Talk:Jimmy Savile/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

After the RfC

Hi. I read, but did not take part in, the RfC on the use of "alleged". On the basis of Joe's close, there is an obvious need to decide when to use the word and when not to. I would like to make a few suggestions:

  1. Change the second sentence of the lead to: "At the time of his death he was widely praised for his personal qualities and as a fund-raiser (he raised an estimated £40 million for charities),[2][3] but within a year of his death, he was found to have been been a predatory sex offender[4]—possibly one of Britain's most prolific."[5][6][7][8] The details of the allegations made against him, and the link to the related article, are already in the third paragraph of the lead. Also move the sentence beginning "There had been allegations..." to the third paragraph.
  2. In the fourth paragraph of the lead, change "with the period of alleged abuse" to "with the period of abuse", and "nearly three-quarters of his alleged victims were under 18" to "nearly three-quarters of his victims were under 18." That is in line with the sources and the RfC result.
  3. Change the
    Allegations of sexual abuse
    section heading to "Sexual abuse scandal". Per the RfC result, they are no longer just allegations.
  4. In that section, change "The interviewees alleged abuse at Duncroft approved school for girls" to "The interviewees described abuse at Duncroft approved school for girls".
  5. Change "They described the alleged abuse as 'on an unprecedented scale' to "'They described the abuse as 'on an unprecedented scale'".
  6. Change "a total of 450 alleged victims had contacted the police" to "a total of 450 people had contacted the police". All 450 may not have been victims, but to describe all 450 as merely "alleged victims" is misleading.
  7. Change "that those alleging that they had been assaulted by Savile could make claims" to "that those who had been assaulted by Savile could make claims". Again, it would have been possible for people who had not been assaulted to make claims, but that is not the point of the sentence.
  8. Change "the author said that, in the light of the allegations" to "the author said that, in the light of the revelations".
  9. Change "The Oldie alleged there had been a cover-up by the BBC" to "The Oldie claimed there had been a cover-up by the BBC", and "It was alleged that rumours of Savile's activities had circulated at the BBC" to "It was claimed that rumours of Savile's activities had circulated at the BBC", to further reduce the use of the word.

Scolaire (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Savile was not a predatory sex offender, any more than Harold Shipman killed 250 people. Janet Smith became involved in both cases and decided to subject them to what was effectively a trial in absentia. This may have kept the alleged victims happy, but had no legal validity. Smith is a great judge as long as you are dead and cannot answer back. They say that you should always read the small print, and the phrase "predatory sex offender" comes from Commander Peter Spindler of the Metropolitan Police, and the NSPCC.[1] Neither of these organisations can decide that a person is guilty of a criminal offence, only a court of law can do this. If we have to use these phrases, it should be pointed out who used them and when, and it wasn't a judge or a jury during Savile's lifetime.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree with Ian MacM, and I oppose Scolaire's suggested changes. -- Alarics (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I also agree with Ian MacM and I think Scolaire's suggested changes need adjustment. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
It's all very well saying "All 450 may not have been victims, but to describe all 450 as merely "alleged victims" is misleading." But what happens if, for example, I ask you which of the 450 are more (or less) alleged than the others? Britmax (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
"Savile was not a predatory sex offender, any more than . . . "——wow, would that that be the case! The lives of many, many real human beings would have avoided harm and danger. There may be other examples of prosecutor and media-led witch hunts. The case of security guard Richard Jewell who was suspected in the '96 Olympic bombing and largely exonerated comes to mind. But at the end of the day, I think Savile largely stands guilty as accused.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
If the police had spent half as much time and money on trying to catch Savile as they did trying to catch Cliff Richard, things might have been very different. Surrey Police gave Savile a soft as marshmallow interview in October 2009 [2] in which the officers are hugely deferential while he dismisses his accusers as liars. This effectively let Savile off the hook over Duncroft, and the opportunity was lost.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 03:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Except Wikipedia does not (for many obvious reasons) use a "you cannot describe a subject as X unless they have been convicted of a crime which this or that editor idsiostyncratically associates as the crime defining the activities of an X" test... That would be infeasible and problematic in the extreme. Wikipedia's standard, rather, is using the
WP:original research about his lack of criminal convictions, avoided because he was dead at the time his crimes came to light, changes that weight analysis. But I do understand and appreciate that to a large extent you are simply urging that we attribute the statements rather than leave them as straightforward assertions in Wikipedia's voice, and I agree that is the most appropriate and useful approach in a majority of cases. And there are examples in Scolaire's suggestions of statements where I think it makes sense to retain "alleged" because of the continuity of events, the perspectives voiced by the source in question, or because they involve vagueries as to who the accusers are. But by and large, I think we're waaaay past due, as a pretty straightforward NPOV matter, to pull some of the "alleged" references out as inconsistent with our sources when considered in their entirety. Again, where appropriate, we should lean heavily on attribution, but we needn't pretend or present the false balance that there is any substantial doubt among the sources as to Savile's conduct and status as an abuser. Snow let's rap
09:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Lack of Neutrality banner.

I've removed the Lack of Neutrality banner from the article, as there's no evidence that the article's neutrality is actually disputed. If it is, the reasons for the dispute needs to be detailed on this page so that it can be discussed. Obscurasky (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2019

I want to edit this document about jimmy savile as there is some key information missing that leaves people asking question, i feel that this need to be answered on wikipedia immediately. KieranBartram02 (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done You need to make a specific proposal not a vague suggestion. Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Then it would be better if you told us what your proposed changes were. That would help us to put them in immediately. Don't forget the reliable sources. Britmax (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead is too detailed

The lead to this article is far too long and detailed. It needs to summarize the contents of the page, but it goes into too much detail, and simply repeats what's written further down. Obscurasky (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The lead will do that, as part of its function is summarising the article. Britmax (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
It should, my point was that the lead for this article goes into too much detail.Obscurasky (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Honors

Since "these honours automatically expire when a person dies" (as stated in the article via https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19884359), could (or should) "Sir" and the post-nominals be removed from the titles and opening paragraph of this article? Sunny Clark (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed quite a few times in the talk page archive (use the search box for more details). The knighthood expires on death but Savile has not been formally stripped of it. David Cameron suggested this but current rules do not permit it. Wikipedia articles about dead people such as Winston Churchill retain their titles in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
It strikes me though that there might be a
policies. It seems to me that pretty no source that I have seen in the last six or seven years utilizes the honorific anymore, so I'd say that actually seems like a very strong policy argument for removing the honorific from the lead sentence. In any event, it's food for thought: I'm not about to change it myself, but I have to say, the more I think about it, the more that seems like the RS and policy consistent way to approach this particular situation. Snow let's rap
07:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

False tag-on allegations needed here

Carl Beech and the ilk need to be mentioned here. See e.g. https://quillette.com/2019/07/25/the-many-lies-of-carl-beech/ for analysis. Zezen (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Possibly so. The pivotal part of that article is this: "Then Jimmy Savile died. A year after his death, on October 3, 2012, ITV broadcast a documentary entitled The Other Side of Jimmy Savile, which accused him of serious sex crimes. Three weeks later, Carl Beech complained to Wiltshire Police that he and a childhood friend from Bicester called “Aubrey” had been abused as children." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I would have thought a better link would be at the article on the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, rather than this one. Beech's claims arose following the publication of the allegations against Savile - covered in that article in greater depth than in this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps at Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal#New allegations? But probably only briefly - I don't think Beech made any allegations specifically against Savile, did he? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
He did falsely accuse Savile and was convicted of fraud after he received compensation for the allegation.[3] Initially he had only named Savile and his stepfather as abusers, he later expanded that list to include the "VIP"s that are more commonly associated with Operation Midland. I think we should have a short mention of Beech's false allegations here and expand on Operation Midland in greater detail at the main Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal article.LM2000 (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
No objection, since Savile was named. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I haven't been following it closely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Even the Old Bill is now in the firing line and could face a criminal investigation. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It's amazing that Carl Beech didn't include Uncle Tom Cobley in his list of allegations, as he included practically everyone else. But his dud allegations against Savile are more on topic at Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Minor edit needed

"Born during the Great Depression" is the first thing you read in his bio, but the birthdate given is just about exactly three years BEFORE the Wall Street crash that is (in America anyway) regarded as the starting point of that global catastrophe. I know the UK was struggling economically between the world wars and for a while after the second war too, but still, it's probably better to change "during" to "shortly before" or rewrite it to say he was just three years old when the Depression hit. My note here can be erased after the deed is done. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.64.106 (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

I didn't think that the description for Jimmy Saville is accurate nor morally proper, it should not have any reference to 'sir' jimmy saville as he was stripped of his knighthood Paulus Rhodinious (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - Savile was never stripped of his knighthood while he was alive, and it can't be done now that he is deceased. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

'Sir' Should be removed from all descriptors

I think that given he was stripped of his knight hood any references to 'sir' should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulus Rhodinious (talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - Savile was never stripped of his knighthood while he was alive, and it can't be done now that he is deceased. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It's my understand that that is "he was never stripped of his knighthood, *but the honour expires with his death*". Is there a specialist in the house? --Baylink (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
See [4].--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the point of this anyway - Saville is only referenced as a knight twice - once in the very first sentence, and secondly in the infobox. After that, he's just "Saville", as per
MOS:SURNAME. Chaheel Riens (talk
) 08:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Entertainer and sex offender

I changed the opening text to say that Savile is an entertainer and sex offender, and Ianmacm reverted me saying it's not NPOV. On the other hand, the current article is half a paragraph of praise for his entertainment and donations before even mentioning this which isn't a neutral point-of-view either. Ian disputes the sex offender label since Savile was never convicted, which is certainly true, but that has big caveats. His crimes weren't really known until after he died, and it was a major scandal in multiple areas of British society that he never was convicted. He can't be convicted now because he's dead, but reliable sources leave zero doubt whatsoever that he was possibly the most prolific sex offender that Britain had ever seen. In short, Savile is notable as a sex offender even if he had never spent a second on television. Based on that, I think it's fair to give entertainer and sex offender equal billing in the first sentence. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

(side note - it's probably not good policy to omit a person's criminal activities from the first sentence of the article just because he managed to get away with it) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The most important thing that you need to know about Jimmy Savile is that he was treated as a national treasure and living saint while he was alive, but his reputation fell apart astonishingly quickly after his death. He would not have been hobnobbing with prime ministers, royalty and popes and given multiple honours if he was a sex offender. He was never charged or convicted of any sexual offences during his lifetime, and there's the rub. He was given a knighthood despite civil servants saying no four times because of concerns over his private life. There have been attempts before to add wording like "Savile was a paedophile/sex offender" to the opening sentence, but they have been reverted because they are inaccurate and do not give proper context. Savile's primary source of notability was as an entertainer, celebrity and charity fundraiser, and he was undoubtedly a huge success in these areas. But there was a dark side, with mutterings during his lifetime that he was not all that he seemed. It was only after his death and the broadcast of the ITV documentary in 2012 that these concerns came to the fore. The
WP:LEAD has tried to put this into context.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me)
04:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
His global reputation as the UK's most notorious predatory sex offender dwarfs any reputation he had locally prior to his death. To people outside the UK, he is only known for one thing, in the same way Josef Fritzl is only known for one thing. Nearly all coverage in WP:RS globally, except the UK (and he has received significant coverage in countries like the U.S. and the rest of Europe) focus on his activity as a sex offender, and the first sentence needs to reflect that. The fact that the British allegedly regarded him as a saint for decades, although he had repeatedly been accused of sexual abuse and looked like the archetypical sex offender, can still be mentioned in the article. In the past completely bizarre descriptors like "charity fundraiser", "dance hall manager" were included in the first sentence, while his primary claim to fame was removed by certain editors. --Tataral (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Ianmacm. It's possible that Oiyarbepsy has not yet checked the archives to see the many previous discussions of this precise issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Ianmacm. You say ".. but reliable sources leave zero doubt whatsoever that he was possibly the most prolific sex offender that Britain had ever seen." I suspect there may have been equally prolific sex offenders whose crimes were not detected or, if they were, never reached the public eye like those of Savile. His notability was the magnifying lens. I'm also not sure what you mean about "zero doubt... possibly." No-one wants to appear as an apologist for Savile, but as Ianmacm says, he was most notable in his lifetime for his media presence and charity work. The chilling contradiction is that his celebrity status protected him so completely. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The coronavirus pandemic has led to a revival of Peter Kay's 2005 version of "(Is This the Way to) Amarillo".[5] I was watching this on the BBC News Channel earlier today. But they didn't show the part with Jimmy Savile in the original official video, screenshot here. Of course, way back in 2005 nobody batted an eyelid over this appearance. How times change.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Most of the footage was very skillfully replaced by The British Public! for BBC's The Big Night In. A very clever and technically impressive re-make. Fans of baggy red trackies and cigars can still see the original at Tony's VEVO YT page (or watch a very low-quality snippet c/o Daily Mirror). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Somewhat better screenshot of Savile in the video here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the opening sentence should describe him as an "entertainer and sex offender". That is what he is known for; the latter is clearly his primary claim to fame in a global perspective, and prior to the scandal he was only known locally in one country. In the United States, France, Belgium, Australia, Poland and Finland people don't care about Savile's career as "charity fundraiser", "dance hall manager" and other bizarre and obscure descriptors that have been included in the first sentence; all that

WP:LEAD and is just a form of POV pushing, and it should be reinstated. Perhaps it would be an idea to have an RfC on the wording of the first sentence to settle this problem once and for all. --Tataral (talk
) 04:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

"Sex offender" is misleading nonsense and has been removed from the
WP:LEAD quite a few times, because Savile was never arrested, charged or convicted over a sexual offence during his lifetime. He may well have managed to pull the wool over the eyes over a large number of people, including Margaret Thatcher who insisted on giving him a knighthood. Sex offender has a clear legal meaning, and the phrase "predatory sex offender" comes from Commander Peter Spindler, who said "At this stage it is quite clear from what women are telling us that Savile was a predatory sex offender." But the police do not determine guilt or innocence; they were told that Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini were sex offenders, but they weren't. This has been discussed before, and Spindler's "predatory sex offender" quote has no legal weight.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me)
05:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether he was convicted from an encyclopedic perspective; he is overwhelmingly described as a sex offender by reliable sources, that's what's important, because it makes the assertion that he wasn't a sex offender a fringe point of view. We are not the judiciary of the UK. Numerous historical figures were never "convicted" of what they are known for either. --Tataral (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The
WP:LEAD already contains the "predatory sex offender" quote by Commander Peter Spindler, but it also attempts to put it into context. Spindler said this after Savile was dead and with no way of knowing how many of the allegations would have stood up in court.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me)
06:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I would have thought "an encyclopedic perspective" was entirely appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Would something like this rewording meet some people's concerns?

Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG (/ˈsævɪl/; 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011) was an English DJ, television and radio personality who was claimed after his death to have been a predatory sex offender. He hosted BBC shows including Top of the Pops and Jim'll Fix It and raised an estimated £40 million for charities so that, during his lifetime, he was widely praised for his personal qualities and as a fund-raiser. After his death, hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse were made against him, leading the police to conclude that Savile had been possibly one of Britain's most prolific sex offenders, although allegations made during his lifetime had been dismissed and accusers ignored or disbelieved; Savile took legal action against some accusers.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
It's structurally an improvement, although I think the word "claimed" should be avoided because it gives the impression that his sexual abuse is somehow in dispute. An alternative wording could be e.g. "... after his death widely described as a predatory sex offender". --Tataral (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree completely with Ianmacm. I disagree with Tataral. I don't think Savile can be flatly described as a "sex offender" when he was never convicted of any offence. However, I would be prepared to settle for Ghmyrtle's suggested compromise. We need to say "claimed" because there has been no proof that the allegations are true. We may think it likely that some of them are, but that is an opinion, not a fact. -- Alarics (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Britannica says in its article "Jimmy Savile, in full Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile, (born October 31, 1926, Leeds, England—died October 29, 2011, Leeds), British entertainer who was a flamboyant radio and television personality known as much for his platinum-dyed hair, gaudy tracksuits, and enormous cigar as he was for his zany comedic style. After his death in 2011, he was the centre of a sexual abuse scandal." I think this has got it about right. It doesn't shout "sex offender" or "paedo" in the opening sentence, and establishes his notability as an entertainer before mentioning the scandal after his death. Giving Victims a Voice runs into the same problem as The Shipman Inquiry because it conflates allegations with court convictions. Savile may well have had some nasty habits, but we will never know how many of the allegations would have stood up in court.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

SIR Jimmy

Can someone please remove the "sir" as the opening word, thanks. We don't use such titles as part of title and he has been stripped posthumously of his honours, serve him right as well. Omar Hatlas (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times, including in the section immediately above. As this source says, he could not be stripped of his knighthood under current rules.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah but does Wikipedia have to genuflect to every person to have been knighted? Sir him, dame her, etc? Surely not. Omar Hatlas (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Isn't this just a rephrasing of the request above? The same argument basically applies. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Probably the most interesting thing about Savile's knighthood today is that Whitehall civil servants including the Cabinet Secretary Robert Armstrong, Baron Armstrong of Ilminster turned him down repeatedly in the 1980s because of concerns over his private life. It was Margaret Thatcher who insisted because she got along great guns with Savile. The article here notes Savile's knighthood, but does not make a big deal over it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree entirely and my sentiments exactly. So just a question, is there a procedure on whether a person should be introduced as Sir in opening line? Is it a must, an option, or a no-no? Thx. Omar Hatlas (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we always put the "Sir" in the opening line. In British usage, at least, it is regarded as part of the person's name, not exactly analogous to Dr and Mr. "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that. The infobox heading includes pre-nominals, name and post-nominals as separate elements. The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name." (from

WP:MOSBIO -- Alarics (talk
) 20:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

All right thanks for clearing up that jigsaw piece. Omar Hatlas (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I support the removal of this title from the opening sentence based on the fact that it is

Reliable sources in most countries refer to him just as Jimmy Savile; Elizabeth II's insistence on bestowing this title upon him until this day can be mentioned below. There is no reason to let what is essentially the POV of Elizabeth II be the very first word of the article, especially when it strikes most people as highly inappropriate (as seen by the many comments about this issue on this talk page) and when it is not widely reflected in or recognised by RS. Also, we don't include titles such as "Dr" or "Professor" before the name, although they are in some countries regarded more or less as "name parts" much in the same way as the title "Sir" in the UK. --Tataral (talk
) 05:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with the Queen. The knighthood was bestowed by Margaret Thatcher, the Queen's role being purely nominal. A knighthood expires with the holder, so it can't be taken away posthumously because it's already gone. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
You're suggesting that the articles for every one listed at here who is dead, must have their Sir removed as the first word? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2020

Please change the text "agreed with assessments of Savile as a psychopath, and stated:" to "considered Savile to be a

PCL-R
. Also, the named disorder should be linked for the layman.

If the cited Telegraph page demands you sign up, the piece is archived here. Perhaps you could also change the URL to this archived one. Thanks in advance. 82.132.219.105 (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Not yet changed URL, but a good idea. Martinevans123 (talk)

I've left the cite for the time being, because although Daily Telegraph cites usually require a login nowadays, this one doesn't.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2020

Change
{{cite news |url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8857428/Sir-Jimmy-Savile.html|title= Obituary: Sir Jimmy Savile |date=29 October 2011 |work=The Daily Telegraph |location= London |access-date=4 November 2012}}
to
{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8857428/Sir-Jimmy-Savile.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20200601114004/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8857428/Sir-Jimmy-Savile.html |archive-date=2020-06-01 |title=Obituary: Sir Jimmy Savile |date=2011-10-29 |work=The Daily Telegraph |location= London}}
92.27.188.173 (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"After his death" and "Aftermath" sections are deeply confused and intertwined

The former covers 2012 to 2019, and the latter covers 2012 to 2020. Is there any need for two similarly-titled, tangled sections? Perhaps someone with access to the article would care to tidy it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savlis (talk • contribs) 13:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2020

Please move the Adrian Street commentary out of the "During his lifetime" section, as Street made these statements in 2013, not during Savile's lifetime. I'm not sure where the best landing place would be, given that the "After his death" and "Aftermath" sections are deeply confused and intertwined chronologically, with the former covering 2012 to 2019, and the latter covering 2012 to 2020. Anywhere would do, I suppose.

Also the reference supporting John Lydon's 2014 commentary is dead. https://web.archive.org/web/20141022202145/http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/what-s-on/music/audio-john-lydon-outspoken-at-sheffield-s-off-the-shelf-1-6899790

Thanks.

 Done Both. Moved Street para to "After his death", even though the opinions were formed while Savile was alive. Wire723 (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Needed removal

Sir, OBE, and KCSG should be removed from this page.

2603:8080:F904:300:81A8:326F:BA2F:20DA (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Bryan St.John

See previous discussions on this. The titles cannot be revoked for a dead person unless parliament changed the rules.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:59, 8 May 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)

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)

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: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 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:UCS to overrride everything else. Cloudbearer (talk
    ) 09:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
information 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
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.[6] 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.[7]--♦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: [8] 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)
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."[9] 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)
  • And the other two were not exactly brilliant, were they. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
information 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: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
    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)

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)
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)

  •  Not done: See the numerous previous discussions about this. The titles cannot be revoked after his death.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021

'SIR' should be taken off as his knighthood was stripped 

LawrenceAdovey (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 Not done As per numerous previous requests, Savile was never stripped of his knighthood while he was alive, and it can't be done now that he is deceased. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile "would've been stripped of knighthood" if he'd been convicted, says Honours Forfeiture Committee

This is in the news today.[10]. Quote: "The Forfeiture Committee can confirm that had James Wilson Vincent Savile been convicted of the crimes of which he is accused, forfeiture proceedings would have commenced." Hmm, this is somewhat stating the obvious though. Also "The committee said on Thursday it will now issue a statement saying forfeiture proceedings would have been initiated against an honours recipient if credible allegations are made against them within 10 years of their deaths." The real problem is that Savile and Cyril Smith were never charged or convicted during their lifetimes, which made it impossible to revoke the knighthoods under the current rules.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What that seems to say is that, if "credible allegations" are made against Savile before 29 October 2021 (the tenth anniversary of his death), forfeiture proceedings will be initiated. Is that right? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Further news coverage here and the London Gazette statement is here. My understanding of the ten year part is that Savile *would* have been subjected to forfeiture proceedings if the evidence now known had been known about during his lifetime. But again this is stating the obvious. As the London Gazette says, "The Forfeiture Committee is not an investigative body and is unable to make a determination of guilt or innocence. Orders of Chivalry are living Orders and individuals cease to be a member when they die, therefore honours can not be removed from individuals now deceased." There is a lot of coulda, woulda, shoulda in all of this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The timing seems curiously deliberate - exactly four weeks before the 10th anniversary of his death. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I see this also applies to Cyril Smith, so maybe a note over there would also be appropriate. Except that he died on 3 September 2010, so it's now over 11 years since his death? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Cyril Smith is an interesting example, because some of the allegations against him were already widely published by the time of his death; this didn't stop David Steel from allowing Smith to have a knighthood, just as Margaret Thatcher allowed Savile to have a knighthood despite repeated expressions of concern from civil servants over his private life. The Honours Forfeiture Committee is trying to write history backwards; if we knew last week or last year what we know now, we would all do things differently. But they are still saying that Savile and Smith's knighthoods cannot be revoked because they are dead.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

New ITV documentary

There is a new hour long documentary about Savile on ITV at 9 PM this evening, Savile: Portrait Of A Predator.[11] How's about that then, guys and gals?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Savile and Lord Longford

As one who lived through the 70s as a teenage news follower, I recall (IIRC) that Savile was one of a number of figures who supported or endorsed Lord Longford's then anti-pornography campaign and House of Lords Report on the subject. I well recall a JAK cartoon of Longford addressing a meeting of his campaign group that included a cigar smoking Savile in his audience when (referencing Longford's other cause in penal reform) Longford makes the caption comment: "When we've put the pornographers in prison we'll look for ways of getting them out again!" In view of the later revelations of Savile's private life, this now seems incredible in hindsight. If published evidence could be found from news files (more likely those published at time rather than since Savile's death) that would make an interesting addition. It would have been another feather for Savile's respectability cap.Cloptonson (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Mining injury

The lead section now says "Savile worked in

WP:LEADCITE, but I see that the BBC source used says: "During World War II he is conscripted as a Bevin Boy, working in the coal mines, reportedly suffering spinal injuries in a mining accident aged 14." Of the sources used in the main body The Guardian gives no age and The Times has no online link. Any suggestions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk
) 11:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Things that Savile said about himself as a coal miner are a bit dodgy and
WP:AUTO. We've previously discussed whether he actually was a Bevin Boy as some of the things he said about this don't add up. This would also apply to some extent to the injury.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me)
16:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Bevin Boys says: "Chosen by lot as ten percent of all male conscripts aged 18–25, plus some volunteering as an alternative to military conscription." So 14 seems doubly implausible. But then it is grim in Leeds, isn't it. Maybe it doesn't really belong in the lead at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
RS have reported that Savile was a Bevin Boy, but they are going along with what Savile said, with experts such as Warwick Taylor doubting this.[12] Likewise, if the spinal injury can only be traced back to something Savile said, the usual Zaphod Beeblebrox problem applies. But it's hard to overrule the BBC and the Guardian.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, of course. He's quite the hero at the Beeb, isn't he. A real record breaker (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I have rephrased this sentence in the summary to tie in with what has been written of his coal mining experience in the Early life section, as the age chronology is at odds. At age fourteen, the latter section states, he left school and worked in an office pre working in the pits. As he was born 1926 Savile would have reached Bevin Boy age of 18 in 1944 when WWII was still ongoing.Cloptonson (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
That is logical, thanks. But what about
WP:LEADCITE? Do we include stuff in the lead (partly) because the BBC has said it? Martinevans123 (talk
) 17:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
My only reservation on the BBC as a source is the possibility the information given could be erroneous if it was based on what Savile as an interviewee had told them about his past (either by mistake through inaccurate recall or deliberately). I think that should be taken into account. BTW, if Savile had sustained his pit injury as a 14 year old school leaver then he would have been less than a year on from recovery (noting the three years he was allegedly incapacitated) when he reached the age to be balloted.Cloptonson (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I tend to agree about the BBC source. Why should anyone believe anything he said about himself? But am a bit confused about the timeline - did he get injured before he was a Bevin Boy? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

About the injury, a possible avenue to investigate to pinpoint the accident might be in local newspaper reports. It used to be press procedure (until, by my experience of local news reading, the 1990s) to identifyingly list people reportedly taken to hospital as casualties in accidents reported say on the roads or in workplaces. No doubt Savile's injury would have been hospitalisable and, had he died of it, been subject to inquest which in those days were reported in greater detail than is usual today. Something that might be of interest to those in WikiProject Yorkshire who have access to those sources via public archives. At the time Savile was yet to be famous, but he could have been reported under his full Christian names and age detailed.Cloptonson (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in retrospect, for many people an inquest would have been a better outcome. I must admit I've not read any of his autobiographies, as it happens. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2021

He isnt a Sir please remove this. He was stripped of this and its disrespectful to the people he abused. 2A00:23C6:7002:9701:4078:FCBA:DA0D:2661 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Not done. He was not stripped of the knighthood during his lifetime, and cannot be stripped of it afterwards. Please check the talk page archives for previous discussions about this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The NOT DONE response to this is incorrect.

Savile cannot be 'stripped' of his Knighthood after death because it no longer applies. Death is the end of a Sir, and it's only through courtesy we refer to people as Sir and Dame.

Savile deserves no such courtesy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesism (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

No Knighthood

Savile is not a Knight or a Sir.

That particular club is only for life. Now he's dead, there is no reason anyone should be calling him Sir or referring to him as such.

This is from The Guardian, but you can find other sources on this elsewhere (including The Cabinet Office)

'The Cabinet Office confirmed on Tuesday morning that in Savile's case there was no knighthood to revoke, after David Cameron had raised the prospect of the Jim'll Fix It presenter being posthumously stripped of the honour in the wake of allegations of sexual abuse against young girls.

"It's a living order and then you cease to be a member when you die," a Cabinet Office spokesman said. "There isn't an honour to revoke."'

Continuing to refer to him as Sir is both incorrect and offensive.

Put a paragraph in about his Knighthood, in life, for sure - but take the Sir away from this bastard?

Do the right thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesism (talk • contribs) 16:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see previous discussions on the talk page regarding this matter, and try to remain civil during conversations in this encyclopaedia. Thank you. Britmax (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
To be consistent, we'd need a new policy to also remove the "Sir" from all the other dead (non-bastard) ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2021

In subsection § Aftermath, there's a paragraph about the Giving Victims a Voice report. This feels out of place, as it's a key part of the investigation itself rather than something that happened in its wake. I'd suggest moving it to the chronologically appropriate spot (third-to-last paragraph?) of the previous subsection, § After his death. - 89.183.221.7 (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Looks like an improvement. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2021

This horrific person had his knighthood removed and therefor should not have that honour associated with his profile. He is no longer a sir. Viperdan10 (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Per the article, As a knighthood expires when the holder dies, it cannot be posthumously revoked ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Please also read the talk page discussion and repeated requests regarding this matter. Britmax (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Savile/Archive_8&oldid=1073977660"