Talk:Jimmy Savile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Jimmy Savile was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
March 31, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed


New Louis Theroux documentary[edit]

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)

POV fork?[edit]

This article and Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal are dangerously close of being POV forks of each other. While the lead does eventually provide enough coverage on his pedophilia and sexual abuse, there's a lot of careful wording and lightened assertation compared to the "scandal" article. The other article is enormous, for obvious reasons, and some editors seem to believe that information on that page doesn't need to be addressed on this page anymore. That's POV forking. I'd also argue that this is a case of false balance, since any and all current sources on him share mostly the same point of view. It's not fair to treat older sources as equal since those authors did not have all the information available. It would be like glorifying Lance Armstrong before casually addressing his doping abuse. This isn't recentism: it's not a temporary thing and the allegations had been apparent all throughout his life but were only taken seriously since a few years ago. All Google News articles about him are - without exception - about the rape and sexual abuse. I wouldn't say it's especially problematic right now but there's a good chance of this going in the wrong direction. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, something should be done about the first time it's even addressed: "After his death, hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse were made against him, leading the police to believe that Savile had been a predatory sex offender." This isn't a news article, we don't leave readers in the dark until they read ahead. The constant "alleged", "claimed", "believed" falsely expresses doubt. Independent (in 2016) refers to him as a paedophile, without "alleged" or "believed" etc. and isn't ambiguous. There's even footage by now. BBC, who should arguably be the least willing to discuss it, introduces him in 2016 as a "disgraced broadcaster", explaining: "One of Britain's most prolific sex abusers, Savile exploited his celebrity status to abuse hundreds of adults and children across the country, assaulting or raping them in television dressing rooms, hospitals, schools, children's homes and his caravan." Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
This is still the lead of the article. We seem to have another attempt to describe everything in detail in the first sentence of a summary. Reading takes place one line at a time. The sexual behaviour is mentioned in the second sentence of the lead, and as Savile became famous as a DJ then did these things there is really nowhere else in the narrative for it to go. Britmax (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. We shouldn't "glorify" Lance Armstrong or anyone else. This lead section for this article certainly doesn't "glorify" Savile. His fame as a DJ, the charity work, the TV shows - these are facts that made him famous. The sexual abuse scandal made him infamous. But after his death. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
One of the problems is WP:TOPIC because there is so much to say about the controversy that occurred after his death. This article isn't the best place to look at it in great detail, so it has been spun off into a separate article. I don't think that this is a POV fork, simply an attempt to keep this article on topic and at a readable length. Savile is probably going to be remembered by historians mainly for the controversy that occurred after his death, not for smoking cigars, hosting Top of the Pops etc.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
... or for possibly being a wizard, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Criminal categories[edit]

We don't include them because he wasn't convicted, yet we don't likewise assume that Fred West, Andrew Cunanan etc. were innocent. Jim Michael (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

We've been through this before. I don't doubt that West and Cunanan would have been found guilty, but it still requires assuming what a court would have said. In the case of Savile, it's notable that he was never arrested, charged, cautioned or convicted for a single sexual offence during his lifetime. The floodgates opened after his death, but we can't write history backwards, which is what various people have tried to do to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Savile was actually questioned under caution by the police for an assault against a child in the 1970s. It is still my viewpoint that not including him in the criminal categories is a form of original research as all major sources, including law enforcement themselves, refer to him as a serial rapist and paedophile. Not that it really makes any difference as the body of the article speaks for itself, but that's just my two cents. As the above poster says, Savile was no less technically innocent than Fred West. JJARichardson (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This may have been dealt with before, but I thought I would raise it anyway. Why can't we say that someone is a sex offender just because they have not been convicted in a court? WP is not a court so the standards applying to a court do not apply. All we need to do is supply reliable sources that confirm someone was a sex offender. If the person is still alive then other factors about publication might prevent that, but not if they are dead. In the case of people like Savile and West the supply of very high quality reliable sources is huge. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Is no-one going to mention the elephant in the (next) room? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Or Harvey Weinstein for that matter? Despite the huge media hoo-ha, he isn't a criminal and hasn't been convicted of anything. It's worrying if some people think that allegations of sexual abuse = the person is a criminal. This effectively turns accusations into automatic criminal guilt, which bypasses the criminal justice system. To expand, although Savile and Cyril Smith would easily have been arrested and charged under the rules that exist today, under the rules that existed in the 1990s, they weren't. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service knew about the allegations back then, but they kicked them into the long grass. We can't write history backwards, which is why we have to be careful about using the "criminal" tag where it doesn't apply--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I mean Cyril is pretty well Catted up over there, isn't he? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Saying "Mr X was a child molester" is not the same as saying "Mr X was a criminal", unless we put today's values on to a past time. I have trouble connecting 'what a court would have said' (in the past or now), with what we can say on Wikipedia. If the person is alive defamation issues arise, which complicate the matter, but if the person is dead then that is not the case. Savile was not a criminal but he was a sex-offender. The same distinction applies to Fred West and many others. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, that's perfectly true. I think most people's sense of outrage and retribution might lead them to label him as a criminal who had escaped justice. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
So then, maybe we can reach the consensus that including this article in the "English sex offenders" category would be appropriate. JJARichardson (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Except that a Wikipedia article is not an appropriate venue for outrage and retribution? I think a similar discussion is needed at Talk:Cyril Smith. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
But this isn't a question of "outrage". It's a question of following the conclusions of multiple verifiable sources, as we as Wikipedians are supposed to do. I suppose you think the police are engaging in "retribution" by describing Cyril Smith as a sex offender? Bizarre, frankly. JJARichardson (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll make no comment on the motives of the police which, over the course of the last 40 years, seem to have been at best "variable". You have a perfectly good point with regard to verifiable sources, but I'm pretty sure you won't find one that tells us Savile was convicted of any crime. I guess it all hinges on one's definition of "a criminal". Maybe that is a frankly bizarre, but it's my reading of how Wikipedia currently works. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add to main page[edit]

{{linkrot}}

There are no bare urls in the entire article? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Clean your glasses. Look again.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us where? And could you sign your posts here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Normally people should run Reflinks themselves rather than complaining about it, but since the article is semiprotected it can't be done by an IP (207.35.33.162 requested this).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
"I should have gone to Specsavers." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Plus, of course, some of us don't give a goddamn about the subject, so why should we be the ones to fix it, eh?
We fix our own pages. 207.35.33.162 (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
One wonders why you made the request. Which are the goddamn pages you "own"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This was raised at User talk:207.35.33.162 as far back as July 2017. In the time it takes to moan about linkrot, you can usually fix it yourself.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The article has been semi-protected all that time, so the IP was unable to do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
It was mentioned at User_talk:207.35.33.162#Linkrot_tags in July 2017 that the user could create an account. For some reason, this user prefers adding linkrot tags and then expecting others to do it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)