:So the implication was '''false'''... "There was no fair or reasonable basis for that assertion".
:So the implication was '''false'''... "There was no fair or reasonable basis for that assertion".
:And he ''tried'' to clarify his position, suggesting he did not succeed. That's Mirza's opinion anyway.[[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 14:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
:And he ''tried'' to clarify his position, suggesting he did not succeed. That's Mirza's opinion anyway.[[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 14:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
==The current first sentence is irrelevant==
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal&oldid=1102070160 current first sentence] of the article reads, "Jimmy Savile (1926–2011) was an English media personality who, during his lifetime, was well known in the United Kingdom for his eccentricities and was generally respected for his charitable work." This is almost completely irrelevant to the topic of the article. It is fitting for the article [[Jimmy Savile]], but it is unfit for the "Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal" article, which is the article that preoccupies us in this page. Said sentence doesn't even mention sex abuse nor scandal. How is this first sentence considered useful at all for the current page? Per [[MOS:LEADSENTENCE]], "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is [...] use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." Therefore, the first sentence of the "Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal" should tell what the subject is, and the subject is about the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal not about who Jimmy Savile is. A first sentence exclusive on who Jimmy Savile is belongs in the article Jimmy Savile, not in this page. <span style="background-color: orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color: white">Thinker78</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 18:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article at the Reference desk.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles
Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Berkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch articles
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
David Grey and Peter Watt (Jan 2013), Giving Victims a Voice(PDF), A joint MPS and NSPCC report
Additional comments
Extensive copy and pastes of large sections of Wikipedia without appropriate attribution or release under the appropriate license.
This is on Sky News today. At the Edinburgh TV Festival, Theroux talks about whether his famous 2000 television documentary let Savile off the hook. Theroux also discussed this on Desert Island Discs in May 2019.[1]--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 06:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead photo in the article
Re this edit: the background story here is that Savile was originally wanted by the BBC to present the final episode of Top of the Pops live on Sunday 30 July 2006. However, he had already agreed to appear as the honorary chieftain at the Lochaber Highland Games on the same weekend, so he couldn't do it and his appearance in the final TOTP was cut back to a few prerecorded inserts. Hence Savile wearing the tartan tracksuit. I'm not sure if this adds great context to the caption, but it does show that at the time, Savile was still regarded as a national treasure, living saint etc. The faces in the background of the photo are now blurred out. Apparently nobody wants to be seen with him nowadays.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 17:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As two editors (and presumably the original caption writer) feel it is a useful detail, I do not have any strong feeling that it should be left out, even though I did revert once. I will say my reason was that as far as I can tell it's the only image of Savile on WP without another face visible (per his own article) so my inclination was that it was included just to illustrate who Savile was and that the extra content just distracted from the topic of the article. Nevertheless you both seem well versed on the topic so I will undo my own edit per the opinion of you and @Martinevans123:. Best ‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk 18:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really true that Savile was ever regarded as a 'national treasure', let alone a 'living saint'. Certain establishment sources may have encouraged that perception, but it's not what anyone actually thought. He was regarded as odd, a freak and a creep, even when no one knew for sure what he got up to. In the 1980s, on ITV's noted puppet satire show Spitting Image, the Savile puppet was always required to read out letters beginning, 'Dear Jim -- you, sad, man...' Which was about as far as the scriptwriters, including Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, could legally go just then. Savile's revelation, to Dr Anthony Clare on BBC Radio 4's In The Psychiatrist's Chair in 1991, that he spent five days alone with his mother's body after her death, was pretty widely regarded as strange and sinister. Ask anyone who heard it. Indeed the whole interview was quite sinister. https://www.channel4.com/news/how-jimmy-savile-revealed-all-in-the-psychiatrists-chair It's not like nobody noticed that the man was a hazard-to-traffic. Practically everybody noticed, but he retained establishment cover, due, presumably, to careful grooming of the right contacts. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how your comment here relates to the lead image. But the transcript of In the Psychiatrist's Chair is quite fascinating and probably deserves mention at the main article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Savile was a bit of a Marmite person during his lifetime. Some people loved him (Margaret Thatcher was a good example), while other people were less convinced (her Cabinet Secretary Robert Armstrong, Baron Armstrong of Ilminster being a good example). Nevertheless, Savile had managed to convince enough people that he was a national treasure and living saint to make it difficult for any national newspaper to publish allegations about sexual misconduct during his lifetime, even though the allegations were widely known in Fleet Street. The article Jimmy Savile has a 1992 quote from Anthony Clare "There is something chilling about this 20th-century 'saint'" which turned out to be very prescient words.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 21:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's sort of ok because Savile used his fame in the entertainment industry as a means of attracting some of the alleged victims.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 17:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The category covers a range of things, from: Milli Vanilli's fake singing scandal, the American 1950's quiz show scandals, Donald Trump making off-colour jokes on an Access Hollywood bus and a sexual abuse allegation in Woody Allen's personal life. This was admittedly a scandal for the BBC (see Dame Janet Smith Review), so I don't know why it wouldn't apply here.LM2000 (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Normally this would be WP:NOTNEWS, but given the considerable media coverage and the resignation of Munira Mirza[2] it is probably now notable enough for a mention. As she said: "This was not the usual cut and thrust of politics; it was an inappropriate and partisan reference to a horrendous case of child sex abuse".[3] What do others think?--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 17:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. He could have apologised, as Mirza suggested. Seems he just can't say sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC) p.s Jack Doyle now also just resigned, but "is not linked to the resignation of Munira Mirza."[reply]
One of the two current sources The Spectator says this (emphasis added) "In a letter to the Prime Minister, Mirza writes: ‘I believe it was wrong for you to imply this week that Keir Starmer was personally responsible for allowing Jimmy Savile to escape justice. There was no fair or reasonable basis for that assertion. This was not the usual cut and thrust of politics; it was an inappropriate and partisan reference to a horrendous case of child sex abuse. You tried to clarify your position today but, despite my urging, you did not apologise for the misleading impression you gave.’"
So the implication was false... "There was no fair or reasonable basis for that assertion".
And he tried to clarify his position, suggesting he did not succeed. That's Mirza's opinion anyway.Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current first sentence is irrelevant
The current first sentence of the article reads, "Jimmy Savile (1926–2011) was an English media personality who, during his lifetime, was well known in the United Kingdom for his eccentricities and was generally respected for his charitable work." This is almost completely irrelevant to the topic of the article. It is fitting for the article Jimmy Savile, but it is unfit for the "Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal" article, which is the article that preoccupies us in this page. Said sentence doesn't even mention sex abuse nor scandal. How is this first sentence considered useful at all for the current page? Per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is [...] use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." Therefore, the first sentence of the "Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal" should tell what the subject is, and the subject is about the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal not about who Jimmy Savile is. A first sentence exclusive on who Jimmy Savile is belongs in the article Jimmy Savile, not in this page. Thinker78(talk) 18:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
