Jump to content

Talk:Huw Edwards

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.187.224.83 (talk) at 21:43, 12 July 2023 (→‎Creepy messages: claims). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Earlier career

What did he do before May 1999? They don't just stick you on the Six O'Clock News without some previous experience and exposure to the viewing public. 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He had previously been Chief Political Correspondent on News 24 before starting on the revamped Six O'Clock News. His Newswatch profile has it all here. It is also already mentioned within the article. Hope that helps. Wikiwoohoo 20:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of Flower

On September 26th, 2012, Edwards had a rose named in his honour at the North Wales Horticultural Show. "Huw's News" was officially named during a small ceremony, with a token flower given to Edwards as a gift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.231.65 (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huw knew that a rose is a thorn by any other name. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Children

The BBC said, in 2003, that Edwards was married with five children. This was backed up by Edwards himself, in 2012, in an interview with the Daily Mail: [1]. Should this simple fact be added? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Martin, Now if our friend Hilly Billy were to catch sight of this, he would not say, "Natch". — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maaan, that sheet? Those snitchers unravel the gravel, baby; stone dribblers, y'dig? Now lay it on me, gates; are ya in the know? or is you a solid bringer-downer? --Hillbillyholiday talk
There are loads of sources that confirm five children, including his Who's who entry, but also [2], [3], and [4].
User:Iridescent suggests that Who's Who cannot be trusted. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha yes, he’d probably have a “blue fit”. But folks over at WP:BLPN have suggested that “the Mail could be used for a basic fact of this sort”. I’d suggest using only the BBC source. I mean they ought to know, didn’t they!? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be added to the article. I would say the Cardiff Uni bio would be the best source to use. Daicaregos (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dai, I agree. Please add it. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Daicaregos (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Songs of Praise awkwardness

Without wishing to offend anyone, can I please have a quick moan about a sentence in the "Other programming and appearances" subsection? This reads: "In January 2008, he introduced a special Songs of Praise programme in celebration of the organ, both playing the instrument and demonstrating some of the stops to be found on it." I find the bit starting "both" very difficult - I will argue this at length (and risk boring you to death) if you like but my basic point is it's clunky and overegged. If he played it then by definition he more or less demonstrated a minimum of ONE stop and probably more - the way we have it written at the moment seems to oddly isolate this one aspect. It's like saying he played the horn and also demonstrated how those funny buttons can change the note. Or something. I didn't see the programme in question so I am not sure I can fix it well (but could try!) and I'd be interested if someone else fancied a go. But YMMV and you may think it sounds fine! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS On a much more important note, I think it's a major failing that this article doesn't use the word "cuddly" anywhere ... what is Wikipedia coming to, etc ... :) DBaK (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Obviously playing a piece usually involves quite a few stops. Playing a long piece may involve changing between sets of stops. But it’s still possible to demonstrate the effect of stops on single notes or chords, without playing any piece of music. Stops are really not like the buttons on a horn. Just my view. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmm thanks Martin and I'm not sure either! The above actually is a real tribute to my inability to express myself clearly and to choose an analogy which won't get off the runway before it leaves the slipway and then fruits without rooting. So please forget the horn! My stupid. But my point - such as it is - is that there seems something odd and wordy about how we have it at the moment. It sounds like there were two quite separate activities, BOTH of which Cuddly Huw did - (1) the Playing Of The Instrument and (2) the Demonstrating of The Stops and I somehow doubt that this is what really happened - it sounds a bit over-specified to me. Or like someone is really thinking of the organ-playing prowess of a certain fictional Librarian. It somehow gets my teeth on edge when I read its current version, However, it is probably time for me to stfu now, as I gather it is charmingly termed, and have a nice cuppa instead. I won't continue with this unless I can magically come up with a better wording - which is unlikely ... cheers DBaK (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a charming rural idiom as I understand it. Maybe you need a snack with that cuppa? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC) p.s. there's a clip here, but not published by BBC.[reply]

Bias

What about the allegations of bias? (2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:C848:EEF:A546:1E86 (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Got any reliable sources discussing it that we can use as references? I did a very quick Google for "Huw Edwards", bias and found nothing of any substance at all so it is not even clear what allegation you are talking about. If it is just the usual low grade whingeing about the BBC that the tabloids use to fill space on a wet Wednesday then it won't go in but if there is something genuinely substantial then it could do. What is there? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Serious gender discrimination'

This thread refers to commentary over alleged gender discrimination regarding BBC salaries, some six years ago. It has nothing to do with more recent events. And see WP:NOTFORUM.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is there any factual evidence for this, or is it just opinion pieces? If there is no solid evidence, this may be libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.226.227 (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

he's not actually done anything illegal from what i can gather. 2A02:C7E:5437:5400:1888:872A:1913:43CD (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are commenting on a post made in 2018, referring to something which had no connection with current issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it was about this charming story? Also published by that wonderful newspaper The Sun. 86.187.229.179 (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this comment was about alleged gender discrimination regarding BBC salaries in 2017, the current source from The Guardian, used to support the claim in the article, "His salary was reduced voluntarily in the light of gender pay differences found within the BBC", ought to at least mention Edwards? Currently it does not. Thanks. 86.187.229.179 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per snowball clause (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Huw Edwards (journalist)Huw Edwards – Huw Edwards The Journalist and Newsreader is surely the first thing that comes to mind at the hearing of Huw Edwards. Andysmith248 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No immediate objections, although two of the others are also still living. I must say that "journalist" may not necessarily be the best way of describing a newsreader in any case There's a bit of a mixture at Category:BBC newsreaders and journalists. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Birth name

FreeBMD here confirms that his birth name was just Huw, mother's name Protheroe. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name pronuciation

Where does the first listed pronunciation of his name come from? On TV, I've only heard his name pronounced /hju/, i.e. like the word "hue" (or the name "Hugh"). But the first pronunciation listed is /hiːʊ/, which something like "HEE-oo". If this is maybe how his name is pronounced in Welsh, I think it would be good to specify. — trlkly 23:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Wales his name is pronounced like the word 'hue' with a Welsh accent. In England it is pronounced 'hue' if you're saying it with an English accent.
Seems like a bit of a pedantic post to me, given that the name is ultimately Germanic in origin meaning 'mind' (eg. Dutch cognate 'geheugen' meaning memory).
89.241.31.109 (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welsh spelling is transparently phonemic, and yes, /hiːʊ/ is how "Huw" is pronounced in Welsh. Specifying language might be a good idea but it's a bit tricky because, as the above comment notes, the Welsh pronunciation is used in Welsh English as well as Welsh itself. So it wouldn't be accurate to say only one of the pronunciations is English, because they're both used in English.
Ultimately the two pronunciations aren't all that distinct though so I'm not sure how much it matters. [j] and [i] are the same sound, phonetically speaking, but one symbol is used for when it's a consonant sound, the other for when it's a vowel. So the difference between the two is marginal, particularly in fluent speech when the distinction between /uː/ and /ʊ/ is likely to be reduced. --Cyllel (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As "Huw" is a Welsh name, the only correct pronunciation is the Welsh one - the first one in this example: https://forvo.com/word/huw/ There's no "y" (/hju/) sound like there is in English, only a short "i" sound. "Hue" isn't pronounced the same way by English and Welsh speakers. Welsh speakers pronounce it as they do "Huw" and English speakers pronounce it as they do "Hugh". Deb (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation guidance

In response to a now-deleted comment asking a topical question about this page:

There's not a universal procedure for when it's ok to publish something - there's just liability under British law. If a Wikipedia editor defames someone by bringing them into disrepute, they become the legally responsible party for creating & spreading that negative public sentiment. Perhaps Wikipedia could also be held responsible in a grander sense - eg negligence in removing defamatory content - but that's less clear cut. The editor is taking the primary risk.

Given the evolving & perilous nature of making public comment about Huw at the moment, I'd avoid publishing negative content unless you have a good grasp of British media law basics. The boundaries of what constitutes defamation aren't just made up by instinct - there's clear case law and guiding principles for what triggers legal & financial liability for publicly causing harm to an individual's reputation. The easiest & most effective defence to a defamation suit is (verifiable, provable) truth - clearcut evidence that the facts underpinning the negative publicity are accurate. So if public resources & media aren't presenting you as an editor with concrete evidence of Huw's relevance to a negative subject, you're exposing yourself by creating that link in the public sphere.

The fact that the allegations originated somewhere else - and you're merely repeating them - isn't an accepted defence. You can still be held liable for promulgating the defamatory remarks. Bottom line, if/when a negative subject is confirmed as relevant to Huw, it'll enter his profile organically. Until then, anyone making the link prematurely needs to understand & be wary of the legal minefield they're entering.

Thank you very much for the explanation. I definitely had no intention of making public any negative information about Huw. I'm just curious as to when it will happen on Wikipedia. But you have also answered this. 2607:FEA8:935A:3A00:4436:573E:6371:3255 (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News at Five

In the external links of the article is a table where it states he hosts BBC News at Five 2006–present. BBC News at Five discontinued in 2020, so it should state "2006-2020". In its place was the UK Government's daily press conference on COVID, but I'm not sure if this would be classed as its succession. Perhaps just state "Show Ended". 2607:FEA8:935A:3A00:4436:573E:6371:3255 (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the years as requested. Not sure how to get "show ended" in that final column, so I'll leave that for someone else. Station1 (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Centre of explicit photo row

Named by his wife 86.178.1.22 (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@86.178.1.22
cite: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66159469?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=64aedb76c3502b6dfaaff7d1%26Huw%20Edwards%20named%20as%20presenter%20by%20his%20wife%262023-07-12T16%3A57%3A48.663Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:71f9c445-8409-466c-9d95-7ca83dce498d&pinned_post_asset_id=64aedb76c3502b6dfaaff7d1&pinned_post_type=share 185.222.21.158 (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation

Huw Edwards has not resigned from the BBC as at 1815 on 12/07/23. This correction confirmed by UK's Sky News

https://news.sky.com/story/huw-edwardss-wife-names-him-as-bbc-presenter-accused-of-paying-teen-for-explicit-pictures-report-12917735 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.148.123.246 (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lock this article

I think this article should be lock for editors because I think some folk will cross the line.Earl of Sutton Coldfield (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's already extend-protected. I don't think it needs to go further than that unless we see established users disrupting the article. — Czello (music) 18:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2023

In the lead where it states: On 12 July 2023, he was identified by his wife as the BBC presenter being investigated for allegedly paying a 17 year old for sexually explicit photos.

There should be a sentence added: The alleged victim has denied this through her lawyer, and claims to be estranged from her mother who made the initial claims [1]. The Met Police and South Wales Police have said they are not pursuing action[2]. Oh no no no no no (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • To add to this, although it may need some discussion, the police have said that there was no illegality involved. That indicates that the person who was allegedly paid for photos was not under the age of 18 at the time. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both points – I know what the papers are saying, but BLP applies here and we should err on the side of caution. We should also make it clear that this was over a number of years and wasn't a one-off payment in the lead. Perhaps wording such as "paying for explicit images from a younger male, beginning when he were a teenager" (someone can probably phrase this better than me). The teenage aspect doesn't seem in doubt, from what I can see. –GnocchiFan (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy messages

The article details claims of inappropriate behaviour by three young people. There was a fourth, now aged 22. This SkyNews source says:

"In separate claims, the newspaper published messages the presenter allegedly sent to a 17-year-old after initiating a conversation on Instagram in October 2018."
"The paper said the messages contained love heart emojis and kisses."
"The youth, now aged 22, told The Sun "looking back now it does seem creepy because he was messaging me when I was still at school".

The Sky report also says this: "The BBC also said on Wednesday that Edwards was facing further allegations of "inappropriate behaviour" towards colleagues." 86.187.224.83 (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]