Talk:Jimmy Savile/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Allegations of sexual abuse?

For fucking real? Is anyone seriously suggesting that he didn't? The BBC doesn't say "alleged". --John (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not call that section "Sexual abuse scandal", as per the main article it directs to? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair suggestion. But I think the story is beyond allegations. --John (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's based wholly on allegations. It's just that there are rather a lot of them. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The key thing with Savile is that he was treated as a national treasure and living saint during his lifetime, but his reputation fell apart soon after his death. Everybody who was anybody had heard about the allegations during his lifetime, so why wasn't he ever arrested or charged, not even once, during his lifetime? It was because he was able to give the same dismissive answers and legal threats time and again, and even though journalists believed that the Duncroft allegations were undoubtedly true, they were never published by a major newspaper during his lifetime because of the clear risk of losing a libel action. As for Dame Janet Smith, she has form in this area. She popularised the idea that Harold Shipman killed 250 people, even though this figure included cases where the evidence was too old and speculative and would never have stood up in court, eg cases where the alleged victim had been cremated. Shipman probably killed more than 15 people, but Smith's figure is a wild estimate. She did the same thing with Savile and assumed that all of the allegations would have stood up in court, something that we will never know for sure. There is little doubt that Savile would be in big trouble today, but the rules on handling this type of case have changed significantly since he died. That is the real story here. The article has a history of not playing along with the flawed game of trying Savile in absentia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. The question was whether there are decent sources that question whether Savile was a serious and serial sexual abuser. Are there? --John (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

We're never going to find or agree a magic number of victim cases that will push "allegations" across the boundary to "actuality". But everyone seems to agree that, whatever number there might have been, it was a scandal. Thus my suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Savile's reputation is in pieces, like his headstone. But he will never be a convicted sex offender. This is where the line has to be drawn, and the wording has to reflect this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that "scandal" crosses any particular line. Are you suggesting we re-title the abuse article to Jimmy Savile's alleged sexual abuse? Has your line not already been crossed there? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That's ludicrous. We would have to revisit the Fred West article and point out that he was only an "alleged" serial killer at the time of his suicide. Come on. --John (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You might think there would be clear policy on this, written down somewhere, wouldn't you? I'll have you know that Fred laid some lovely patios. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

If you painted double yellow lines on a road today, you wouldn't be able to issue parking tickets to all of the people who parked on them yesterday. During Savile's lifetime, there was considered to be insufficient evidence to mount a successful prosecution, even though the basic evidence for the key allegations hasn't changed all that much. What has changed has been the willingness of the police and Crown Prosecution Service to pursue allegations of historic sexual abuse. In Operation Midland, the Metropolitan Police was criticised for famously deciding that the allegations were "credible and true", even though after a huge investigation they could not find anything that would actually have stood up in court.[1] Since then, Richard Henriques has advised the police not to do anything that would jump the gun on a trial.[2] Operation Midland was riddled with this mistake, Wikipedia should be made of sterner stuff.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The question was whether there are decent sources that question whether Savile was a serious and serial sexual abuser. Are there? --John (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

There cannot be any reliable sources saying that Savile was a sex offender/rapist/criminal etc and these categories have been removed in the past. As for whether he was a predatory sex abuser, plenty of sources say this but they are usually relying on allegations made after his death. The wording in the article needs to make this clear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an interesting read. Savile was given an amazingly soft ride over the Duncroft allegations, and it is more important to stress this than to attempt to convict him after his death.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd seen it before. Wikipedia is not a court and does not decide on the innocence or guilt of our subjects. Instead we summarise the best available sources. All of the sources seem to regard Savile as a serial sex offender. No source disputes this. Therefore our article here should reflect that, whatever your personal qualms about the process of assigning crimes retrospectively to the dead. To a large degree I share or at least understand those qualms; if you know me at all you will know that I am an extremely conservative editor and admin in defending the living and recently dead from poorly-sourced innuendo. I'm sure Martinevans123 will endorse this self-assessment. But Savile died a few years ago, and the sources seem unanimous. We definitely don't need to say "alleged" any more. --John (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. If we delete "alleged" we are on the slippery slope to mob rule. The Duncroft allegations have in fact been consistently challenged by a woman who had been a Duncroft inmate at the time, who blogged under the name of Anna Raccoon. Sadly she died recently but her archives have been collected at https://annaraccoon.com/. See in particular https://annaraccoon.com/category/duncroftsavile/jimmy-savile/ and see also http://www.thelastditch.org/2012/10/anna-raccoons-story-continues.html

I know that a personal blog is not a "reliable source" for Wikipedia purposes, and I am not saying we should cite any of the Raccoon material, but I think it should give us pause before deleting the word "alleged". Alarics (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Savile said that Duncroft Approved School was a "posh borstal" [3] because the girls had been sent there for misbehaving. He then argued that the girls were effectively blackmailing him by going to the newspapers many years later, although they had not complained at the time. This gave him something of a head start in the 2009 Surrey Police investigation, as the police seemed happy to accept this. It wasn't until after his death that ITV aired the Duncroft allegations, which had been dropped by the BBC's Newsnight because Savile had never been arrested or charged over them. We will never know what would have happened if the Duncroft allegations had ended up in court, but the ITV documentary opened the floodgates to many similar complaints about Savile's behaviour.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Colour me unconvinced. I am sure there is a blog out there explaining that Fred West was a misunderstood innocent. His story was that his wife did it all. But we wouldn't revise the article to call him an "alleged" killer, even though he was never convicted. Slippery slope arguments can often lead to crazy conclusions and this would be one. Savile's guilt is not disputed by anyone with any evidential weight, even if some of the details are argued by a survivor in a blog. --John (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No, that wasn't Fred's story! He just retrospectively implicated her, out of spite, when she dumped him. Other patios exist, however slippery they might be. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC) p.s. and yes John, you are generally so conservative, you make Genghis Khan look like a liberal.

Fred West confessed to some of the murders and revealed the location of some of the bodies. Savile would have flatly denied Duncroft if it had come to court, and it is far from certain whether the pre-Operation Yewtree rules for this type of investigation would have led to a successful prosecution, or victory in a libel action (see Gordon Anglesea, who successfully sued for libel in 1994 over allegations for which he was subsequently convicted). Savile and Cyril Smith were treated with kid gloves while they were alive, and probably got away with it for this reason.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Ah yes, thanks Ian, popular in Rochdale, by all accounts. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Murdering people and burying them in the back garden was just as illegal in 1994 as it is today. Things have changed enormously with historic sexual abuse cases since that time. Gordon Anglesea is a lot like Savile and Cyril Smith, because they all faced allegations over a period of many years, but were never arrested or charged in the pre-Yewtree era. Unlike Savile and Smith, Anglesea did live long enough to see the rules changed post-Yewtree, which made it far more likely that a person would be arrested and prosecuted successfully. I don't think that the article lacks WP:NPOV for pointing this out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The article can't "point anything out" just by means of a single word in a section heading, there has to be more than that. As long as the text is clear, I'm not sure what's wrong with a shorter summarizing section heading. At the moment there is a major contradiction between the heading for that section and the entire article to which it points. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Sexually abusing young teenagers and interfering with dead bodies was already illegal in the 1970s too. Not sure what your point is. --John (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The former girls from Duncroft Approved School are saying the same things now that they were saying in the early 1990s. Back then, no newspapers would publish the allegations, and the police showed little real interest in pursuing the matter in 2009. Savile was therefore a lucky man, as things would, one hopes, be done differently today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems he's still pretty lucky to get his crimes described merely as "allegations" here? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, he is lucky, but we will never know how many of the allegations would have stood up in court. In real life it should be more difficult than making the allegation and leaving it at that. It's interesting that this discussion is about a section header rather than the text itself. Over at Cyril Smith, the section headers are "Sexual and physical abuse allegations" and "Early allegations" so once again Smith is not being tried in absentia, even though there was considerable evidence that he did this sort of thing. I would welcome some fresh eyes on this as we have started to go round in circles and say the same things.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

John seems to have an issue purely with the section heading. Yes, that CS article lead says clearly: "After his death, numerous allegations of child sexual abuse by Smith emerged (including many made during his lifetime), leading the police to believe that Smith was a serial sex offender." But then other pies exist. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Fred West is an interesting comparator, as is Adolf Hitler, who was also never convicted of any crime. We don't discuss Hitler's "alleged" responsibility for the Holocaust, because all proper sources assign blame to him. Although Savile's crimes are less heinous than Hitler's, the degree of corroboration and unanimity of sources is similar here. I think Cyril Smith is probably almost as clearcut as this one. We don't need to say "alleged". --John (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

And Godwin's law is proved again. The main similarity is the Cyril Smith article. Smith very probably had dodgy habits with children, but like Savile he was able to use the combination of his fame and the soft pre-Yewtree rules to slip through the net and die without being prosecuted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll have you know that Adolf was very good to his mother and of course loved Irish folk music. Not sure if that enhances his reputation or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC) p.s. also never known to have worn a gold chain with a shellsuit.

Yawn. Godwin's Law. How very original. You're right, we need more input here, as it seems we are stuck in a horse's nest of original research, synthesis and well-meaning vacuity. The "alleged" would have been justified in 2011. It is not in 2018. As every single source says. --John (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I admit my vacuity may be borderline facetiousness. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"The "alleged" would have been justified in 2011. It is not in 2018." Why not? What's changed? Britmax (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The sources have changed. Our joint understanding of reality has changed. The article needs to change to reflect that. --John (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to re-open Godwin's law territory - but actually what AH's role was in relation to the Holocaust - and how to summarise that in our lead, are recurring conundrums for historians and WP editors. Sure, no serious historian thinks AH was 'innocent', but all have to admit that no single 'smoking gun' document exists - though most conclude that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that it happened at his 'bidding', and with his knowledge and approval. Our response is to summarise the available evidence and conclusions of RS in the body and give a (very, very slightly understated) statement in the lead. Pincrete (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest that use of the word "scandal", as in the title of the article Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, brings an inherent assumption that the sexual abuse actually took place. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Major changes while RfC is underway

I've restored the lead for three reasons:

a) major changes shouldn't be made with an open RfC, otherwise how does anyhow know what is being discussed?

b) presently opinion on RfC is that major change is not called for, - that may change as the RfC proceeds, but at present nothing this drastic is supported.

c) we cannot say in WPVOICE that 'cover ups' occurred, the source does not say that - while critical of the BBC, and some staff, it falls very short of claiming any 'cover ups'. Extremely strong sources would be needed for such a claim - unless we wanted to hear from BBC lawyers of course. Pincrete (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning for the revert, but regarding reference to a cover up, the source you are referencing may not use that language, but many, many do. That claim has been a central feature of discussion of Savile's assaults since the story finally broke into the mainstream, starting with the very first report by The Oldie. I actually think that's a pretty prominent aspect of the story which the article kind of speeds past; there were, without question, affirmative acts by highly positioned figures working for shows within BBC news service to bury the story because the country was busy celebrating the man's life. Some have described these actions as simple bias, but many go further in describing it as a cover-up, given it involved shutting down a completed story for which victims had been interviewed on and off camera and which had uncovered the previous police investigations (themselves buried for more legal reasons)--and I dare say that language reflects the common view now. Indeed if not for the fact that BBC employees leaked the information to an outside reporter (Miles Goslett) whose own investigation turned the cancelled story into a story itself, who knows how much longer the truth would have stayed buried from public view. Even then, Goslett says he had to shop the story through numerous news venues before deciding Richard Ingrams was the only one likely to publish; more than one of those papers turned out to be already aware of the allegations but had previously decided not to run the story because Savile had only recently died and was regarded as a national treasure. It's unsurprising to me that sources (and the public generally) now regard that cone of silence as a cover up, even if it was uncoordinated between the various players. And all of that is just speaking to one story--nevermind the previous decades of concerted efforts to shield Savile from scrutiny while he was alive. I don't see the exact wording from the lead you are referencing, so I can't speak as to whether or not I would have supported it, but I certainly don't have strong objection to use of that language in the article generally, where appropriate. It's accurate and, more to the point for our uses here, it's supported by the sources. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Savile's behaviour was not covered up. Every journalist in Fleet Street had heard stories about him, but his status as a national treasure and willingness to take legal action discouraged people from publishing material while he was alive. The BBC's decision to drop the Newsnight report was based on the fact that he had never been arrested or charged over Duncroft. While this may have made sense to BBC bosses at the time, it failed to take into account that Savile was given an easy ride by Surrey Police and that numerous similar complaints would have been discovered if the police had been willing to dig deeper.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment, especially in the fairly absolutist terms in which you frame it. To an extent, it's a matter of perspective/semantics, I suppose, but I've followed the story behind the investigations to some depth in the past, and I have no problem viewing the decision to kill that story (which included filmed statements from credible victims and details of the criminal investigation) in order to clear the way for a holiday celebration of the man's "humanitarian legacy" to be reasonably described as a cover-up. But more to the point, we won't be using my idiosyncratic analysis of the situation or yours to decide the shape of our content, but rather what we find in the WP:WEIGHT of the WP:Reliable sources. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Which sources I do recognize are all over the map, incidentally. Plenty are explicit in the cover-up language, while others speak more obliquely of the BBC's "Scandal" (capital letter intended). I was not arguing Pincrete should reintroduce the alluded-too language in the lead, so much as validating that it's use elsewhere in the article is defensible, given the right context. At a bare minimum we can certainly include (well attributed) references to when parties -- dare I say it? -- allege that a cover up took place. And we should do so, when it is consistent with WP:WEIGHT. A paradigmatic example is The Oldie's breaking coverage (and their sustained framing of the issue in those terms, for that matter, though only the former is employed in the article presently). But I was kind of surprised to find that it was the one and only time the term appears in the article. I'm not suggesting any proposed additions, but I would probably be amenable to the notion--again, given the right context, sourcing and weight arguments.

Incidentally, I know that in the present era there can be a reasonable resistance that comes when discussion of media cover ups begins. That accusation has been so abused, overused, and hyperbolicly exploited for polemical purposes in recent times, that in creates a gut reaction in reasonable people, I think. But I do not readily go in for such accusations when they are not predicated in well-attested facts. And trust me that I have no specifically anti-BBC bias--it's been a cornerstone of my media consumption most of my life, and is likely to stay that way. But the details of this scandal are well-documented and not pretty, and I don't mind giving voice to highly critical perspectives relating to the massive social phenomena that was the fallout of the curtain being raised on media complicity with this man's crimes. Again, with the other eye towards reasonable weight and considerations of summary style; we do have other articles where this is all discussed and contextualized after-all. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise I think we are broadly 'singing from the same hymn-sheet', but just to clarify. My objection was using WP:VOICE to say there were 'cover-ups'. Apart from being borderline libellous, it's pointless unless we say who was accused of covering up what and when and by whom.

I agree that it is very easy to believe that the BBC decided to kill the Newsnight story for largely 'commercial' reasons - tinged perhaps with journalistic scruples about the solidity of the story. I'm a bit more sympathetic towards them for doing so than many of the press - some very, very senior BBC people have had to 'walk the plank' about making the wrong decisions about 'hot' stories - going with them or defending them - including 'dodgy dossiers' and child abuse allegations. Ultimately, it made the wrong decision in this case and has paid very dearly in terms of reputation. The press was of course party to all the same rumours, but didn't kill the story, simply never gave birth to it.

In terms of the article, I think we should trust the reader, just as we have read the evidence and come to conclusions as to what is probably true - so will they. If the reader thinks we may be giving JS a little too much benefit of the doubt, it could be that we have got the balance right. Pincrete (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we mostly seem to be on the same page here; on these facts, we should not be describing anything as a 'cover-up' in Wikipedia's voice. I do think there are plenty of sources which view the events in such a way, and I could see myself supporting more than the one usage of the term presently in the article, or substantially similar language. Again, given the right context, source, and very meticulous attribution. Even then, I am not proposing any new additions but merely noting that I wouldn't rule out additional discussion of such perspectives as appropriate.

My sympathies for the journalists here don't run quite as deep as yours. I agree that in the UK today it is a difficult to walk the line between journalistic integrity and a system which can over-emphasize caution and doubt. But given the facts here, it's easy to see why people widely perceived this to be the ultimate example of the usual instinctive closing of the ranks to protect one of the privileged--someone whose image was too intertwined with that of the parent institution and persons of influence, and in whom a lot of prestige had been invested. Especially when you add in the element of another another story with which people are all to exhausted when it comes to sexual violence: ignoring or minimizing victims.

Framing the general cultural response to this whole sordid mess while maintaining a neutral tone is no easy thing, and I do understand the impulse to scrupulously partition value judgements from statements made in Wikipedia's voice. I also agree that our primary role here is to provide the reader with a well-weighted presentation of the facts that they may arrive at their own conclusions. That said, I don't agree that we need to err on the side of maybe being even a little generous to Savile, as a matter of caution. In this instance, I'd rather hit the beat dead in the center of what the WP:Weight of the sources says, same as for any article on a serial predator.

Learning the reality of Jimmy Savile's existence is in many respects Britain's equivalent of the 2012 Delhi gang rape--something so horrific that for one elucidating moment, a nation could no longer manage to ignore something that it had conditioned itself to habitually look past even though it often spilled over into plain sight. Now, that is a story that we can tell across multiple articles without letting all of the weight fall here, but it is now Savile's primary legacy and the article should reflect that reality, as a matter of fidelity with how sources view this topic, seven years on. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that we need to err on the side of being a little generous to Savile - I was saying that a properly balanced article may well give many resders the impression that we have been too generous to him. That isn't a policy based argument of course, merely an observation. Pincrete (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem with wanting to put "OMG Savile was a paedo" or similar wording in the opening sentence is that it fails to establish a proper context. Savile was the most famous radio and television personality and charity fundraiser in Britain for many years, and this is what made him notable in the first instance. He was friends with prime ministers and royalty, and received honours from all over the world, including the pope. And then it all went wrong after his death. It wasn't a great surprise, as Savile had to deal with mutterings about his private life while he was alive, but was able to deflect them with a mixture of outright denials and threats of legal action. As his short-lived headstone said: "It was good while it lasted." This has been seen as a recognition on Savile's part that things might not be so easy after his death.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed as to all of that; personally I don't find Pincrete's revert to be at all controversial and it doesn't seem anyone else does--not even the editor whom he reverted has pushed back against the edit. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

My mistake; I thought you were saying that because this article is BLP-adjacent that we needed to skew the summary slightly towards the skeptical, but I clearly misread you. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's not particularly worthwhile to use the phrase "cover up," because it's usually far more passive than that. Plus, in most cases of abuse, whether sexual or otherwise, you are merely going to suspect, perhaps strongly suspect, but only very seldom will you know for sure. So, most people are happy to settle on a reason why they shouldn't do anything. Most people just don't have the set of skills for doing more than this. For example, someone might talk with a close family member or a trusted friend and focus on the question, okay, what might be a reasonable medium step for me to do next? This would be quite a bit better than average. (and it is sad that people often don't have the skills and that these things can go on far longer than they need to) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence should include a descriptor that reflects what he is primarily known for

The first sentence is essentially supposed to be a lead in the lead by very briefly summarizing the most important aspects of the article. Per WP:LEAD, "the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is". The first sentence is also very important because it's the only part of the article that tends to get included in search engine snippets and in Google's Knowledge Graph which relies heavily on Wikipedia and Wikidata.

Currently the first sentence mentions several relatively obscure, secondary activities such as "dance hall manager". Conspicuously, it does not mention what Savile is primarily known for on a global basis, namely the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. As a result, the description of Savile in Google's Knowledge Graph is: Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE was an English DJ, television and radio personality, dance hall manager, and charity fundraiser, followed by a link to Wikipedia. Someone who relied on Google's Knowledge Graph would get the impression that Savile was a respected dance hall manager who had never done or been accused of anything sinister. That is of course unacceptable.

The first sentence needs a descriptor that relates to the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. Per the title of that in-depth article, "sexual abuser" or "sexual molester", possibly with the addition of the word "accused", would be the most obvious alternatives.

I also think that "dance hall manager" and possibly some of the other less relevant descriptors should be removed from the first sentence and only mentioned below in the lead. --Tataral (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

What if "Google's Knowledge Graph" is an over-simplistic gimmick, invented by a huge internet corporation, bent on world domination? I think an encyclopedia deserves more than being boiled down into a series of one-line sound-bites, don't you? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

"Google's Knowledge Graph", whatever it is, has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia and we should take no notice of it. Savile's notability was well established at the time of his death and before the allegations against him became public. But, there's a good case for removing "dance hall manager" from the opening sentence - it was an early stage in his career, no more. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, even if you don't use Google, most of Wikipedia's traffic comes from Google, so the big fact box displayed to the right of Google search results does matter. It also doesn't matter that Savile was notable (worthy of a Wikipedia biography) before his infamy; he became hundred times more notable after that when he became widely known in the rest of the world in connection with sexual abuse, with his previous career as mere background information, whereas he was previously only known domestically in one of the world's nearly 200 countries. A descriptor related to that is clearly supported by Wikipedia policy, the content of this article and the existence of an in-depth article on the topic.

Right now his main claim to fame is conspicuously omitted from a first sentence that is otherwise ridiculously detailed, even squeezing in his obscure "OBE" award and "dance hall manager"(!); until now it may not have been intentional, but if we don't correct it it becomes a case of deliberate whitewashing. --Tataral (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

This is simplistic and has been rejected at other articles such as Rolf Harris. No doubt it would please some people to put "Rolf Harris is a paedo" in the opening sentence. Plenty of people have tried this, arguing that it is what he is most notable for. However, if he did not have a notable career in show business, his sex offence convictions might have received only a few paragraphs in the local newspaper. Likewise with Savile. If he had not been hugely famous as a disc jockey, television personality and charity fundraiser, none of this would have happened in the first place. It is highly misleading to use Google search results to say "Savile is most notable for being a paedo" when anyone older than a millennial knows that there is a lot more background to the situation. WP:GOOGLE is also worth reading, as it explains why Wikipedia policy is not a slave to search engine results.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also written for people under 40, not only for the old and middle-aged, and frankly millennials constitute the bulk of our readers and your attempt to dismiss their relevance is revealing. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not written exclusively for a UK audience. Savile became widely known in the rest of the world (not only among millennials but also among senior citizens) for the first time only in connection with his sexual abuse. Mentioning that in the first sentence along with a whole bunch of other descriptors related to his less well-known and less relevant musical career is really not too much to ask for; it doesn't even imply that he was more notable for sexual abuse (which he clearly was), only that it's at least as important as him being a "dance hall manager" and "charity fundraiser"(!). And no, I don't think your theory that he "might have received only a few paragraphs in the local newspaper" for being the most prolific sexual predator in UK history, as the police described him, would be plausible under any circumstances. --Tataral (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest that reader age is an enormous and irrelevant red herring. An encyclopedia entry should simply present a fair and balanced summary of the facts of a subject's entire life, quite regardless of the relative age of the hypothetical reader. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think Tataral is saying we should not dismiss and ignore millennials.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree "dance hall manager" could be removed as not lead-worthy. But I'm not sure why you think his OBE is "obscure". Such post-nominals are generally included by default. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC on "alleged"

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.

There is broad agreement that the description of Savile's crimes should reflect the language used in reliable sources, following the principle of due weight. Suggestions that we should apply some other standard, such as the English common law concept of reasonable doubt, have no basis in policy. Unfortunately, no two editors have reached the same conclusion on exactly which language is supported by the balance of sources. There is a rough consensus that the word "alleged" is used too frequently and too prominently in the current version of the article, but no consensus on whether it should be used most of the time, omitted most of the time, or omitted entirely.

I would suggest that editors proceed by rewording individual passages based on an analysis of the relevant sources, seeking clearer consensus on a case-by-case basis. – Joe (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Should the article still refer to Jimmy Savile's "alleged" crimes? --John (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The above section is TL:DR. Are you suggesting that we don't mention them at all? Can you clarify what you actually want please? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Certainly. The article refers to Savile's crimes as "alleged", because they came to light after his death and so were never tested in a court, as we do not try the dead. All quality sources now refer to them as being crimes, and a public apology was made by the Health Secretary for the NHS's failure to act on complaints received. This read, in part: "Savile was a callous, opportunistic, wicked predator who abused and raped individuals, many of them patients and young people, who expected and had a right to expect to be safe." In light of this, I don't think the term "alleged" is necessary, appropriate or helpful. --John (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please link us to the exact source of these remarks. Britmax (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Certainly. It's easy to find. The article uses this source which is quite a good one. --John (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for the thought provoking discussion. It seems to me that there has been a misplaced importance placed on the lack of a conviction. The relevant documents are reliable sources. A court conviction is of course very reliable, making it's reliability almost absolute. But, it is nothing more than an evidential source, that can, here on WP, be weighed against other reliable sources. In the case of JS we have no conviction to use as a source, but we do have very many other top quality sources that say he was a sex offender. Surely that should be enough? The same applies to Fred West and Adolf Hitler. Their offending is not labelled as 'alleged', presumably because the reliable sources against them are so great and not challenged. The sources against JS are not quite so great, although great enough for WP, so that seems to be why we hesitate in removing the term 'alleged from his offending. Another reason why we place so much importance on a conviction is due to the liable issues relating to living persons, which, in my view, is just a result of the very high standard of truth placed on a court decision. An interesting exercise would be to look at a conviction of a living person that has been consistently questioned as a miscarriage of justice. We should look at the RSs and come to our own decision based on that. In nearly all usual trial cases we will agree with the court because of the strength of the source court decision, but not always. In conclusion, I wonder if the use by us of the term 'alleged' is in fact a POV because we are not basing the use of that term on the available RSs. We have to use the term 'alleged' for a living person even with overwhelming RS evidence against them, due to liable laws, but that is a different consideration. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think initially that this was a big deal, because Cyril Smith uses similar wording without any problems. Obviously Savile's reputation is lying in ruins, but if you look at the reason why, it is because of allegations made after his death. We will never know how many of these would have stood up in court, and the key thing is that the goalposts for historic sexual abuse cases were moved after Savile's death, as Gordon Anglesea discovered.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the word “alleged” occurs 15 times. But one concerns Chris Morris, two concern the BBC over-up and 7 are in the titles of refs. This leaves 5 relating to Savile’s abuse, two of which are in the lead. The word “allegations” occurs 24 times, 7 of which are in the titles of refs, leaving 17 in the article body, 3 of which are in the lead (with 2 of these in piped links). It was the section heading “Allegations of sexual abuse” that triggered this discussion. But the RfC just says: “Should the article still refer to Jimmy Savile's "alleged" crimes?” I think some instances will be more justifiable than others. I guess it’s the use of these words in the lead section and in any section heading that are the real focus of this RfC. But perhaps John could clarify? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I may be in a minority of one here, but as I said in the discussion above, I still think it would be better keep the word "alleged". Nothing has been proved against Savile beyond reasonable doubt. Alarics (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Just in that single section heading? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I think, as you say and as Snow Rise says below, there will be some that are more justified than others. If we remove the word from the heading, we can then see which of the other ones need to be kept. I agree that ...it may make sense to use "alleged" in describing specific allegations and details, in a manner that parallels the degree to which "allegation" is used in the sources relevant to those specific facts; of course, as the emphasis has changed over time, we'd need to make sure we were using recent sources to make this judgement. --John (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I think what Snow Rise says below is perfectly reasonable and I would support it. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Support omission of "alleged" as a modifier to these crimes in most (but probably not all) contexts, as per WP:RS: This is a pretty straight forward WP:WEIGHT analysis, at the end of the day. It may well be that certain editors have doubts as to the standard by which society has judged Savile guilty of the crimes in question after his death; on the flip side, others may find it bemusing that we'd even contemplate describing the conduct as anything short of glaring reality, with hundreds of credible victims having come forward. But our personal feelings on such matters are, as a very basic and fundamental principle of explicit policy and community consensus, irrelevant; we don't insert ourselves into the role of adjudicating whether the analysis of reliable sources got a matter right, we only faithfully represent what the sources say, on the balance (WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT). If we instead tried to insert our own notion of what would be a "fair" description of Savile's guilt, it would be a clear-cut case of WP:Original research.

I've looked at numerous sources now (both those used in the article and others besides), and it seems to me that "alleged" was (predictably) used for most initial reports, but that this language began to fall away as the groundswell of accusers grew to massive proportions. At this point, I would say it probably reflects the weight of sources to describe Savile as a sexual predator without the need for qualifiers in most circumstances, but at the same time, it may make sense to use "alleged" in describing specific allegations and details, in a manner that parallels the degree to which "allegation" is used in the sources relevant to those specific facts. Incidentally, it is worth noting that a search of just about any biographical article relating to an accused/known pedophile (or at least the ones I've been RfC'd to in the past) will reveal that this debate arises on almost all of them and the conclusion is always that we must keep fidelity with the sources, but that an extra level of scrutiny of said sources is prudent, in these circumstances. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Broadly alleged reading the discussions above - something approaching a 'natural agreement' appears to be evolving around when, rather than if 'alleged' and 'allegations should be used and I would support the cautious approach of Snow Rise above. There are sometimes 'narrative' reasons why allegations is apt (allegations were made, then police or others investigated, they reported XYZ which was damning overall - but unverifiable in any particulars). If I reduce this question to its crudest form - should we be saying that "Jim did it"? - the answer has to be no - should we be saying that any or which specific allegations were substantiated? Again no, because they haven't been. Having read the article, I think it gets the balance approximately right. No disrespect to the victims, but in a sense the real story is that he was doing this in everyone's sight. He fooled a public, who treated his inappropriate 'jokiness' to young women in public gaze as harmless eccentricity. Pincrete (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Say Alleged - it's not a bad word, don't ban it. Use it in the section title, but do not feel compelled to force it on where it does not fit naturally. (15 sounds like too many, but the article no longer has 15 so this may be moot). Alleged does appear commonly used by google count (and commonly not used) but I think the story can be conveyed better with that allowed, to include many RS which use that phrasing and without affecting the impression gotten or limiting the content whereas excluding 'allegation' would have a negative effect. Mention the Independent said it as 500 victims in 200 allegations. Other parts can be conveyed without either allegation or crime said. Mention the official apologies. Mention the abuse scandal. Mention the compensation paid out from the BBC, the NHS, and Barnardos -- and the Lawyers getting basically all of the estate. Those parts do not need to say 'crime' or 'alleged crime' at all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Go with journalistic sources. As a Yank, I'd say we don't need to rewrite the New York Times, Washington Post, Cleveland Plain Dealer, etc. as if we are some kind of higher source. And same conclusion applies to UK sources.
PS The really interesting question — and crucially important issue — is how institutions had almost an automatic "circle the wagons" response to reports of abuse during Savile's lifetime. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Savile&diff=846640708&oldid=846535905
I went bold and brave! :-) Since the sexual abuse is now what Savile is best known for, that's what we should go with first. And not 4+ lines of plain vanilla. Plain vanilla DOES NOT equal neutrality, at least not in my universe. And really, if someone is from another country and does not know what Savile is all about, we should tell them just as forthrightly as we can. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not going to revert you myself, but I very much doubt that's gonna fly with most editors here, even those who personally feel that the man was an irredeemable excuse for a human being. Personally, whether you are the type who approaches BLPs with an extreme amount of reservation regarding negative coverage (even in the case of individuals who were clearly predators), or you are closer to the other side of the spectrum and want the article to be more perfectly plain and explicit about the nature of Savile's crimes, I think the extra context of those first two sentences is kind of essential to setting up the nature of Savile's assaults on children and how they went disregarded for so long; that's fairly important to understanding the encyclopedic topic here, even if we all agree that the assaults are the core of the subject's notability. I also think the way you have worded that sentence is awkward for a lead sentence; the syntax and flow just don't quite work without something before them. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The JS story would not be what it is without the plain vanilla. That point might need to be made clearer for non-UK readers, or even for UK readers of a younger generation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there's something to be said for the "narrative" considerations that Pincrete mentions obliquely above. I don't find the "he never was convicted argument" that convincing as a reason to shoehorn in "alleged" in every instance. Even if we were to judge the content on the basis of trading our preferred versions of WP:Original research on the topic, I would say that once several hundred people have accused someone of sexually abusing them as a child, that person abused some children--and to avoid saying that, we would have to break with the reality almost all persons accept at this point. I think that's actually not a bad rational argument in itself, but of course, we don't use that kind of idiosyncratic approach to decide how to represent a topic, no matter how well-reasoned we are convinced we are being with our arguments. We of course have to go with the weight of the reliable sources instead. In that respect, the picture is a little more complex, reflecting the evolution of the story and the crumbling of a wall of silence that apparently had been maintained in full public view. Because of that history, and because of the nature of libel law in the UK, it is not surprising that even as the evidence and chorus of victims have mounted to proportions where now nobody really doubts the veracity of the reports, some media use (or did use, at the time the story was breaking) language of "allegation"--though by no means all (or even the majority) today.

That backdrop all has to somehow be elegantly conveyed in the lead, or at least all of those details should inform upon it. The article must show the contrast between the spectacle of who this man was held up to be and the horrific reality of who he really was, in order to also impart the magnitude of the unspoken collaboration that had to go into covering for and excusing him (or just doubting his victims). That painful lesson for media, for other institutions that most felt should have been doing more to look out for victims, and for society at large is part of the Jimmy Savile story that is understood from context for those in/from the UK who are old enough to know the full progression of events, but that whole story has to be more explicitly stated in an encyclopedia entry for which the average reader is probably not British. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with what you say about the wall of silence and how persons in institutions should have been quite a bit more proactive. As far as journalism here in the states
https://www.theatlantic.com/
often has great, thoughtful pieces. Don't know if they covered the Savile story, but similar UK sources . . . say, on how the benefit of the doubt was given to the reputation and "safety" of the institutions themselves, rather than actual persons the said institutions were supposed to be serving? Or different facets on how the bad stuff went on for so long. Let's certainly include such sources as we find them.
And then there's the aspect of how people commonly use Wikipedia, frequently looking up the topic on google, scanning the Wikipedia box, scanning the other search results on the first page, and that's it. And we make better progress accepting how people in fact commonly use Wikipedia.
For example, a google search on Tom Keating pulls up the (slightly modified) Wiki beginning:
"Thomas Patrick Keating was an English art restorer and famous art forger who claimed to have faked more than 2,000 paintings by over 100 different artists." [and really, who cares about some art forger ripping off rich people compared to some guy abusing kids!]
But that's all we get, 26 words. Let us endeavor to use them wisely. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter, there were a couple of interviews with a fellow DJ, who said that anyone working with JS had heard these stories 40 years ago - when challenged at the end to say why he did nothing, the DJ offered two reasons, firstly he had had no proof, only rumours - secondly, and most perceptively to my mind - he said the public had not wanted to know - the public was not prepared until recently to face the fact that their idol was not a lovable eccentric, but a sleazy scum bag who preyed on weak vulnerable girls and women for 15 second sexual encounters. I looked at some of the evidence gathered by one of the major enquiries - mainly about activities in the 1960-1980 period at the BBC. While compellingly convincing in its totality, I suspect none of the allegations would have stood up in court - certainly not a court X years ago. All the usual reasons, old evidence, flawed memory, unwillingness to testify, witnesses that would have been easy to discredit. JS had enormous power, not in the usual sense of money or connections - though he may have had some of those, but primarily in terms of his public image. There were a small number of police prepared to 'stick at it', but I suspect even they would admit that they didn't 'have the goods' while JS was alive. The BBC decision to 'kill the story' after his death, was probably a really dumb one - which certainly reflected badly on them in the end. This is off-topic and OR I know, but I think a big part of the reason he got away with it is the public did not, and wouldn't have wanted to know this - certainly not at the height of his popularity. Pincrete (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Addendum: Many of the most serious allegations only came to light after the issue came out into the open, after his death- one of the striking features of the inquiry testimonies I read was how many of the girls (long since adult women), openly said that they wouldn't have wanted to harm him at the time, wouldn't have been prepared to say what was happening to them - indeed continued to compete to be part of his 'glamourous inner circle' - I don't say that to justify of course, simply to indicate how hard it would have been to expose him THEN. Pincrete (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Ehh, have to disagree with you on some of the particulars here. There were plenty of quite serious allegations made before Savile's death, investigated by the police on multiple occasions, no less. I'm unfamiliar with particular statements you are referencing regarding women (Duncroft victims I assume from the context of your description) who "continued to compete to be in his inner circle" after suffering abuse, but there were certainly many more who were more than willing to try to expose Savile, and indeed tried, going to police and reporters over the years. I personally find the "the public was not ready to know" to be nonsensical self-rationalization for a celebrity community that towed the line and refused to speak up during an effort to purge any reference to these widely accepted facts from public view. (And here I am not speaking to your speculation after the fact, which I regard as an effort at objective assessment though I strongly disagree with it, but rather about those who had personal knowledge and joined, to varying degrees, the cone of silence and now throw up their hands as if the indirectness of their observation of these events is enough to explain how they collectively allowed a man to go on raping hundreds of particularly vulnerable children for decades). Given the number of accusers, I also disagree with the assessment that the man could not have been brought to justice if the victims had been given more credence and encouragement. But of course we are getting a bit into the weeds now and away from presently live editorial issues. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The testimonies of the young women I was referring to (inner circle) were in the BBC inquiry (Dame Somebody-Somebody), it wasn't made explicit how they first came into contact with Savile and the inquiry may have been consciously protecting their identities, but they were regulars at Top of the Pops etc. Within those accusations, there were certainly accusations of rape (non-consenting penetration) of under-age girls, masturbating in their presence, asking to be fellated, plenty more were 'groping' inside knickers and tops, exposing himself, etc. - so there is no question of the seriousness of the accusations.

Responding to other points made above and below, I don't doubt that there have been serious accusations of 'cover-up', 'failure to act' etc., but to put into WPVOICE that there were 'cover-ups' (ie conscious acts to hide the truth) would require very, very, very strong sourcing indeed. Also it would be pointless to say it unless we were able to state who did the 'covering-up' - otherwise it's just "somebody should have stopped him", which is I'm sure how most people feel, but it's actually just a statement of exasperation, not factual info.

To correct an impression elsewhere, the BBC enquiry didn't conclude that these allegations were true - the parts I read used language like "I found the witness/accusation credible", and "it appeared to be consistent with the testimony of X". In other words, the enquiry concluded something like "the balance of evidence is that many of these accusations were probably true". Somewhere between 'whitewashing' JS and 'roasting' him, is an account that conveys that much of this side of his life is very credibly true, but actually, we don't know for sure. Pincrete (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A few here seem to think that the order of the current lead is hiding something, or that the "allegeds" are there just to protect Savile. They are not. The order of the lead gives an idea of the order in which things happened. This is not a Hollywood poster in which "star billing" goes first. He became famous and that enabled him to do these things with impunity. And alleged protects people, anyone whose reputation can now be detroyed by anyone with a grudge and enough mates on Twitter and Facebook to make it stick. The lead is fine as it is, to anyone that can read English who has more than a five second attention span. Britmax (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Savile's reputation was mixed, even during his lifetime. Margaret Thatcher liked him and tried to give him a knighthood four times, but top civil servants including Robert Armstrong, Baron Armstrong of Ilminster said no because of stories they had heard about him.[4][5] The article needs to make this clear rather than going down the modern route of writing history backwards.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: "allowed a man to go on raping hundreds of particularly vulnerable children for decades" is a good example of the sort of near-hysterical exaggeration that I find so troubling in this kind of case. No "rape" has been proven, and it is clear from all the coverage that nearly all of what went on was "trying for a quick grope" falling an extremely long way short of rape. This applies in particular to the only two of the Duncroft allegations for which there is any actual evidence. Also, most of his alleged victims seem to have been young women rather than "children". (This is why the press is misleading when it keeps describing him as a "paedophile".) -- Alarics (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Uhh, have you even so much as read the very article we're talking about here, or done any kind of concerted research on the matter? Meaning no offense, but you seem woefully out of date on the facts here. To the point that I don't even know where to start with your assertions above. If by "no rape has been proven" you mean he was never convicted--well, yeah, that's the entire point of the immensity of this scandal: he avoided facing justice for any of this. But numerous governmental inquiries and other heavily scrutinized investigations found that there are hundreds of credible accounts, including dozens of acts that could be charged as rapes. (And I personally don't care to debate nomenclature regarding whether "rape" is precisely the right noun we use for all the other numerous assaults against children--or "young women" for that matter). Personally I feel that if you honestly believe that all Savile did was "try for a quick grope" (which I find to be an uncomfortably dismissive way of describing/minimizing sexual assault) and you want to quibble about how many twelve year olds vs sixteen year olds he assaulted before we can apply this or that label, I doubt very much we are going to be on the same page here and you will find much of the content in the article to be "hysterical" in the same way. But suffice it to say it disagrees sharply with what you believe to be the facts here. As do, indeed, just about every major journalistic inquiry, documentary, criminal investigation, and internal probe conducted on the matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Tell you what, let's not bother with a tradition of justice built up over centuries. Let's just assume that all allegation are true. Pick up your torch and pitchfork on the way out. Britmax (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

A) Discussion here has made it explicitly clear that we are not talking about formulating content based on anything but what is found in the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources. If you don't like the general conclusions of those sources, take it up with them.

B) It absolute patent nonsense to liken the reasonable belief that Jimmy Savile definetly was a sexual predator to mob mentality. Actually, did I say nonsense? Because what it truly is more than anything is disturbing. People aren't arriving at this conclusion out of a raw desire to vilify. There's a more substantial body of evidence for these crimes than that for just about an other serial sexual predator you can name. Have you genuinely not heard of Operation Yewtree? This "he was not charged during his lifetime and therefore there can never be a threshold of evidence sufficient for us to arrive at the conclusion that he committed these crimes" standard is just outright bizarre to me. It doesn't even comport with how our tradition of justice, as you put it, views such things; an individual can be found to have committed a criminal act as a finding of fact even if they can no longer be charged as a matter of law in numerous contexts. A failure to prosecute during lifetime ≠ an irrefutable and eternal presumption of innocence so strong that we must bury our heads in the sand forever--not as a legal matter, not as a rational matter, and not as reasonable empirical/burden of proof matter.

Frankly, analogizing people who feel that such evidence has arrived six years after the conclusion of multiple government and independent probes which concluded that these crimes happened (and after the discovery of hundreds of credible victims and the revelation of decades of suppressed reports in media) to pitchfork wielding peasants suffering from mob mentality is just plain...let's say weird and leave it at that. But even if I can't convince you that your standard of proof departs from reality and (I would assert) says more about your implicit biases than the ones you are attempting to imply on the part of those who accept the findings of various exhaustive investigations, you still might consider not using such a loaded metaphor as you did out of simply civility and open mindedness. For example, no one has used the inverse metaphor and told you that you are "circling the wagons" just because you happen to not accept Savile's guilt despite the evidence, are they? Snow ^{let's rap} 18:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This is why people get into trouble on social media. We are not shooting the breeze down the pub with our mates. This is a public forum. Why do you think people in public life ues the word "alleged" in the first place? Britmax (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really quite get what any of that means in this context; of course this is a public space, but not a single one of the facts mentioned above is anything that isn't already represented in multiple of our articles on this topic, and consistently through the virtual ocean of sourceable authority on this topic, from the findings documents of numerous governmental probes and criminal investigations, to a truly staggering amount of investigative journalism. So I don't understand why you are focusing your objections on this discussion here. But in response to your confusing social media allusion, I can tell you this, and frankly: if we were having this discussion on social media, I wouldn't be worried that what I was the one saying something fringe. But of course, we're not on social media, and that's really germane, isn't it? We're here to build an encyclopedia. So if you object to any of the facts asserted above, by all means, bring WP:reliable sources to defend your stance and we'll re-evaluate the WP:WEIGHT justification of statements. Short of that, we're way off in the weeds here and I can't see how continuing this line of discussion is doing either of us or the article any good, so we'll just have to leave this at profound disagreement. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't use the word "alleged", given the avaiable evidence it's pretty certain that he did it and while he was never convicted that was solely because of his death. Using the word here for incidents that clearly have happened just devalues the term when used for situation where real doubt about the exact events exist, if you want to protect innocent people from having their reputation destroyed don't devalue the word "alleged" by using it in clearly inappropriate contexts.Zubin12 (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NDESC comments on the use of the word "allegations" and cases when it could/shouldn't be used in titles. There are many sources that clearly have no doubt that had the legal system have worked during his lifetime he would have been found guilty, but in this article the title of the section headed "allegations of…" seems suitable given that the content is not just about Savile’s behaviour but mainly about the claims and accusations against him and the failures of people to do more at the time. EdwardUK (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment (Summoned by bot) Context is needed. Without knowing the context in which "alleged" is used one can't provide a useful response. Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2018 (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.

We have 26 words to do a good summary

Again and again, I've seen people do a google search, look at the information in the box, scan the rest of the google search results, and never open the wiki article. The google box tends to be 26 words. In addition, as an American, I have never heard a single fellow America talk about Jimmy Savile off-line. So, in other words, yes, I think the sexual abuse needs to be front and center. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, FRO, but your latest re-do of the lead is well off the mark. The earlier version was far better. You cannot dismiss how the man was regarded in the UK before his death in the way your edit has done. He was much more than a radio presenter. It has already been covered that we do not edit WP to assist Google and I am surprised that you do not seem to be accepting that fact. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Savile was British and it is hard to explain him if you are a modern non-British person looking at the Internet. There will be a huge amount of stuff about the controversy after his death, and it fails to place into context his fame and status as a national treasure during his lifetime. Removing the OBE and saying that he was chiefly notable for being a paedo shows little sense of historical perspective.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it has not at all been "covered" that we ignore how Wikipedia articles show up in search results, which isn't about assisting search engines either, but rather about assisting Wikipedia's readers by following the manual of style and providing information in a succinct manner, and by not deliberately burying information about sexual abuse. The inclusion of the most notable descriptors of a given topic is clearly supported by Wikipedia policy, and in his case, he's more notable for sexual abuse than anything else and it needs to be mentioned in the first sentence. --Tataral (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I hope to steer a middle course. Okay, I think we can have one sentence which (1) says Savile was a huge star in the UK, and (2) that it was widely publicized after his death that he really was a bad guy sexual abuser.

In fact, where I talk about the repetition between the first and second paragraphs of our lead (please see below), I think that's an opening and a way forward in which we can help to make an already good article even better. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

We have 26 words to do a good summary So that's a brand new policy for Wikipedia, yes? Or is it just so Donald Trump can understand it? ... one gloriously inane soundbite at a time. "In the land of the dumb, the 26 word encyclopedia is king."?? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, the first paragraph of our lead currently states, " . . was the first and last presenter of the long-running BBC music chart show Top of the Pops, . . "

And the second paragraph states, " . . At the BBC, he presented the first edition of Top of the Pops in 1964 . . "

Is this level of repetition really necessary for our lead?

And I don't view a concise summary and a good overview as assisting Google, or anything of the sort. I view it as how real live, breathing people actually use our Wikipedia. And perhaps that should not 100% control, but it should be one highly important factor.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This living and breathing isn't all it's cracked up to be, you know. But I guess it all depends on what level of intellect one sees as appropriate for the "average reader". I mean, just how many words or sentences can someone be expected to take in "all in one go", as it were. It strikes me that you're looking for something more like this?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we should assume our readers are just as smart as we are.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue where the 26 word theory comes from, and it isn't Wikipedia policy. The real problem is that Savile had a long and notable career before the huge controversy erupted after his death. The article needs to place this in context rather than saying "he is a paedo" or something that would only be suitable for the blogs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No fancy theory, just an observation of how many (most?) people use Wikipedia. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If anyone wants to discuss the wider question of whether the opening sentence of a Wikipedia article (any article) should take account of how Google reports it, the place to start would be here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I must need a Zimmer frame, because I am old enough to remember when Savile, Rolf Harris and Jonathan King were all known primarily as successful show business figures. Nowadays all some people want to do is to shout "paedo!" when they are mentioned. WP:LEAD requires the opening sentences to establish why the person is notable enough for an article. John Doe from Wigan is not notable enough for an article even if he has a string of serious sex offence convictions. I'm also worried by the theory that Wikipedia articles are written for millennials with the supposed attention span of a goldfish.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I said that I prefer to assume our readers as just as smart as we are. And the reason for including "was the first and last presenter of the long-running BBC music chart show Top of the Pops" in our first paragraph, and then essentially repeating this information in our second is . . ? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

None, really. I have tweaked the article to avoid this repetition. Britmax (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I accidentally removed "Jim'll Fix It" from the lead. Do you think it is better out or in? Britmax (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's much better with it in. That was quite a mistake there. I hope you put it back. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Overall, I think you made a big improvement and thank you very much! Personally, in due time, I like to see the first sentence generally say, really big star, and really big abuser.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Britmax, but I don't think your edits were a big improvement. I think the lead section was just fine the way it was. Did you mean to remove Top of the Pops, or was that also a mistake? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Top of the Pops is already in the second paragraph of our lead. Do we really need the degree of repetition where we include it in the first and second paragraphs, when most non-UK readers are in fact not likely to be familiar with the show? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfamiliarity might be a good reason for an earlier mention. But I'd suggest familiarity or unfamiliarity with the subject is difficult to accommodate. His connection with the programme was certainly notable and long-standing. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Top of the Pops is a key part of Savile's notability and made him one of the most famous men in Britain in the 1960s. The lead says that he also introduced the final edition in 2006. What isn't so well known is that Savile was asked to do the whole of the final edition of TOTP live on 30 July 2006, but had already been booked to appear at the Lochaber Highland Games (yes, the photo of him in the infobox). So Savile did some prerecorded inserts with other Radio 1 DJs for the final TOTP, but didn't have a big role as originally intended. Nowadays YouTube is the only place that Savile can be seen doing TOTP, due to the BBC's policy of damnatio memoriae (in plain language, the BBC has binned all of the episodes with Savile and won't broadcast them today).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I think the first mention of the programme should be re-added. It was a very significant part of his television career. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I've tweaked the opening again. The grammar was not great ("...and... and..."), and it seemed odd to me to mention only Jim'll Fix It in the opening. I'm not wedded to my version if we can come up with something better. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

My changes may not have been an improvement but the current article really is. Concise and informative. Thanks to all. Britmax (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Three out of four paragraphs in the WP:LEAD prominently mention the sexual abuse allegations, so I can't see where people are coming from when they say that the article has attempted to downplay the allegations against him.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be something to do with the magical figure of "26 words." It's not very clear why that figure, which is a Google convention, has to be applied here. Maybe we'll get more suggestions regarding the length of the words? or the number of syllables in each? or perhaps words beginning with p? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope, we don't need to count syllables as if a haiku! What I'm advocating is that like school, work, or other formal writing, our first sentence and first paragraph is very important.

A lot of this discussion reminds me of anti-PC discussion. We say we don't want to be handcuffed by "political correctness," and instead of steering a middle course, we recourse 180 degrees the other way! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the lead section is fine as it is. If that's PC, then so be it. If that's non-PC, then so be it. I'm also happy to keep a clear distinction between an encyclopedia and "school work". And I'm certainly not going to take any notice of what Google might, or might not, do. Consensus seems to be slightly against you here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If you think the first sentence is important, why are you trying to cram the first paragraph into it? Britmax (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad you brought that up. Cramming information in a stilted fashion is not the way to go either. I do think there's a way to say "big star, big abuser" in a natural, fluid, and appropriately formal fashion, but then again, perhaps not.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Savile's early history - Bevin Boy

J S could not have been a Bevin Boy aged 14. Bevin Boys were not instituted until he was at least 17 and 2 months, and since you had to be 18 before you were called up he still would not have become a Bevin Boy until December 1944. If he was down a pit at 14 he must have been a "normal" employee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:110D:9100:255E:7E78:17E8:5019 (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that repeat the claim that he was a "Bevin Boy". However, this source suggests that, at least, "it is very unlikely that he was a Bevin Boy for as long as he variously claimed. The possibility that he was using another man's identity papers in order to dodge work and further his career on the edges of the black market is, of course, another intriguing alternative." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

In the YEP interview source in the article Savile claims "I worked at Prince of Wales in Pontefract, South Kirby, near Hemsworth and Waterloo at Temple Newsam." And the article says he was injured at South Kirkby. But that Dan Davies book suggests his spinal injury was sustained, through shot firing accident at Waterloo Main? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This news article has a photo with Savile receiving a Bevin Boy award at a ceremony in Downing Street in 2008. It is odd that some discrepancy has occurred over his age when he was doing it. The book source isn't favourable to Savile and is sceptical about his claim, while not ruling it out entirely, pointing out that it is now too long ago to look for independent verification, as the records of the Bevin Boys were destroyed in a fire in 1950. This Guardian article talks about Savile being a 14-year-old Bevin Boy, which we now know is impossible because Savile was 14 in 1940-41 and the first Bevin Boys were not conscripted until December 1943. Reliable sources are not infallible and the article should make clear that although he probably did work in the coal mines as a teenager, he cannot have been a 14-year-old Bevin Boy. The Guardian article has a footnote which says "We should clarify that Savile was already a young miner at the outbreak of war but was not conscripted until the age of 18."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Dan Davies is sceptical. But I'm not sure why he bothered to sift through 164,000 records looking for an a shot-firing accident at Waterloo Main if the accident was supposed to have happened at Kirkby. I'm also surprised we rely on Savile's own account to place him at Waterloo. I see that the BBC timeline source that we use in the lead just says "reportedly suffering spinal injuries". Perhaps one of Savile's autobiographies makes it all "clearer"? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Savile probably did work in the mines as a teenager, but beyond that it starts to get anecdotal and relies on evidence given by Savile himself. It's interesting that according to Dan Davies, he was invited to the 2008 medal ceremony by Downing Street, not the Bevin Boys Association. When Savile was asked if he would like to attend one of their get-togethers, "Savile said nothing and just walked away from me... he didn't want to get involved." Possibly he knew that if he attended one of the Bevin Boys get-togethers, he would be asked about specific dates and places which he would be unable to give, or would turn out to be wrong. Davies quotes Warwick Taylor, the author of the book The Forgotten Conscript: A History of the Bevin Boy as doubting that Savile had been a Bevin Boy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

So... do we need to change the text to state that he claimed to have been a Bevin Boy, rather than that he actually was one? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It now looks like an WP:AUTO problem, because on close inspection it is Savile who claimed to have been a Bevin Boy, while Warwick Taylor, an authority on the Bevin Boys, expressed doubt about whether this was correct as the facts didn't quite add up. Maybe the article should say this, although it doesn't seem controversial that Savile worked in the mines at some stage as a teenager.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What did one have to do to become a "Bevin Boy"? Be forced, by means of conscription, to work in the mines (instead of entering one of the Armed forces)? Did the fact that Savile was there already preclude him from being officially a Bevin Boy? I really don't know enough of the detail to draw the distinction. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This edit looks fine to me, but do we need to amend the wording in the "Early life" section as well? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I think so, as the lead section should usually only summarise the main body. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

According to the article Bevin Boy, "To make the process random, one of Bevin's secretaries each week, from 14 December 1943, pulled a digit from a hat containing all ten digits, 0–9, and all men liable for call-up that week whose National Service registration number ended in that digit were directed to work in the mines, with the exception of any selected for highly skilled war work such as flying planes and in submarines, and men found physically unfit for mining." Yet with Savile it doesn't all quite add up, as Warwick Taylor points out. Even so, there is not enough evidence to say that Savile was lying outright about being a Bevin Boy, although some of it is inconsistent.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So it sounds like if someone was already working underground, having their NI number pulled from the hat as it were, would just mean they stayed underground instead of being sent off to fight. I suspect if this ever actually happened, that individual would never know. Not even sure that any official record would have been made. I suspect, like you, that Savile wasn't really lying outright, but was just explaining in shorthand terminology "what he did in the war". As with many other things, what Savile said about himself just became part of the generally accepted myth. I'm now intrigued as to what he says about it in his books. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

"Exploding short-firer"

Re this edit: I think it's a typo and actually means shotfirer. This is defined as "A shotfirer is a colliery underofficial qualified to detonate shots or explosive charges". We've discussed before whether Savile's own account of his time as a coal miner was accurate, but it seems to imply that he was injured by some type of explosion triggered as part of the mining process.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was intended. But the supporting source is not visible online. I was hoping User:Farrtj could clarify. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

An obituary from The Guardian says [h]is mining career was cut short when he was blown up in a "shot-firer's explosion", intended to bring down part of the coal face. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Good enough for me. You might want to add that as the source instead? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The Times article said short-firer, but upon further research, I think they meant shot-firer, and have amended accordingly. Tom (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

A shot-firer is a person who detonates explosive charges. The Times says that he exploded?? Wouldn't it be better to use an accurate source and one that's online so we can all read it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added the Guardian source to the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

So I've now adjusted the wording to match The Guardian source and have also added an internal piped link. Does that look OK? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely happy with scrap metal dealer, which is a DAB page. Any suggestions welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not just pipe it to Scrap? Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I was about to make the change, but I see that Rodw has already done it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)