Talk:Derek McCulloch

John Simpson and jigsaw identification

There is a story in today's Sun which makes interesting reading.[1] Before anyone suggests smashing up Derek McCulloch's headstone, let's look at the facts:

• John Simpson does not name the person involved, although his description leaves little doubt about who he is referring to. This material was in Simpson's autobiography published in 1999, and is not by any means new.
• Simpson has no first hand knowledge. He repeats an anecdote that he was told about the person at the time of writing his obituary.

Do I hear the sound of a barrel being scraped here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The word on the net is that Simpson's informant was Kathleen Garsgadden. It looks as though more on this story is likely to come out soon. Wikipedia's attitude must be ruled by WP:RS, as far as possible. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

also a daily mail article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218932/BBC-covered-second-national-treasure-child-abuser-known-Uncle-Dick-claims-John-Simpson.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.127.156 (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The trail appears to start at politicalscrapbook.net, before the Sun, Mail and other media sources picked it up. It is a bit odd that John Simpson does not name the person while providing clear hints as to who it might be, but this leaves Wikipedia with an original research issue (Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves.)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh no the usual pedophile apologists have moved on from Savile and onto this page. "Scraping the barrel eh?" The user IanMac already has a warning on his talkpage saying he keeps trying to downplay any acts of pedophilia by wanting sources or trying to take the line none of it's been proven etc. Doing it here as well, I see. This apologist would be more at home in Arabia where sexual offences require a minimum of seven witnesses or do they just want to sound off about how this sort of thing "never happened". Either way they seem to have an agenda, which question any claims that sex abuse happened. Not helpful at all in my book. 109.150.227.102 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Sun was indeed scraping the barrel to scream "Exclusive" over something that had been published in 1999 and was a straight rip-off of a piece in the blogs a few days earlier. As for McCulloch, only time will tell if more substantial evidence emerges.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've semi-protected the page to prevent vandalism and the repeated insertion of unsubstantiated claims. Obviously if anything emerges in reliable sources editors should feel free to add that to the article or request it be added here on the talk page. I've set the protection up for a week initially, but it can be extended if required. Hiding T 15:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed some tabloidy speculation before I noticed the subject was long dead. Even so, we cannot use tabloid speculation to improve our articles; it is the equivalent of writing on toilet walls using excrement. Please do not restore anything here or to the article that is not based on proper sources. --John (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The person allegedly involved died in 1967, and his family have denied the claims. This is why it is all so bizarre, because what John Simpson said in a book in 1999 is not exactly hot off the press. The real problem is not denigrating the memory of McCulloch or upsetting his family on the basis of rumour and speculation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

More sources naming Derek McCulloch as subject of paedophile allegations

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/395372/20121017/deerek-mccolloch-uncle-mac-dick-john-simpson.htm http://news.sky.com/story/999435/new-victim-claims-savile-abused-her-at-15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.202.174 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

New articles perhaps, but they are still only using the memoirs of John Simpson (using the 'Uncle Dick' pseudonym) from over a decade ago. So no greater clarity in the reports that McCulloch was involved, apart from the denial by his family in the Sky report. Philip Cross (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"The organisation has confirmed that it’ll now also investigate the accusations about Derek McCulloch as part of the existing Savile review." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-videos-news/1468/was-bbc-children-s-radio-entertainer-a-paedophile-.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.202.174 (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"they are still only using the memoirs of John Simpson (using the 'Uncle Dick' pseudonym) from over a decade ago" Is John Simpson's published book not a reliable source? What does it matter that it was published over a decade ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.202.174 (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Philip Cross, because the IB Times source does not confirm that the BBC has any special insight into the "Uncle Dick" pseudonym. Allegations cannot be made against a pseudonym.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The last IBC article specifically states that McCulloch will be investigated as part of the Savile inquiry. Not a pseudonym, the man himself. That is notable and reliably sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.117.20 (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not explicitly stated in the source, which says "IBTimes UK contacted the BBC and asked if McCulloch's activities were under investigation as part of two investigations into sex abuse at the BBC unveiled by current director general George Entwistle. A spokesman said: "The information will be shared with the BBC investigations unit and the police and we will look into these allegations as part of the Jimmy Savile review. Simpson's agency Kruger Cowne said: "He [Simpson] is in Afghanistan. He is not prepared to comment." Apart from John Simpson, nobody knows who "Uncle Dick" may or may not be. This leads to a WP:BLP issue for McCulloch's living relatives.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No. You're looking at the first IBC source The last states "The organisation has confirmed that it’ll now also investigate the accusations about Derek McCulloch as part of the existing Savile review." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-videos-news/1468/was-bbc-children-s-radio-entertainer-a-paedophile-.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.117.20 (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That source is misleading, because it does not tally with the first source in which a BBC spokesperson gave a rather bland reply. Also, The IB Times and Sky News are the only sources to name McCulloch directly. Other sources (Times, BBC etc) have not mentioned this at all.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It's original research on your part to claim that the source is misleading. The IBT is clearly a reliable source and they quite clearly state that McCulloch will be investigated by the BBC as part of the Savile inquiry. Frankly it's ridiculous to think that they now wouldn't, but we also have a reliable source stating that, and this should be added to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.117.20 (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

McCulloch's grandson objects. makes a valid point re. reliability of source

User: Dream-seeker74 deleted the material about the recent allegations. When I reverted this, he replied claiming to be McCulloch's grandson and that the recent claims have caused his family considerable distress. Normally one would dismiss his objections under WP:NOTCENSORED, but he also raised a second valid point, that in Simpson's own account, "Aunt Gwyneth" is described as an "ancient and gin-soaked" lady. As DreamWorker points out, the possibility of alcolholism-related malice may raise issues about her reliability as a source. For this reason, I have not reverted his latest edits for the time being, however I would throw this issue open to the discussion board as to how to proceed. 195.92.109.20 (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

User: Dream-seeker74 is correct, the passage concerned in Simpson's book can be read online here, starting at page 80. Simpson twice describes his source as gin-sodden, which raises the issue of whether Simpson believed that drunken malice was involved, or whether she should be considered to be a reliable source. Interestingly, The Sun, which set off the current controversy, failed to mention that Simpson described his source as gin-sodden. After allowing a week for this to settle down, there do seem to be issues with WP:RECENTISM and WP:RS. Without the Jimmy Savile controversy, this brief anecdote in a 1999 book would not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability or verifiabilty.

Incidentally, the part about Derek McCulloch having a commemorative plaque in Broadstairs was removed in the same edit. The reason for removing this appears to be that the plaque refers to a different Uncle Mac, who was called J.H.Somerton.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Minor point: Notability is irrelevant, as it only relates to aricle topics, not article content. See WP:NNC. However, with regard to verifiability, you are correct.195.92.109.20 (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the International Business Times has reported that Derek Mcculloch will be investigated as part of the Savile inquiry. This is both notable and verifiable as IBT is a reliable source.