Talk:Jimmy Savile

New Louis Theroux documentary

This is on the BBC News website today. Louis Theroux looks back at his meeting with Savile, also covered in The Guardian here. Louis Theroux: Savile is broadcast on Sunday, 2 October at 9pm on BBC2. Worth watching as it may be useful for expanding the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06: 39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Sex offender in short description

So I added "and sex offender" to the short description for this page. This was reverted by @Ianmacm: with the rationale that "Savile was never arrested, charged or convicted during his lifetime, so this is inaccurate". This strikes me as odd. It is not necessary that someone be arrested, charged and/or convicted during their lifetime to be a criminal. Our coverage should follow reliable sources, which generally treat the allegations against him as a matter of fact, for instance this and this. So I can't see any reason for not including "sex offender" in the short description. What do others think? The Land (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively. The most notable feature of Savile's career was his ill-deserved reputation as a full blown national treasure and living saint, which survived more or less intact until the 2012 ITV documentary. Savile was turned down for a knighthood four times because civil servants raised serious concerns over his private life, but Margaret Thatcher knighted him anyway. We can't put Savile on trial in absentia, but we can note that a huge number of complaints were made about his behaviour after his death.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't really see how any of that matters. Biography articles do not give a description of people as they would have been seen in their lifetime, they describe how they are seen now. There is no requirement for a historical figure to have been put on trial before describing them as a criminal - see, for instance, Adolf Hitler whose genocides we discuss as fact despite scarcely being known of in his lifetime, and Osama bin Laden who is described as a terrorist despite not having once been put on trial. Describing Savile as a sex offender is a simple, factual statement based on the reliable sources we are supposed to look at - I do not know of a single serious doubt that has been raised as to the truth of the allegations (and can't see any in the last few pages of discussion, either...) The Land (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the current text is accurate, well-sourced and clear:

After his death, hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse were made against him, leading the police to conclude that Savile had been a predatory sex offender—possibly one of Britain's most prolific.

I don't think anyone who reads that would be in any doubt. --Slashme (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"It is not necessary that someone be arrested, charged and/or convicted during their lifetime to be a criminal". Well actually, yes. Yes it is. What other criterion could we use? Britmax (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Slashme - as I mentioned above, this is mainly a discussion about the short description text (that doesn't appear in the actual body of the article).

@Britmax: Well, the overall principle is that our articles follow the consensus of reliable sources. While this is certainly an unusual situation because views on Savile changed very quickly after his death, I see no reason why we should ignore how most sources currently describe Savile in this case. The Land (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't ignore it. The short description is not the whole article, which goes into this at some length. Britmax (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's covered at length in the article, why not put it in the short description? The Land (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The short description is much too blunt a tool for the nuances of this. It is covered in the article. Britmax (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate both sides of this, but I tend to think we should leave out "sex offender". Savile was the subject of allegations, but so are myriad others on Wikipedia. Naming only select individuals as sex offenders, especially in the absence of due process, is a slippery slope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.219.39 (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

No it's not. Denying proof because they're dead is a slippery slope. Prinsgezinde (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Then it's just as well that it's not what we're doing, isn't it? Britmax (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

This, or something appropriate, should appear on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.137.217 (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Categories should be supported by text and citations within the article. I'm not sure this would qualify as a suitable category.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC about Savile as a child molester

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The clear consensus is to oppose this proposal. The accusations against Savile shouldn't be in the first paragraph or the short description, but the lead paragraph addressing them should remain. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Every couple of months, an editor adds child molester, sex offender, or similar, to either the first sentence of the article or the short description. All of these edits have been promptly reverted, and a group of regular editors argue against this. The argument against including this is that Savile was never tried in a court of law or convicted of such acts. The counter-argument is that his crimes weren't known until after his death (making a trial impossible) and all reliable sources describe as a child molester and that there is no serious doubt that he molested hundreds of children.

So the question for this RFC is: Should the first sentence of the article and the short description describe Savile as a child molester? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose because it is inaccurate. I removed sex offender from the short description in this edit because a person who knows nothing about Savile would find it misleading. "Sex offender" should be reserved for people who have been tried and convicted in a court of law. Yes, this has been said before, but it is an important point. WP:SHORTDES says that the short description should avoid "anything that could be understood as controversial or judgemental." The WP:LEAD and the main body of the article are the best places to look at the allegations made after his death.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  FWIW, I used the word child molester rather than sex offender, which doesn't imply a legal trial and conviction. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  Well, at least you avoided paedo, kiddy-fiddler and nonce. But child molester and child sex offender both redirect to the Child sexual abuse article anyway? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose As per IanMacM above. One should give the benefit of doubt that serious readers will actually read more than just one sentence of thos article. Savile was already a very notable individual before the scandal broke. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per IanMacM and Martinevans123. -- Alarics (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as formulated, and agreeing with ianmacm. However, I suggest that the second sentence - "He raised an estimated £40 million for charities and, during his lifetime, was widely praised for his personal qualities and as a fund-raiser." - should be removed. It is true, but it is less important to most readers than the third sentence - "After his death, hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse were made against him, leading the police to conclude that Savile had been a predatory sex offender...". To many readers it could appear that the current text gives too much priority to favourable actions by Savile, and not enough to the allegations for which his name is now probably most widely known. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"Less important to most readers"? How do you know that? The lead is a summary best placed in chronological order, for context. This is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid. Britmax (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

And let's not forget we have an entire article on the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, that is pipe linked in the third sentence. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Surely the fact that there's an extensive article on him being a sex offender is more reason to mention it in the first sentence, not less? The Land (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

We need to take account of the most likely state of knowledge of our readers. That's why we are here. More people, obviously and self-evidently, will read the second sentence than will read the third sentence, and far more people will read the third sentence than will click on the link within it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per argument presented above by 82.132.219.39: "Savile was the subject of allegations, but so are myriad others on Wikipedia. Naming only select individuals as sex offenders, especially in the absence of due process, is a slippery slope." This is a time for WP:IGNORE/WP:UCS to overrride everything else. Cloudbearer (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Note: User is blocked as a sockpuppeteer, GeorgeFlyde (talk · contribs) (with a struck !vote below) being one of the puppets. --Chris (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support By excluding this, we are essentially enacting a policy that people who commit crimes and get away with it can't be described as criminals. All reliable sources from after 2015 or so don't hesitate to describe him as a child molester (or similar descriptions). Previous discussions on this talk page compare it to refusing to call Hitler a genocider because he never faced trial for the Holocaust, and I have never heard any reason why this comparison isn't valid. Note, I started this RFC worded neutrally without stating my own opinion, so I'm adding my opinion here) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like Reductio ad Hitlerum to me. Well, Jimmy was from Leeds, that's for sure, and Hitler never wore a tracksuit or a medallion (as far as we know). It seems Madam Tussauds melted down their figure of Jimmy, but have carefully kept their one of Adolf. But maybe this just supports your argument. D'oh. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile is a household name in Britain, Dr Kenneth Milner is not.[1] There is the same type of situation, because Milner died before any charges could be brought although they would today if he was still alive. The Guardian article does not say that he was a sex offender/child molester/paedophile but it does make clear that he very likely got away with it for years.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Savile is a household name in Britain now because of the allegations against him, not his broadcasting or charity work. Were it not for the allegations, his broadcasting notability would be as forgotten by most people as that of, say, Alan Freeman or David Jacobs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I always found Savile's Double Top Ten Show painfully laboured and contrived. At least on Top of the Pops he had some kind of (creepy and dated) eccentric persona. We've also got Jonathan King and Rolf Harris as points of perverted comparison, I guess. Alan Freeman will never be forgotten in this household, I can sure you! Prog Rock Royalty, as far as I'm concerned. not 'arf, pop pickers!!. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Historians are going to be far more interested in the sexual abuse scandal than how many times Savile presented Top of the Pops or Jim'll Fix It. Alan Freeman (or any of the other Smashie and Nicey era disc jockeys) never had the same level of access to wealth and power that Savile had. He was in a league of his own in this area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, a bygone era, alas: [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the second sentence instead. Charity and fund-raising were simply not a major part of his notability, whereas today the accusations plainly are - simply comparing the amount of text in the article that covers each, the charities are a sharp minority, yet they're given nearly top billing in the lead in addition to an entire section devoted to them. This WP:UNDUE weight on something relatively unimportant in a way that is highly flattering to the subject is probably the real reason so many people have consistently objected to the lead; fixing it should allow it to be more stable without the awkward "and child molester" formation. --Aquillion (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• I wholly disagree. Charity and fund-raising were a major part of his notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Also disagree. Savile had a godlike status with the senior managers at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, for which he raised millions of pounds and was a major reason why he was given a knighthood. Managers at the hospital were aware of complaints against Savile dating back to 1972, but none of them came to anything at the time "due to his gold-plated status as a celebrity fundraiser."[4] The two things go together and are closely linked.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't put the charity stuff before mentioning his child molesting, since we know now that he did these charities to get access to more children. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

That's quite odd logic. But if you can find reliable sources which say this, it might be a valid addition to the article. His voluntary "work" in hospitals did provide him with access to vulnerable children. But I don't think his marathon running did. I think he used most of his charity work to provide a veneer of respectability in the public eye. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It is also possible that some of his charity work was done because he genuinely believed in those charities' missions. Unless there are reliable sources that describe his motivations for each act we cannot be certain whether the motivation was selfish, altruistic or a mixture of both. The latter seems most likely to me, but my speculation is no more suitable for the article than any other editor's. Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you may well be right. The Louis Theroux interview seemed to confirm in my own mind that his well-practiced persona of bemused and detached nonchalance was how he lived his entire life. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose He was never tried and convicted in a court, they were just allegations. Sea Ane (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support - A large number of RSs describe him as such. How is that not enough? Last I checked, legal decisions were not the only sources admissible on Wikipedia. Now, I understand the opposition if a legal decision saying the opposite existed, but in this case the lack of a legal verdict is due to an unfortunate chronology (the subject dying before his actions were made public) and not because there is any doubt about his deeds. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• You have a point. Perhaps comparable with "Harold and Fred (They Made Ladies Dead)"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support We have quite a number of reliable sources describing him as a sex offender and we should have that regardless of the good deeds. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per IanMacM and Martinevans123. We should never describe someone as a "child molester" in the first sentence of the article about them unless they have been convicted of molesting children AND that is the only basis for their notability, and even then "sex offender" is a less loaded term that we should default to in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose We are an encyclopedia not a tabloid magazine. I understand that Savile is deceased and so my sensitivity to WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME is much lessened. But the spirit of these policies still apply. Without a conviction in a court of law, it makes little sense to call someone a "child molestor" in the lede. TrueQuantum (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was led here by a forum post asking users to vote for inclusion, and intended to support this until reading the arguments of IanMacM, Martinevans123, Cloudbearer et al and gaining a rudimentary understanding of how inclusion of material works. The poster's request will likely bring about votes in favour of inclusion, so comments from here on should be weighed carefully, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8E88:6100:24ED:68C4:CA1E:EC4D (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose He was a national icon in the minds of very many people first and that is how he is thought of - a TV/Radio/charity personality who was later exposed as a sex fiend. I wonder how old many of the people are who think of him first as a molester. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeFlyde (talk • contribs) 12:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC) — GeorgeFlyde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• And the other two were not exactly brilliant, were they. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Striking this !vote as they have indicated they wish to withdraw their vote and are currently blocked as a VOA/SPA. --Chris (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - per IanMacM that is a label for those convicted so is factually incorrect, and per Thryduulf description of this isn’t appropriate to go there. WP:LEAD yes, MOS:BEGIN no. This currently seems like WP:SENSATION is maybe a bit over WP:DUE weight. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support - there is no rule on Wikipedia at present saying someone has to have been tried and convicted of crimes for us to describe them as such. See for instance, Adolf Hitler, who we describe as being responsible for a genocide despite never having had the opportunity to defend himself against such a crime, because he died before he could be put on trial. Also similarly, sources published in Hitler's lifetime did not dwell on the genocide which was only discovered shortly before his death. With Savile there is a strong consensus in recent sources that a) he was a child molester and b) that this is important to an account of who he is. This differs from sources that were published in his lifetime. The facts available have changed, and Wikipedia must represent the facts as they are, not the facts as they were before Savile's extensive record of sexually abusing children came to light. The Land (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  So you must have read the first paragraph over at Adolf Hitler? The g-word and "about six million Jews and millions of other victims" is neatly tucked away right at the end? Maybe we need to do a bit of rearranging over there first? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  Just pointing out that the many !votes saying "oh we can't say it because it wasn't proved in court" are trying to misapply the principles of WP:BLP to historical biographies, and if that logic applied generally the encyclopedia would be much worse off. There might be good reasons not to mention sex offender in the first sentence here, but if so they are rarely coming up in this discussion. The Land (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I suspect there will be many more borderline cases where "we can't say it because it wasn't proved in court" is perfectly appropriate. Perhaps guidelines need to be clarified. But I'm suggesting AH may not be the best example to choose. As I said above, it looks to me a bit like Reductio ad Hitlerum. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  The Hitler example is not comparable at all. Historians have studied all the evidence including a lot of official documents, and there is no room for doubt that AH led a movement of deliberate mass murder. All we have in the Savile case is a series of accusations, not a single one of which has been independently substantiated. -- Alarics (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  I agree the threshold of evidence is different in the two cases. But we don't really need to worry about that, because we're mainly concerned (as always) about how the subject is covered by third-party sources, who very largely treat the allegations as fact. The Land (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

  BLP is not the reason I oppose beginning the article with his alleged activities, it is because we are a neutral encyclopaedia not a sensationalist tabloid newspaper. The primary reason Saville is notable is not that he allegedly abused children it is his work as a DJ, TV personality, etc. Indeed the only reason the allegations are notable is because he was a prominent TV personality, etc. Even if this were not the case, child molestation is not the only sexual offence he is alleged to have committed (his alleged victims include people who were teenagers and even adults at the time) so "child molester" is misleading as well as inappropriately loaded. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, that is incorrect. Outside of the UK, he is only notable for child molesting. During his life, he was mostly unknown in the US, and his death got essentially no media coverage in the United States, but the child abuse allegations got a lot of coverage. Most Americans heard of him the first time, not because of his entertainment work, but because of these allegations.

  Also, the police have described his abuse as being on an unprecedented scale, with the number of victims staggering, which makes him notable as a child molester alone. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  You really think that "child molester" is a suitably encyclopaedic term? Do you think the first sentence for Bill Cosby should read: "American stand-up comedian, comedian, actor, author and aggravated indecent assault convict..."? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Oiyarbepsy: the USA is not the whole world. The reason he has an article is because he was a notable person in the UK before he died. We don't have articles about non-notable people who are alleged to have committed crimes (regardless of the crime). It's also worth noting that the lead of Richard Huckle, whose conviction for sexual crimes against children are the sole reason for his notability, describes him as "a convicted English serial sex offender and child rapist" rather than the tabloid "child molester" (even though, unlike Saville, all the offences were against children). Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  Just to repeat what has been said, Savile's alleged victims covered a range of ages. The nurses at Stoke Mandeville refused to be left alone with him, and patients were told by the nurses to pretend to be asleep when he visited. As for "Savile was guilty because the Metropolitan Police said so", meh.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  Personally I'm not that concerned about child molester vs sex offender vs serial rapist or whatever. I gather his offending wasn't exclusive to children, so maybe sex offender is a better term. @Thryduulf - well, the USA isn't the whole world, I quite agree, but nor is the UK. Savile was only ever known as a cheeky-chappy TV presenter in the UK; his current notoriety is much broader and we should reflect that. Would he be a notable person if he had been the UK's most prolific sex offender without ever being a celebrity? Who knows. And, once again, it's not appropriate to apply the BLP standards of proof for criminal offences to articles about people who are dead; we have to follow the sources not the courts. The Land (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

  Land, "Savile was only ever known as a cheeky-chappy TV presenter in the UK". I assume you've read the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

  The point is an article about a notable person, alive or dead, needs to cover *all* the reasons they are notable not just some, to do otherwise would be a violation of NPOV. The lead section should summarise the whole article, not just the juicy parts. The reason for his notability is that he was a DJ/TV personality/charity worker who was, mostly posthumously, alleged to also be a prolific serial sex offender, and so that's what the first sentence should say. High quality sources all make it clear that the offences are allegations not facts, regardless of the likelihood of them being true (which is high), and as a high quality encyclopaedia we should do the same. My point about notability is that we do not and will not have an article about a person, living or dead, alleged to be their country's most prolific sex offender (or most prolific committer of any crime) unless (a) the person is notable for other reasons, or (b) the allegations have lead to (at least) formal criminal charges if not actual conviction (or possibly acquittal, although I can't think of a person not-notable for other reasons to have been charged and acquitted of that many serious crimes to see if there is precedent on that). Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Oyarbepsy: "the police have described his abuse as being on an unprecedented scale, with the number of victims staggering" -- for a start, that should read "alleged abuse" and "alleged victims". Secondly, British police forces' recent handling of these kinds of issues (see especially the Carl Beech case but also Elm House, Dolphin Square, etc.) suggests a lack of healthy scepticism about such accusations. And let us note the following from our separate article on the Giving Victims a Voice report of March 2013:

Former editor of The Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore noted that the report does not reveal the "extent of abuse" and that it "contains [no actual evidence], in a sense which a court would recognise."[31] He commented that it "undermines justice" by "treat[ing] allegations as facts", noting the report's admission that "the information has not been corroborated" and viewing its contents as "not a contribution to the truth". He did not feel it right to overcompensate for previously dismissive attitudes to such an extent "that every accusation must be considered true".[31] Referring to the 2000 BBC Two documentary When Louis Met... Jimmy, Moore noted Savile's response to claims of paedophilia: "How does anyone know whether I am or not?" He concluded that this specific question (and also concerning "future Saviles") is "not [made] easier to answer" by the "uninformative and self-righteous" report.[31] -- Alarics (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm totally with you that the evidence available doesn't meet the standard required for a criminal court case. Getting such evidence is nearly impossible without search warrants and subpoenas, and you can't get those without a criminal case, and you can't have a criminal case without a living suspect. The standards of evidence are very different between the living and the dead. After all, many of those at List of serial killers before 1900 are described as such with a lot less evidence than we have against Savile. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

But for most of those, their serial killing is the only reasonable they are notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You have to be a) British and b) old enough to remember the 1960s and 1970s to know how famous Savile was back then. That said, he would probably be just another dead disc jockey and television personality without the sexual abuse allegations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I assume you mean "just another notable dead disc jockey and television personality". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's a photo of various BBC disc jockeys. How many can you name? I can manage a few, eg Alan Freeman, John Peel, Tony Blackburn, Ed Stewart and Terry Wogan, but have drawn a blank on many of the others. Savile was very famous as a disc jockey and media personality, but it is the sexual abuse scandal that will be of lasting importance to historians.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

An interesting test. I got only those five too. But then radio personalities not always famous by their looks? I suspect if Savile had been there he would have stuck out like a poptastic sore thumb. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC) ...please reveal the full answers if you have them!

Answers here. The photo is from 1968. Kenny Everett is behind Tony Blackburn, but his face is obscured. Chris Denning also blotted his copybook, but he is nowhere near as famous as Savile. And here is a group photo with Savile in it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I certainly should have got Stuart Henry, and possibly also Sam Costa who's quite distinct. The second photo one is very much easier! And Jimmy gets pride of place, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC) ... but again, official answers would be appreciated!

I got Barry Alldis, who was quite famous in his day, though mainly because of Radio Luxembourg. I even got Keith Skues and Jonny Moran! (showing my age) -- Alarics (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I got nine. Churton Fairman! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Please note: only editors who score 6 or more are permitted to contribute to this discussion thread" ?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It's notable that in the official 1980 Radio 1 Christmas party photo here, Savile has got top billing at the front with Dave Lee Travis. Peter Powell and others are lurking at the back. This historic photo probably isn't framed on the wall at the BBC because it contains both Savile and DLT. Full photo listing here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Adrian Juste? Not a chance, I'm afraid. And he's not even dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The lede does cover the information, placing it in chronological and contextual order is not excluding it. It is made quite clear in the opening paragraph that there are allegations of sexual abuse and people should be capable of reading at least this far. They should also be able to reach their own conclusions, rather than having 'child molester' (minus the word 'alleged' or similar?) crammed in at the start. EdwardUK (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Oiyarbepsy, after 10 days, I count 4 Supports (1 strong), 12 Opposes (2 strong) and 1 "do something else". The emerging consensus seems clear. How long do you intend to keep this RfC open? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  Ummm, doesn't a bot remove the RfC banner after a certain period? Why does anyone need to close anything here? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Ummm, what period is that? People have differing views as to what constitutes "consensus": it's "not a !vote", etc. A non-involved closer can sometimes advise if another RfC is, or is not, warranted within a certain time period. There may be other reasons. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, per reasons given by IanMacM Idealigic (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• And now, after 22 days, 13 Opposes. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Although It's not a !vote, the debate is currently running at 13 oppose, 4 support. This is similar to past discussions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:RFCEND says "When a discussion has naturally ended, you should consider ending the RfC", also "This is accomplished by removing the rfc tag from the talk page; a bot takes care of the rest. The bot will also remove the tag, if you wait long enough" (but doesn't say how long) and "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Just do it chronologically. He was famous as a DJ, TV personality and charity fundraiser, and then he was infamous as a child molester. (And any suggestion that he wasn't a household name in the UK before the child abuse came to light is absolute nonsense.)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

Please remove Sir, OBE & any other title from his page 82.132.227.78 (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)