ideal for reasons similar to using a mug shot. There are currently five images of Harris on Commons, so WP:NFCC#1 would prevent the use of a copyrighted image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Charges and Protection of Children act

This currently reads "...were related to the Protection of Children Act 1978, which interprets viewing images on a computer as making images."

It appears that this is actually the conclusion of a legal case. It is the courts, then, that interpret "making" this way. The sentence should instead state "which interprets copying an image to a computer disc as making a new image." (UK spelling.)

Interestingly, it does not appear that the act criminalizes possession of physical photographs that were made by someone else, despite that the sentencing guidelines include recommendations for the case of "possession of material solely for own use". The legal history as decided by courts says that the word 'make' applies to copies as well (the act itself defines a photograph as including copies of photographs, though it originally only used 'make' for 'pseudo-photographs'), but physical transference of a copy would not require making anything at all. There is no clarification about what the word "show" means, but it doesn't seem to have been intended by the original legislators to have meant displaying it to oneself.

The legislative body that created it may have originally qualified the offense of possession of such photographs etc. due to law-enforcement investigations as that defence for possession was not added until after the courts had determined that "making" included copying. But if that was the only reason, there would have been no reason to leave in the qualification for the possession offence after the law-enforcement clause had been added. So apparently, it's only illegal to possess such images in the UK on a computer, and not as physical photographs with no intent to distribute or show them to other people. Also, obtaining some type of disk or disc, such as a CD, which contains such images should apparently also not be illegal.

This might not be the intent of current lawmakers, but it does appear to be consistent with the UK's current laws. (Keep in mind that people used to get married in 'developed' countries a lot younger than they do now.) I cannot make the edit myself as the article is protected. 2601:8:9780:1EE:98D1:F340:9EC8:E49A (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Song about victims

Harris is on the front page of today's Mail on Sunday with a song he is said to have written while in prison.[2] All the usual caveats ablout tabloid sourcing apply here. The handwriting analysis in the MOS article is pure pseudoscience.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ahem, but not just tabloids or gutter press it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, churnalism strikes again. In the previous edit I should have said that it was pretty much certain that this would happen. The other sources mentioned, including the "reliable" BBC, are simply repeating what the Mail on Sunday said. There should be a specific policy or guideline which warns about churnalism, as the repeated material is never better than the original source involved. Note the strategically placed "is said to have" in the Telegraph article and "reportedly" in the BBC article. In other words, "I didn't write this stuff, you know, guv. If it's wrong, blame someone else."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's surprising that these two sources feel obliged to a draw a veneer or respectability over this incredible story. I guess if it didn't publish, the BBC would get a few wagging fingers claiming kangaroos were being swept under the proverbial carpet. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that the story has all the reliability of Hitler Diaries, and the same motivation. I suggest a revert-on-sight procedure. I do not expect a plausible source to arise, but if a reliable source were to do an analysis showing a reasonable case that the letter is genuine (sent to a person who chose Mail on Sunday to reveal their disquiet!), the matter can be revisited. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's hope HMP Stafford isn't infested with spiders. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If the letter is a hoax it is clever, because it appears to come from someone who knows Harris's prison number and wing, along with the postal address of one of his friends. Nevertheless, stranger things have happened. One pundit on the television this morning expressed surprise that the letter was allowed to leave the prison if it is genuine. It should have been read before leaving to ensure that it did not attempt to humiliate any of the victims. The signature and handwriting would have to be forged as well; they look OK compared to the real signature and handwriting here. In this article, BBC News says "The BBC has not independently seen or verified the authenticity of the letter" which is how all of the other sources have qualified the Mail story.♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

My initial reaction was as sceptical as those who have already commented, but given the prominence given to the story by the BBC (and others - [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. - this list will grow), its probable accuracy, and the comments from the victims' lawyer, it would be remiss of us not to give serious consideration to mentioning it in the article. We should certainly not "revert on sight" - it's a serious and important part of his story. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I have had a change of heart about it since this morning. The other media sources have not dismissed the letter out of hand, and if Harris does not issue a statement saying that the letter is a hoax, there is no obvious bar to mentioning it in the article with wording similar to the BBC News articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Identity of the letter's recipient

In today's Mail on Sunday, the recipient of the letter with the song is revealed as Chris Brosnan, one of Harris's friends.[8] By now there can be little doubt that the letter was genuine, as Harris has had ample opportunities to say publicly if it was not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

How many opportunities does he have to make public announcements from prison? --Pete (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Harris could send letters from prison to members of the public but they would normally be read. According to UK regulations, letters to legal advisers would be confidential [9] (page 4, sections 1.1 - 1.5). Some people expressed surprise that the song lyrics were not censored before they were sent. It seems unlikely that Harris is unaware of the letter by now, as his own legal advisers could have told him about it as soon as it was published and picked up considerable media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course he could send letters to members of the public, but that's a long way from making a public announcement. I don't think we can use editor speculation and sophistry as a basic for a WP:BLP --Pete (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you may have an overly optimistic view of the effort expended by Harbottle & Lewis, if indeed they are still retained in any way. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

What matters here is that no mainstream media source has questioned that Harris wrote this letter. They have all assumed that it is genuine. Harris could have said by now if the letter was fake.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably. But lack of evidence is not usually evidence, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I'm speculating to some degree, but Harris is not completely shut off from the outside world. Despite the Mail on Sunday not being the world's best source, we can take it as read that the letter is genuine.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Rolf Harris still has many fans and supporters and he has the money to employ good new lawyers if there are any speculative problems with his current team. I'm sure a celebrity of his status could get a denial out of prison if that were appropriate. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This is true, but for whatever reason Harris has not commented publicly on the letter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence / paragraph

As Harris' career as an entertainer recedes into the distant past, and his notoriety as a sex offender increases, I think it is reasonable and balanced to mention his conviction in the opening sentence. But I am open to changes in the wording, and I prefer "convicted sex offender" (which is demonstrably true, and specific) to "sex offender". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as a defining characteristic of his entire show-business career, which was long. And having it in the same sentence suggests it is comparable with other aspects/ talents as an entertainer. A separate short sentence might be clearer and have more impact? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion here superseded by the later debate below, I think... Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh alright, then. Just trying to distract people from the glint of tarnished glitter. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Star Search

Shouldn't we change It's a Knockout event to Star Search programme? Event makes it sound like it wasn't televised.

The current wording is OK. The accuser had said that it was an episode of It's a Knockout, but television archive material showed that it was an episode of the ITV show Star Games, which had been filmed in Cambridge in 1978.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If that's what she said, why doesn't the article reflect this? Slightnostalgia (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2015

I really think that you should omit the claim that Rolf Harris is "a convicted sex offender" in the opening sentence as it is offensive and negative. This page used to state that Rolf was an entertainer and an artist. There was no need to change it, especially as there is strong evidence to suggest that Rolf has been the victim of an obscene miscarriage of justice. He should be remembered for his achievements, and certainly not his mistakes (if indeed he did commit those alleged crimes, which is very doubtful). So please state in the opening sentence: "Rolf Harris is an Australian entertainer and artist." Thank you.

149.254.180.73 (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The opening sentence states "Rolf Harris is an Australian entertainer and convicted sex offender." This seems to summarise his career nicely. He was popular for decades as an entertainer - I myself count much of his work as personal favorites - but at the same time it seems apparent that he was conducting himself very poorly with young women. He has been found guilty and convicted, and we have excellent sources for that. If he thinks that it is worth appealing the decision or punishment, that option is open. I don't think it is worth including in the lede the fact that he does not like his situation, though of course we can include properly sourced material to that effect in the appropriate section. --Pete (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A few months ago I would have agreed with the edit request, but Harris's career is now permanently overshadowed by the sex offence convictions. However, I'm still not convinced that this is good wording for the opening sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we can rework the opening sentence. He is no longer an entertainer, but his long career is the most notable fact of his life. --Pete (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Ian. Currently has tabloid shock value, suggesting these are comparable career options. Needs re-phrasing. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the conviction be mentioned in the opening paragraph at all, given that it is in the third paragraph? There is some inconsistency. For Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter, we mention their convictions in the opening paragraph but not the opening sentence. For Ian Watkins, we mention it in the opening sentence. If we move the statement out of the opening paragraph, are we making an inappropriate editorial judgment that Harris' conviction is less important in some way? I'm not sure, but I think that editors should not give much credence to the ideas that he was simply "conducting himself very poorly" or that he is "the victim of an obscene miscarriage of justice". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Length of custodial sentence might be a possible means of comparison between these cases. Except that, of course, Savile received none. If "an obscene miscarriage of justice" was eventally proven here, I'm sure that woud be an appropriate time to adjust the article content. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I had a go at rewording this, but it may need improving. Gary Glitter is another example of a person who was famous as an entertainer, but is nowadays best known for his convictions as a sex offender. Please alter the wording if you think it can be improved. I agreed with the basic point of the edit request that the previous wording in the opening sentence was poor.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I definitely don't think that saying his career has been "tarnished" is adequate, and I would still on balance favour mentioning his conviction and imprisonment in the opening para. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I borrowed the word "tarnished" from the WP:LEAD of Gary Glitter. Your wording is better.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we really make edits on the basis of somebody claiming they believe a convicted sex offender who has abandoned any attempt at overturning their convictions is innocent? Cwmxii (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No. So, we haven't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but I would suggest moving "He lived in Bray, Berkshire, England, for more than six decades" to after the first mention of his convictions, as that would seem to be more in line with Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile, both of whom have it mentioned directly after their respective careers in the opening paragraphs. Cwmxii (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bray part was moved because it doesn't need to be in the opening paragraph. Nor does any protestation of innocence from Harris, as he dropped the appeal [10] and it would not be notable anyway. As the saying goes, the hardest place to find a guilty person is a prison.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

.... or a billabong? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with the edit to the lead and subsequent redaction of "convicted sex offender" in the opening paragraph. Whether he, his supporters, or others, do not like it, this is his main source of notability now. He has been tried and found guilty. Wikipedia is not a court of law. We do not make decisions whether someone is innocent of a crime unless there is a verifiable claim to the contrary. Running a Google search shows, for the most part, that most people are discussing the offence. It seems appropriate, considering his main source of notability is now that, that it is included in the opening paragraph. If verifiable information to the contary is found, that it may well be up for dispute. I don't agree with the redaction / move of the information to later in the paragraph (let's face it, there's a big difference between it being mentioned later in the lead than the first sentence), but I won't revert it without further discussion. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 10:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"...this is his main source of notability now..." His notability was well established before his trial. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"... redaction of "convicted sex offender" in the opening paragraph." – The second sentence of the first paragraph includes "his conviction and imprisonment for sexual offences". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@1 Yes, but now it has been proven and is verifiable, as he has been proven guilty by a court of law. There should be no issue at all in including his status as a convicted sex offender in the opening sentence, as he is significantly notable for it, along with being an entertainer. Most people searching the article is likely inclined to have done so based off it. @2 Ah, yes, my error, I meant to type opening sentence, not paragraph there. Thanks for the {{od}}too I couldn't remember how to do it, haven't been here in a while. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 12:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Rolf Harris is extremely well known. His notability as a sex offender is minor by comparison. It should be included as a secondary reference only.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the opening paragraph and think what we've got there is okay for the minute. Without wishing to open up any argument, I do see resemblances in his life and career with Oscar Wilde, a national treasure who was thrown in jail and forgotten about. Just sayin'. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Jailhouse of the Pommies anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"My wobbleboard and I are fighting a dual to the death - one or the other of us has got to go." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Bail

How could Harris be "bailed without charge"? If he was at the time not charged, he could not be bailed. He was simply released.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian report, used as the source, says this:

"It is understood that Harris was arrested last month but not charged with any offence. He has been bailed until May. ...

After Harris's arrest in March days before his 83rd birthday, a Scotland Yard spokesman said: "An 82-year-old man from Berkshire was arrested by officers on Operation Yewtree on suspicion of sexual offences. He has been bailed to a date in May pending further inquiries."

You might want to read the appropriate section at Bail. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Just ask Paul Gambaccini. he spent a year on bail without facing any charges, which was controversial and led to calls for a change in the law.[11]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Apparently the police used him as flypaper'. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Article image

I think a more stoic image would be better. Given the nature of his crimes, I suspect the gleeful expression will be unsettling to readers (per WP:UCS). Karyn Devlin (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Something like this was mentioned before, but since Harris is a living person, the article would be limited to what is on Wikimedia Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

The man is known primarily as an entertainer, the info box would make you believe he achieved notoriety as a criminal sex offender. How many other celebrities and entertainers have their criminal convictions and places of imprisonment listed in their info boxes? This seems highly inappropriate and looks to me like Mr. Harris has been singled out in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.230.96.10 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it would have to say "notorious criminal sex offender" for that to happen. The facts are all supported by the article content and are ordered as per the standard info-box parameters. If you have a particular example of a similar article, that could be used for the purposes of comparison, we could certainly consider that. But I can't see this one changing in the near future. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Just off the top of head, two other currently imprisoned celebs articles that make no mention of their convictions or imprisionment in their info boxes O._J._Simpson and Phil_Spector, convicted of armed robbery and murder respectively. Why the special disdain for Harris? Actually this doesn't apply just to Harris, it seems all of the targets of Operation_Yewtree have had their pages edited with the same agenda. I would go so far as to say that you should link some articles for well known entertainers convicted of crimes with similar infoboxes to give some evidence that Harris and the other Yew Tree targets aren't being singled out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.230.96.10 (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think those convictions could be added, although both less recent than Harris'. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree to some extent with the OP about including criminal convictions in the infobox. The current version of the infobox in this article is lopsided in the way that it presents his convictions alongside his other career notables. Template:Infobox person allows this, but infoboxes are a summary rather than a detailed description.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The OP has an issue with the articles for all Operation Yewtree subjects which, they say, have been edited "with an agenda". My rule of thumb is simply that if a fact is significant enough to appear in the lede, it's also sufficiently notable to appear in the infobox, if a suitable parameter exists. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ianmacm - the infobox appears to be distorted because of the choice of parameters completed. There are many other parameters at Template:Infobox person that could be added, to give a fuller picture The key change from Infobox:Musical_artist to Infobox:Person was made in this edit in May 2014, and I don't think it should be reverted. I'm not so sure about this edit. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I am tempted to remove the criminal convictions from the infobox as they are more suited to Template:Infobox criminal. Harris's downfall over the sex offence convictions is adequately covered in the WP:LEAD and main body of the article, so I'm not sure that they really need to be in the infobox as well.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No objection. But it's rather unclear when an individual changes from being "a person" to being "a criminal", for the purposes of Wikipedia article infoboxes. I am unaware of any guidelines here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the infoboxes, the change in 2014 was from "musical artist" to "person" - which, as much of what he has done was not musical, seems reasonable. I think we agree that he is not just a criminal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2015

Could you please add the following information under the conviction and imprisonment. Links provided also.

Conviction and imprisonment

Critics of the trial have suggested that the verdict of the jury was unsafe. A change.org petition cited numerous alleged inconsistencies and initially called on the then Justice Minister to seek an urgent review of the case As of the 31st of October 2015, the petition had been signed by 1,608 individuals internationally [1]. The petition was also backed by Harris's daughter Bindi Nicholls in which she wrote:

“Rolf Harris is my father, I have known him all my life, he is a kind sweet, honest man on stage and off. He has worked tirelessly all his life to bring joy, laughter, inspiration and happiness to all he meets. He is a workaholic, work is his priority and he lives to entertain. I have never witnessed him being interested on children in that way, EVER. In public he is more interested in getting groups of people singing or telling jokes than sculking off with one person, he is just nothing like the man the press have been portraying him to be. All of his dear friends are shocked and desperately upset that he has been tarred by the propaganda out there. He has been swept up in a witch hunt because of his high profile and celebrity! A total travesty at his age” [2]

Associated with the petition is a web page entitled “Rolf Harris is innocent” which provides campaign updates and comments and encourages it's readers to write to their local MP citing concerns about the trial and subsequent verdict. [3]

As well as the petition, the Facebook campaign group “Support Rolf Harris” regularly discusses alleged anomalies of the case and calls for an urgent review of the trial. As of the 31st of October 2015, the group had a total of 472 members. The campaign group actively gathers information relating to the alleged inconsistencies in order to highlight the anomalies and build a case to disprove the conviction. [4]

[1] https://www. change.org/p/review-the-conviction-of-rolf-harris-it-is-a-miscarriage-of-justice?recruiter=37036384&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_responsive&utm_term=des-lg-share_petition-no_msg&fb_ref=Default&expired_session=true

[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3065776/Daughter-disgraced-entertainer-Rolf-Harris-claims-sweet-honest-father-innocent-child-abuse-convictions.html

[3] http://www.rolfharrisisinnocent.com/

[4] https://www.facebook.com/Support-Rolf-Harris-1503049216593977/

Rhyshoffman651 (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The Daily Mail and Facebook are not considered reliable sources. Do you have alternative sources? And I'm not sure of the impartiality of www.rolfharrisisinnocent.com. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - Facebook, a clearly biased website, and a change.org petition are not reliable sources (not to mention a petition that has 1600 signatories is not particularly impressive). The only thing that could be of some import is the dailymail source for his daughter's input. However, that article is dated to May, a month before his conviction in June. If Nicholls continues to support him post conviction and you can provide a similar source that says this, would feel comfortable adding that, and that only. Cannolis (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if www.rolfharrisisinnocent.com has been mentioned by a reliable secondary source, it might be worthy of mention; but that would not justify adding any claims that it makes, without some sort of qualification. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment I think there has been some confusion, The Daily Mail article is dated May 2015 and not the month before his conviction. For reliability however, I would propose changing the Daily Mail source to the independent to be more reliable however http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/rolf-harris-daughter-bindi-nicholls-backs-changeorg-petition-to-prove-his-innocence-he-is-a-sweet-10222227.html. This details the information about the change.org petition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhyshoffman651 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

By and large, the mainstream media has accepted the convictions and has not questioned them. This has happened at other articles but WP:RGW applies here. Harris has not mounted an appeal, so the assumption would be that the convictions would stand until he did. Online petitions do not carry much weight.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you but at the time this gained international recognition prompting the Mayor of Bassendean to issue a statement on live television. I have noticed that Rolf Harris's article is rather one sided. Everyone discusses the conviction but nobody is touching on the fact that many critics have slammed this conviction. Rolf Harris himself contests the verdict and did initially lodge an appeal which was refused. I think under the circumstances this is very relevant. I'm not debating that he was found guilty but I do think it is important for the other side of the coin to be discussed. For example on the Anne Boleyn articles, it discuss modern historians point of view on why they think she is innocent.. similarly, this should be the case for Rolf Harris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhyshoffman651 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The conviction stands unless it is overturned on appeal. The article already mentions the request for appeal which was refused, and that Harris subsequently abandoned any attempt to overturn the conviction. The Anne Boleyn article, on a subject nearly 500 years old, states that "leading modern historians" have subsequently viewed the charges of adultery, incest and witchcraft as unconvincing and provides historical context; this is not comparable to a man going through the legal system and being found guilty of indecent assault last year and some people online don't think he actually did it. Cwmxii (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My point is that the article is bias with regards to the conviction. Just because he was found guilty, it does not mean that he is factually guilty despite the popular consensus. There is evidence to suggest otherwise which I have put a few links to and which has been refused. I have no connection to this case but I don't think it fair not to give an overall picture of what exactly is going on. The Mayor of Bassendean himself spoke about the petition on live television and it made national headlines as people were very concerned about the conviction. This was only in May of this year. Also there are many people who have been tried and not convicted under Operation Yewtree but if they had been, their articles would have been very different indeed. I don't feel that there is reliability in the information on this article at all. Also I quoted "Anne Boleyn" as an example. History still has her as a convicted criminal.. she has not been pardoned.. so why is an overall picture being given for her in terms of those who believe her innocence and not for Rolf Harris. It doesn't matter what timeframe we're living in - the same principles should surely apply. It seems very contradictory to me. Also in answer to one of the comments left here, Harris did mount an appeal but it was refused. He didn't simply drop the appeal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhyshoffman651 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

But "the popular consensus" as you put is, in fact, a criminal conviction from Southwark Crown Court. Harris did not lodge a further appeal, even though his counsel had made the appropriate application. Whatever "crimes" Anne Boleyn is alleged to have committed, nearly 500 years ago, surely don't really bear comparison with those of Harris? And one can hardly claim that her trial, or the punishment which ensued, are in any way similar to Harris's. I'm not even sure that Boleyn is seen, in the public conscience, as much of a "a convicted criminal". She's known more as one of the two wives Henry VIII had beheaded, for being a nuisance. "Modern historians view the charges against her, which included adultery, incest, and witchcraft, as unconvincing." In fact I'm hard-pressed to think of a less appropriate case for comparison with a 20th-century Australian television entertainer. Did I miss Boleyn's Jane Seymour-the-Peg? The Mayor of Bassendean, John Gangell, is hardly a notable or authoritative individual, regardless of what he may have said about this case. Perhaps mention could be made of the petition, in the article, somewhere. Maybe. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn had a criminal conviction too. Why don't they bear comparison with those of Harris? She was convicted on charges of adultery, incest etc? He was charged with 12 counts of indecent assault? Are you suggesting that public opinion constitutes fact? You mention "I'm not even sure that Boleyn is seen, in the public conscience, as much of a "a convicted criminal".. public opinion is not relevant here.. Anne Boleyn is a convicted criminal and so is Rolf Harris. There is no confusion in this regard. There are many who view Rolf Harris's conviction as unconvincing also. Yes certainly mention should be made of this petition - it's a fact that it occurred and is very relevant to Rolf Harris particularly as his daughter made a statement on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhyshoffman651 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I think it really does matter "what timeframe we're living in." I'm sorry that I find your comparison wholly unconvincing. But let's see what others think. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit of "others" i'm trying to discuss facts only. Rolf Harris is a convicted criminal and there are those that believe he is innocent for reasons which I have linked to and these reasons have made international headlines including a statement from his daughter and prompting the Mayor of Bassendean to speak. I only drew paralell with Anne Boleyn as she is also a convicted criminal.Sheila Bowler for example was subsequently aquitted following her conviction but had she not been aquitted she would simply have gone down in history in much the same way Rolf Harris has so far. I'm only encouraging a fair and unbias article under the conviction section of the article. Mention needs to be made about the petition and what Bindi Nicholls said in a way that is not misleading i.e. Bindi Nicholls signed a change.org petiton and said "XYZ" or words to that effect. We have to take note of the fact that there are people who do not believe that Rolf Harris is guilty and have made it clear why they feel that way in much the same way that "academics" have claimed that Anne Boleyn is innocent. She like Rolf Harris (whether public opinion likes to believe or not) is also a factually convicted criminal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhyshoffman651 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The facts are that she didn't really get a chance to appeal and it seems rather unlikely she'll get a reprieve (based on "XYZ" or words to that effect). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see what's encyclopedic about a daughter, who testified on her father's behalf during the trial, signing a petition. Likely falls under WP:NOTNEWS. People doubt guilt of various criminals; Savile's secretary Janet Cope doesn't believe he did it, even some of Gary Glitter's fans are still in doubt. I think that WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE prevent us from spending time delving into such theories.LM2000 (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This wasn't "my opinion" by the way - Bindi signing this petiton WAS news and it was international news. As I mentioned previously, it made BBC News, Australian News, prompted the Mayor of Bassendean to speak and was international headlines at the time. Is none of this relevant? I can provide many links if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhyshoffman651 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

No need to find the links, I read it when it came out. While it was news at the time, we have a WP:NOTNEWS policy, which I believe would prevent this from making it into the encyclopedia.LM2000 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "she" didn't get a chance to appeal? Rolf Harris submitted the appeal NOT Bindi. He was subsequently refused an appeal. Bindi did not make the appeal on his behalf. She contributed to a change.org petition calling for a review of the conviction only.

I'm talking about Boleyn, not Bindi. For the purposes of comparison? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay but I have explained why I believe the comparison between Rolf Harris and Anne Boleyn is relevant. If yoy want a more recent example of comparison just check Sheila Bowler. She was convicted and then aquitted demonstrating what I mean about convicted guilt and factual guilt. Articles should always be unbiased and give both sides of the story not just the main stream media's perception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhyshoffman651 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

That's music teacher Sheila Bowler, who was wrongly arrested, tried and convicted for the murder of her husband's 89-year-old aunt Florence Jackson in 1993 after she drowned in the river Brede in East Sussex in 1992, yes? (although the article is abut the film, not Sheila herself). I'm not completely oblivious to the concept of wrongful conviction, you know. But working our way, through an enormous list, one case at a time, is unlikely to advance your argument here, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a film by the way. I'm talking about the actual person - I'm not working through an entire list. I'm not trying to advance my argument to you. It is clear you have no intention at all of entertaining what i've said. I just think it's unfortunate as I feel a lot of relevant, factual information is just wasted and considered nonsense by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhyshoffman651 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that all the factual information you presented above is all "nonsense", I'm just questioning if it notable in this context. Nor am I saying that your entire argument is "nonsense". I'm saying I'm wholly unconvinced by the two comparisons you have drawn. But you are perfectly entitled to propose another addition to the article, perhaps shorter, perhaps based only on reliable sources? I'd suggest you start a new thread for that request. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning his conviction in the first paragraph

If there's a consensus that the conviction shouldn't be mentioned in the first paragraph I won't contest that (although I would disagree with the viewpoint that the conviction is "minor in comparison" to the rest of his career), but I would note that the first sentence discusses his career in the past tense (and the infobox states he was active "1950-2014") and it then doesn't explain why his career is over until the third paragraph, which seems odd. Cwmxii (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really agree... but how about: "...is an Australian former entertainer whose career has encompassed... " ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the conviction should be in the first paragraph, definitely it belongs in the lead but it is fine where it is. It is hardly the most notable thing about his life or career, despite what some people seem to think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.230.96.11 (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Rolf Harris "rushed to hospital because he ate too much chocolate"

Harris is on the front page of the Daily Mirror today. It comes down to "a pal claimed he had "sort of over-dosed on chocolate".[12] This is in the UK nationals today, and they seem to have found it in this local newspaper article yesterday.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Kids Can Say No!

This film was released in the UK in 1985, not 1989 as the article states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:D401:5B00:55E:FA10:49E9:6CC9 (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed General Ization ^Talk 18:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Vanessa Feltz and Linda Nolan

Re this edit: WP:BLPCRIME applies here. The BBC News article only claims this, and he has never been charged or convicted over either of these claims. This has been discussed before, and some people have expressed surprise that Vanessa Feltz and Linda Nolan did not make these claims to the police after Harris was arrested. Unless a British person had been living down a coal mine or taking an extended holiday on Mars, they could hardly have failed to notice that Rolf Harris had been charged with sexual offences.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion, and was thinking the same when I saw the edits. It is difficult to type the next sentence due to BLP, so feel free to redact if need be. If Harris did feel Feltz's thigh whilst she was an adult, it palls into insignificance compared to what he was actually convicted of. I think WP:BALANCE is a reason to keep this out unless there is specific allegation made to the police, or an attempt to prosecute. Martin451 20:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Martin, London24.com has the Harris hand "inside the elastic of her knickers in front of millions of viewers, with his wife Alwen in the room": [13]. But, of course, this probably shouldn't appear in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I got the details wrong on her allegations, and if Vanessa is reading I apologise. I still think this is not close to what he was convicted of, and an allegation not backed up by a complaint to the police or courts is not suitable to be included given the seriousness of what he was convicted for. I wonder if Vanessa knows this, which is why she has not made a complaint. Feel free to redact if needed. Martin451 22:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

As the BBC News source explains, Feltz put her trust in the "Great British public", rather than the police... and got a whole truck load of abuse as a result. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

These issues are sourced to the BBC website, normally a reliable source. PatGallacher (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The BBC sourcing isn't a problem. What is more of a problem is the WP:BLPCRIME angle. Vanessa Feltz and Linda Nolan decided to air these allegations in the media without pursuing them in court. They probably wouldn't have done this until Harris had been convicted due to the risk of setting off a libel action. As BLPCRIME says, "Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This is getting into dangerous waters, getting judgemental about the reasons that victims of sexual assault may have had for being reluctant to publicly air their allegations. PatGallacher (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to do that. For whatever reason, they didn't raise the issue until after the trial. The risk of setting off a libel action is one of the reasons why the British media never reported the Duncroft allegations during Jimmy Savile's lifetime. Harris now has no reputation left to lose. Since he is in prison after being convicted for things that a jury found that he did do, there is little point in including the allegations by Vanessa Feltz and Linda Nolan which are untested. Ann Leslie made a similar allegation about Nicholas Fairbairn.[14] Maybe she just couldn't be bothered with all of the hassle and publicity that taking it to court would have entailed; Fairbairn had been dead for 13 years when she wrote this in her autobiography.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

At least Leslie wasn't "left-wing scum" (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Opening sentence (again)

Is Harris still an entertainer? Does this depend on him resuming his career as entertainer if and when he is released? Was he even "an entertainer" before his convictions and imprisonment? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

My feeling is yes. For example, his songs remain available on outlets like Spotify for those who are willing to look past his convictions and be entertained by his performances. I don't think it depends on him resuming performing or recording. Harper Lee, for example, was referred to as a writer even though she hadn't written anything in decades. Entertaining is what Harris has mostly been notable for throughout his life until his convictions. It remains his main claim to notability. Had he not been in the public eye as an entertainer in the first place, it is very unlikely that there would be an article about him at all. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 18:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Categories

Why is he not showing up in any of the many categories he's supposedly in. I've checked about 15 of them - nothing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I have just checked more than half of them and he appears in all of those. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Early Career

We bought our first TV at the end of 1956. I have a memeory from the first year or two that we owned a TV that Rolf Harris appeared fairly regularly in a programme called "The house that Jim built" on Childrens's TV on ITV. He used to paint a big picture on a blank wall, then tell a story or sing a song about it, playing the guitar. At the time I thought he was a pretty talented artist and singer,and quite a nice guy. This was earlier than some of the other things mentioned in the article. (PS Comedian Charlie Drake appeared in the same programme) 86.157.139.30 (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)