Talk:Rolf Harris/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Incident of 6 February

Added by me, removed by @MilborneOne:. Thoughts on inclusion? I'm fully aware of NOTNEWS but this isn't mere 'tabloid fodder', it's been covered by numerous mainstream, reputable outlets, and is worth mentioning IMHO. GiantSnowman 17:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

PS if we do decide to keep it out (for now or permanently), we need a better source for his release & licence than the Sky one about this incident, as that kind of defeats the point...GiantSnowman 17:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Milborne. The Independent was careful to say "according to the Daily Mirror. If the CPS does decide to act, I'm sure we'll know about it soon enough. I'd be surprised if the Mirror doesn't have a team of paparazzi permanently parked across from Harris's front door. Oh hang on ... [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

As the one that challenged the addition I clearly dont think it is worth mentioning it is just a news story "Thames Valley Police said an officer attended the school after being called on Tuesday afternoon, but no offence was committed and no arrests were made.". MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Saw this in the news this morning, and thought immediately that it was WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM unless Harris was charged over the incident. As usual, the tabloids have made a hoo ha over it and inflated it beyond its actual value. Mirror front page here. As Martinevans123 pointed out, the interesting thing is that paparazzi photographers were somehow available on the spot to photograph this incident. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The key result is no offence was committed meaning the use of all this Wikipedia ink is not justified. Not even a close call as NOTNEWS. Collect (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

If some further action is taken against him, then this can be reconsidered. For now, he's the same idiot he was before. MPS1992 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with those above. This is a news story but it doesn't belong here unless there's are significant developments.LM2000 (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Acquittal

The judge formally acquitted Harris of four charges. Later the word formally was removed and one user removed the sentence. The prosecution announced that they were not pursuing another retrial and the judge acquitted him. I suggest readding the sentence about the judge formally acquitting72.76.163.6 (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This is referring to the 2017 trial. Harris faced seven fresh charges in 2017. Three of the charges led to a trial, then a retrial, without any fresh convictions. Judge Alistair McCreath discharged the jury from deliberating on the further four counts, so the 2017 trial ended without any new convictions. The article Acquittal says "In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as the criminal law is concerned. This is so even where the prosecution is simply abandoned by the prosecution." Harris appears to have been acquitted on four of the charges according to this wording. The BBC News source here says that "Judge Alistair McCreath discharged the jury from deliberating on the further four counts", so it is probably best to stick to the wording in the source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Beatles' BBC album

This little blurb of information « This recording has not been included in either BBC albums.» that I tried to add has been deleted. I know the source on my second try was a blog and not reliable but my question here is ; why do we need a source to write this, when all you need to do is look at the song listing on the album cover? I am not exposing the reason for the omission of the song. But I am stating a verifiable fact not a theory, that perticular song is NOT on the albums. Please enlighten me. JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I reverted it here because of the obvious WP:V problem. The other thing that bothered me is the overall notability, as it came across as a piece of WP:TRIVIA. Why is this notable?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with User:ianmacm that the "non-inclusion" of things is generally trivial. In this particular case, did it really have any bearing on Harris's career? I think not. I'd have been very surprised if it had been included, Harris was signed to EMI at the time? But the sentence in question was this: "This recording has not been included in either BBC albums." Which were those albums? Were there only two? Do they have any relation to the 3-vinyl album release here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The verifiability is, in my eyes, unimportant here because the list of songs of the albums is already in the encyclopedia. It is, to me, notable because of the amount of money and exposure Harris would have received if a song of his had been published on a Beatles album. Not a trivial amount. I am sure Apple wished to seperate themselves from this man, with good reason. The 3-vinyl album is unofficial and shouldn't be considered here. But this could be a fix : "This recording has not been included in the group's either official BBC albums." Do as you feel you must, but I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. Peace... JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

But "the amount of money and exposure Harris would have received" is purely a matter of your own imagination. Again, is that the only album we are considering here? You mentioned two? I'm also not sure where Apple would have fitted into all of this, as it appeared much later. I think, in 1962, the Fab Four were recording for Vee-Jay Records or Polydor. That 3-album set I linked to earlier was issued on The Swingin' Pig label. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This was back in the 1960s. I wondered if it was because of the sex offence convictions but it isn't. We know that Harris's "learn to swim" public information films are not available in the National Archive, probably for this very reason. Harris's downfall was in 2014 and all of the Live at the BBC records were released before then.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Even if they had been released after 2014, without a clear statement giving that as the reason for omission, linking the two facts would be WP:SYNTH. My suspicion is that comperes and MCs end upon live albums more often by accident than by design. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

His first arrest was "In March 2013 Harris was one of 12 people arrested during Operation Yewtree" and his 2nd "In August 2013 Harris was again arrested by Operation Yewtree" as stipuated in the article. On Air – Live at the BBC Volume 2 was released in November of that year. JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Really not for giving up here, are you? Ok, fine. So where is the evidence that BBC executives at first planned to include Harris and then, at the last minute, decide to leave him off because of he had been arrested in an historical sex abuse investigation? It's not as if they were really short of Beatles material for that 3-album set? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, it would need specific sourcing that the BBC dropped Harris because of him being arrested, charged, convicted or whatever.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Not to labour the point (probably too late now !!) but my point is that the sentence I would want to add is "This recording has not been included in the group's either official BBC albums." does not go into all that. It's indirectly sourced by the albums song lists and it is not trivial for the money and exposure it would have generated (not my imagination---see Pete Best's pay day for 10 songs on Anthology). Put it back or leave off, I won't loose sleep over this. Peace !! JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I wont be adding it, sorry, as I think it's unsourced speculative trivia. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

+1. Now that we've all had our two cents' worth on this, I still think that it is too much of an off-topic aside to say that these tracks didn't appear on Live at the BBC. We do know that various people such as Jimmy Savile and Dave Lee Travis have been tipped down a memory hole in the BBC archive, but it is unclear why these Harris songs were not released on Live at the BBC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Important new book

Early May 2022 saw the publication of a book by the investigator retained by the Harris family: “Rolf Harris: The Defence Team's Special Investigator reveals the Truth behind the Trials”, William B. Merritt (available in paperback and on Kindle). I have no connection with this case but have read this book, which is a detailed and careful account.

The book reveals much which has not previously been reported and explains why much previously unknown evidence (which points to Rolf Harris’s innocence) did not emerge in court. I hope other editors with more time get on to this soon. This article will be improved once the contents of this book are used as a source. 31.124.106.73 (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The book is here but the problem is WP:RGW. I agree that the 1969 Portsmouth conviction was nonsense due to the lack of any serious evidence and it was subsequently overturned.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The main point is that this book is drawn from many months of painstaking investigations (going well beyond 1969 Portsmouth) and is an extended report by a professional. Is it not reputable because the result is "self-published"? It is something of a special case, given the technical and factual (rather than campaigning / opinion-based) nature of the publication, which is not only original research but also draws extensively on secondary though not widely publicised sources.

Wikipedia will be the judge of whether it is a useful addition to this article, I just wanted to get it into the conversation.

31.124.106.73 (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that the issue would be that it is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE written by an individual with close ties to the subject. We would need secondary coverage to include mentions of the book, keeping WP:WEIGHT and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in mind.LM2000 (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I just checked Amazon for books by and about Harris. It would perhaps be a useful addition to the article to include a ==Further reading== section. This could list the (many) books by Harris, including what look like two volumes of autobiography; at least one biography; and this recent publication about his cases. 31.124.106.73 (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope someone with a bit of time can do this now. I would do myself but am currently locked out (don't want to set up an account just for this). 31.124.106.73 (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Leighton Smith interviewed the author about this book a week ago on NewstalkZB: https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/podcasts/the-leighton-smith-podcast/leighton-smith-podcast-episode-171-august-31st-2022 125.236.141.144 (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2022

Please insert a link to the unduly lenient sentence scheme at the appropriate place in the 'Conviction and imprisonment' section. 80.7.186.76 (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lard Almighty (talk • contribs) 16:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2023

I wish to request that the error contained on this page stating that Rolf Harris completed a Bachelor of Arts Degree at the University of Western Australia is corrected. While he commenced studying at UWA, he withdraw from the course before completing and never graduated from the University. See https://www.news.uwa.edu.au/archive/201111214151/arts-and-culture/uwa-vice-chancellor-deliver-prestigious-lecture/ The University of Western Australia is also able to confirm that he is not a graduate. FSHDC (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done

Please provide a reliable third party source. Just because he didn't complete the degree then doesn't mean he didn't complete it later or indeed didn't follow through on the letter and stayed on. Lard Almighty (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I changed the opening sentence from "is an Australian entertainer whose career has encompassed work as a musician, singer-songwriter, composer, comedian, actor, painter and television personality." to "is an Australian former entertainer and convicted sex offender." This was reverted with the edit summary "Like Gary Glitter, his primary source of notability is his career as an entertainer, and his career was ruined in 2014". My edit was to a) introduce that he is a former entertainer to the opening sentence and b) to introduce that he is a convicted sex offender to it. Gary Glitter is described as a "former glam rock singer" and has his crimes detailed in the opening paragraph.

As per MOS:OPENPARABIO: the opening paragraph of a biographical article should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context.. The latter two are lacking if we simply describe him as an entertainer: the defence given for this wording is that it is only "explaining notability" that is allowed in the lead. As per MOS:CONTEXTBIO, The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. His conviction is also part of his notability: his "famous-nous" is not simply restricted to his entertainment career, he received a lot of coverage for his crimes. The current wording also suggests that his career is current, when it ended because of his conviction(s). His crimes are instead hidden in the third paragraph: I say hidden, because when viewed on mobile, it is only the opening paragraph that appears above the infobox. Finally, as per MOS:BLPLEAD: The lead section must summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. Describing him as a "former entertainer and convicted sex offender" is not undue weight and summaries his life much more accurately than the current whitewash. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That's dripping with righting great wrongs. Perhaps many people cannot read more than one sentence, but articles should not be written for them. All the info is in the short lead. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It is misleading to imply that Harris is famous because he is a sex offender, he isn't, it is his 50 year career in show business that provides his primary source of notability. Paul Gadd from Banbury would not be notable enough to meet WP:GNG if he committed sex offences, but Gary Glitter would. Obviously the WP:LEAD section is going to mention the sex offences, but it does not have to be in the opening sentence. The consensus of previous discussions is not to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there not scope for compromise here? The opening paragraph - which is important in its own right, as it appears prominently in hoverboxes, Google searches, etc. - can comprise more than one sentence. I would favour a brief second sentence in the opening para, along the lines of: "His career ended after he was convicted of sexual assaults." The third para then gives some more detail. This is what is done at, for example, Jimmy Savile. I am unconvinced over the need to describe him as a "former" entertainer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The first mention of Harris’ conviction as a child sex offender being in the third paragraph - two paragraphs below the infobox - effectively hides this information from any less-than-thorough read of the page, especially on the mobile version. In response to arguments above, fact that Harris is a child sex offender is very important in “providing context”, as for many this information would be an important factor in forming an opinion of Harris (eg the party of a notable politician should be stated within the first paragraph, despite this guaranteeing judgement from those who dislike the party, as it is information which is essential to readers in forming an opinion of the politician in question). Furthermore, simply stating that he is a child sex offender is a fact, not an opinion, and so “neutrality” is also not an issue (just as simply stating that an individual is a woman or is black is not sexist or racist). Moving this information so far down is not in the interest of the reader, and inclusion within the first paragraph would better follow Wikipedia guidelines. Tzxcs (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The lede summarises the article in the order in which the information is set out in it. Because his main claim to notability is his career in entertainment, that is set out first with the conviction and the fall out from that set out chronologically as they happened. This is the standard way of doing it. If Harris had been unknown before his convictions, and those were the main thing that made him notable, that would be different. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I would hardly describe reading only the first two paragraphs as a "thorough read" of the page. I don't think we re-arrange lead section content for the benefit of readers with certain devices. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I can only repeat what has been said previously on this issue. The consensus is not to say "RH is a sex offender" or similar in the opening sentence, because it is not why he qualifies for a Wikipedia article in the first place. I'm old enough to remember watching RH on the television and playing the Stylophone for many years before this happened, and even in 2010 Harris was still a popular TV host. It all went down the drain in 2014, and the article should reflect this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he was an entertainer before he was convicted as a sex offender, but obviously the offences were concurrent with his entertainment career. We just didn't find out until later. These days, I'm sure that when most people who already know of him hear his name, the FIRST thing they think of his paedophilia. To not even mention it until three quarters of the way through the lead seems wrong to me. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not say we copy the way other articles manage this stuff. We do things the best way we can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Any "concurrency" is far from obvious to me. Harris was practically retired when these allegations came to light? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I am speaking of his offences, not his convictions. The former were concurrent with his entertainment career. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

That's true. It might be made clearer in the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

If an entertainer retires from all public appearances in his golden years, do we then start calling him a former entertainer? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

If he has announced his retirement, we can call him a "retired" entertainer. I don't think Harris has, has he? He's a living person, and he may still be looking for work. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who don't read earlier posts.... "Is there not scope for compromise here? The opening paragraph - which is important in its own right, as it appears prominently in hoverboxes, Google searches, etc. - can comprise more than one sentence. I would favour a brief second sentence in the opening para, along the lines of: "His career ended after he was convicted of sexual assaults." The third para then gives some more detail. This is what is done at, for example, Jimmy Savile. I am unconvinced over the need to describe him as a "former" entertainer." As I wrote on 23 September. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

No objections. I would have to agree that, even though he is 89, Harris has not announced any retirement. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I've added Ghmyrtle's suggestion to the opening paragraph.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I've tweaked it to better reflect what is written further on. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but we now have duplication in the lead section. Did you mean "further on in the lead" or "further on in the article"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm also in the camp of thinking of him now as a child-molester first and an 'entertainer' second, and I suspect most of the country are too. It should be in the first sentence, not an afterthought. Devgirl (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that his criminal convictions should be more prominent. I see that sentence order has been improved since the initial discussion, but should be improved further by deleting of moving the second sentence. Following the discussion of this thread I see the rational that his description as an entertainer is the primary reason he is famous, thus should be retained as the first sentence. The second sentence should be the sentence stating that he is a convicted sex offender. The current second sentence is relating less significant details that should not precede the important statement of his crimes. 109.146.145.166 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the balance is right. Half the words (and two of the four paragraphs in the lead section) deal with his conviction, and it is introduced in the third of three short sentences in the lead paragraph. That's hardly an "afterthought" given all the other things he is notable for in a long life. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Incarcerated first at HMP Bulllingdon

There's no mention of this in the article. An article in the Oxford Mail reports his move to Stafford: https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11531208.former-tv-star-rolf-harris-moved-bullingdon-prison-bullying/. (I haven't learnt how to do references yet; sorry.) Snugglepuss (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Mail gives more details here. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Mail isn't considered a reliable source on here, so articles from them can't be used here. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That's right, there is WP:DAILYMAIL. But Metro and The Mirror say the same thing, so it's probably true. There ought to be something in the article about where Harris was incarcerated? 86.187.230.148 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Rolf Harris Dead?

This page is saying Rolf died today but there is no source. Is he dead or not? 2001:BB6:509E:3600:D108:11F6:7D9C:4232 (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You might want to ask User:Juncus who added that earlier today. It's quite possible because Harris has been very ill. But I cannot find any online corroboration. So I think it should be removed for now, until there is a reliable source. 86.184.129.6 (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If he had died, there would have been significant media coverage by now. This was a vandal edit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Reported by the BBC with the story detailing confirmation. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So it seems Juncus was right all along. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Date of death

Another recent death and we're playing the "date of announcement is date of death" game. See WP:MABEL. There are non-RS reports that he died a week or so ago [2] [3]. Other than manual reverts, any suggestions for dealing with this? Article is already on semi-protect... MIDI (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I've readded your hidden note everywhere it's relevant. Hopefully that will help a bit. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Have seen that – thanks. MIDI (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Also another editor has added context in the health and death section. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the non-RS sources were not so unreliable after all? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

They're citing unnamed members of the public, it seems – of course, unreliable is does not necessarily mean untrue... WP:V is the key :) MIDI (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I suspect the unofficial leak of the death, up to 13 days ago, may eventually find its way into the article. This has happened in other articles. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I did wonder about that. Marking this resolved now.

Resolved

MIDI (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting and unusual that the locals were adamant that Harris had died around 10 May 2023 but it had not been reported in the news. This may at some point be added to the article if there is suitable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

BBC stated “According to his death certificate, which was registered on Tuesday, he died of neck cancer and "frailty of old age" at his home in Bray, Berkshire, on 10 May.” 117.20.69.111 (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Passed on the 10th may, was cremated on Thursday 18th, as I had previously mentioned it was all kept extremely hush hush 2A00:23C8:1DD4:7C01:9F28:DFC4:8F4D:42D4 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So is that cremation in the public domain? 86.187.229.100 (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of the cremation from a local source. Get surrey have confirmed he has been 'laid to rest' 2A00:23C8:1DD4:7C01:9F28:DFC4:8F4D:42D4 (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Almost certainly Slough Cemetery and Crematorium. But I don't see anything about "a dignified funeral" in that Sydney Morning Herald source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

Date of death confirmed by BBC as 10th May 2023 2A00:23C6:C084:B501:2489:B820:533B:24AA (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [4]

 Done by someone. WWGB (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Cause of death

he died of neck cancer and "frailty of old age", according to his death certificate: [5]. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Now in article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

No mention of Sun Arise in the lead?

It is one of his most notable charting songs. 79.66.89.36 (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "Sun Arise" has it's own article and it was No 3 in the UK chart. Although his "Stairway to Heaven" also made No. 7. 86.187.230.148 (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Now added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.--79.66.89.36 (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

No mention of Stairway to Heaven in the lead?

This was another of his most notable charting songs. Should be included in the lead. 79.66.89.36 (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it led to his appearance at Glastonbury. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Notable absences from Filmography and Biography

The Filmography section does not include notable shows including Rolf Harris Cartoon Time, Rolf's Cartoon Club (1989–1993), Animal Hospital (1994–2004), Rolf on Art (2001–2012), and Star Portraits with Rolf Harris (2004–2007). It also does not include Kids Can Say No!. All of these should be included, as they were more relevant to his career than one-off appearances. 79.66.89.36 (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done @79.66.89.36: thanks for pointing this out. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

In one of his television series, Rolf appeared with somebody wearing a Koala bear costume called Kooji. They also appeared as illustrated stories inside the Jack and Jill children's comic.

Rolf could also play a native Australian musical instrument called a Didgeridoo.

Rolf also appeared in a 1970's television advert about the "Stylophone". This was a hand held electronic organ that could be played by using an object similar to a small pen called a stylus.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

Under the 'Early life' section, please change:

'...later gaining a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Western Australia...' to 'enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts at The University of Western Australia, which he did not complete.' 130.95.216.165 (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The claim that he graduated is unsourced. Do you have a reliable source that says he began but did not complete those studies? HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The Independent says he got a degree: [6] But The Times says something different? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Where does The Times say that? Could you provide a link? Thanks! Actualcpscm (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: ongoing discussion about sourcing. Feel free to re-open the request when consensus is achieved. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald here says this: "After graduating from Perth Modern School (a year behind Bob Hawke), he attended the University of Western Australia. In the limited structure of the university, and with the distractions of playing in a band and painting, Harris drifted aimlessly until asked to leave." 86.187.232.14 (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies

Article should mention prominently that he never apologised to any of his victims. 93.19.21.160 (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Please provide reliable source(s) for this claim. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

BBC: "He was released from prison in 2017 - but never apologised to his victims." 86.187.229.100 (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

He never admitted culpability. Doug butler (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Rolf Harris: Hiding in Plain Sight

Should this be included in the filmography section? 79.66.89.36 (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"Years active 1953–2015"

Rolf Harris' career pretty much came to an end once he was convicted in 2014. Therefore, his "years active" should be from 1953 to 2014. 79.66.89.36 (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"convicted child sex offender" in first sentence

For the current editing concerning that specific wording in the opening sentence please refer to MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE which states that "The first sentence should usually state:" ... "5 The main reason the person is notable". Even after the subjects passing in which some parts of the media heaped praise on them a google search indicates that the vast majority of articles displayed refer to his child sex crimes for which he was convicted. Given that is one of the main reasons for his notability and that this article spends significant portions on that topic it should be in the opening sentence. AlanS^talk 13:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ianmacm and @Stuart Young, I have started discussion here. AlanS^talk 13:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

If Harris had not already been famous/notable, his sex crimes would have attracted little or no media interest. WWGB (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not what MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE says at all. It has nothing to say about chronology. AlanS^talk 13:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Glitter and Harris were notable as entertainers. The opening paragraphs make clear that their careers were wrecked by the sex offence convictions. See also WP:GOOGLE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

We're not discussing Glitter. Please contain your discussions to Harris. Harris is a notable child sex abuser. A very large proportion of this article outside of the lead is dedicated to Harris's child sex crimes. Now we can have a debate about whether the content later on in the opening paragraph should be moved if you like but MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE is unambiguous in its meaning. The opening sentence should state the main reasons for a persons notability. AlanS^talk 14:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It does. He is notable as an entertainer who was later found to be guilty of sex offences. Without the entertainer part the other is irrelevant. First paragraph of the lead is perfectly fine as is. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I take it you have no WP policy based argument for your position given you base your argument on chronology? AlanS^talk 02:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you didn't intend that to be as sarky as it comes across to me; yes, in line with others here, i do have a policy-based argument (as well as a common sense one). It is this: He is notable as an entertainer who was later found to be guilty of sex offences. Without the entertainer part the other is irrelevant. Read Mitch Ames's comment below if that is not clear: His notability is based on his being an entertainer; that's why we have an article on him, so that's what the lead sentence should indicate. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE ... The opening sentence should state the main reasons for a persons notability — Actually BIOFIRSTSENTENCE says "main reason [singular]", not "reasons [plural]". The single reason for his notability was being an entertainer. Had he been an entertainer but not a sex offender he would have been - and was - notable. Had he been a sex offender but not an entertainer, he would not have been notable. Thus BIOFIRSTSENTENCE does not require "sex offender" in the first sentence. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the points made by Mitch Ames. The lede para is fine. It shows the high regard he was held in as an entertainer for many years and how that ended when the sex offences came to light much later. The point about a Google search fails to consider that much of his fame as an entertainer was before the WWW so Google search results are always skewed by the volume of material on the WWW in each year (according to the United Nations, the WWW is growing at 3000% per year [7]) so more recent events are always going to dominate. Kerry (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Referring to subject as "convicted child sex offender" in the opening sentence of the lede

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.

Consensus was not to add "convicted child sex offender" in the opening sentence of the lede. WWGB (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Should we refer to the subject as a "convicted child sex offender" in the opening sentence of the lede?
This has been discussed in the past however there is intermittent editing on this question, so it's obviously not settled and can do with broader community input. TarnishedPath^talk 23:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• No. The lead as is, with the conviction mentioned in a sober manner in the first paragraph but not in the first sentence, affords the appropriate weight to all parts of the biography. Additionally, nothing has changed about the facts since the last two times (at least) this has been discussed so I see no reason to believe consensus will have changed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• No. Current placement is sufficient. WWGB (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• No. According to MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE "The first sentence should usually state ... The main reason [singular] the person is notable". The reason for Harris' notability was his being an entertainer. Had he been an entertainer but not a sex offender he would have been - and was - notable. Had he been a sex offender but not an entertainer, he would not have been notable. The article rightly mentions the sex offences in the first paragraph, but they do not belong in the first sentence. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• No. The current placement of this information is just fine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• No: This is the latest round of "we have to say he's a sex offender in the opening sentence." All of the previously discussed reasons for not doing this (including the recent thread above) still apply.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• No It is fine and policy-compliant as it is.LM2000 (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes A Google search for "Rolf Harris" and "entertainer" yields 99 results, whereas a Google search for "Rolf Harris" and "child sex offender" yields 81 results. The results are close enough to say that he is as notable for being a child sex offender as he was for being an entertainer, especially considering the vast majority of recent WP:RS focuses on his crimes. Therefore we ought to give equal precedence to both in the lede and include the phrase "convicted child sex offender" in the first sentence of the lede. TarnishedPath^talk 10:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Please refer to Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein and R. Kelly for individuals who were extremely notable and famous for their endeavours before they were convicted of sex offences. All have the fact that they are sex offenders listed in the opening sentence of the lede. Harris's offending should put him towards Epstein's level of notoriety, in those countries where he is notable, so there is no reason why he should be treated any differently. TarnishedPath^talk 10:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF. The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page; this is because there is nothing stopping anyone from editing or creating any article. Nemov (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  Please give consideration to other arguments I've given, as it is not the sole argument I've given. TarnishedPath^talk 23:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: See WP:GOOGLE. "There are x results in a Google search" doesn't prove very much. Also WP:OTHERCONTENT doesn't prove very much either.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  You can however click the links and confirm that a lot of the results are WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 10:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  And that still doesn't prove anything. Even if all reliable, general purpose, encyclopaedia biographies of Harris' whole life include his conviction for sex offences in first sentence of prose we would not be bound to follow. We should of course consider doing so, but a random assortment of sources written for other purposes doesn't indicate any need to consider deviating from our policies. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf They do indicate what he is most notable for and when the amount of sources for both things converge we ought to consider giving equal weight to both. TarnishedPath^talk 12:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  The numbers indicate nothing other than those terms appear somewhere in the source, you need to consider the placement in the source, and the purpose of the source (a news article about his conviction will obviously feature the conviction very prominently, but that tells us nothing useful about where the conviction should be placed in the context of an encyclopaedic biography of his whole life). We have considered giving equal weight to both, multiple times, and we are doing so again here, however the conclusion of that consideration, based on the sources available and our policies, is that mention of the sex offences belongs in the first paragraph but not the first sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes based on the sources and our policies, with the policies saying that the first sentence should state the main reason why the subject is notable. Now if the sources indicate that the main reason he is notable, at this present point in time, is jointly for his crimes and his entertainment, then we ought to give consideration to including both in the opening sentence. TarnishedPath^talk 23:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  at this present point in time, [the main reason for notability] is jointly for his crimes and his entertainment you have not presented any evidence that this is true, and my look at sources shows it isn't. Mitch Ames explains it well. Your count of google results shows only an approximate number of sources which use those specific terms (and at least some of the sources will be in both sets) and take no account of the purpose of the article, the reliability of the sources, any bias the source has, WP:RECENCY issues, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• No Per above, it is sufficient that it is mentioned in the first paragraph. It does not need to be mentioned in the first sentence. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• No no need to change its in order of record in the lead. First para establishes originally notable for being an Entertainer, next sentence conviction. Second para deals with Entertainer career, third para is conviction, jailing and death. Its sums up his life in a logical order of events. Gnangarra 08:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
• No - it is well covered in the lead paragraph, and then the third paragraph in the lead. No need to shoehorn it into the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
• No, for the same reasons as i used above (He is notable as an entertainer who was later found to be guilty of sex offences. Without the entertainer part the other is irrelevant) the last time this question was opened by the same user two months ago; nothing's changed since then. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 13:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
• No: The subject is notable for his 6-decades-long artistic career, not for his conviction. WP:WEIGHT. The current sentence at the end of the lede is sufficient. Grorp (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2023 (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.