Talk:Huw Edwards

Mug shot

I'm starting this discussion here before we get the inevitable mug shot added given its been released by the police a few moments ago after his sentencing. Personally I do not think it is needed because I feel that it would not add much to the article as a Crown Copyright fair use image given we already have plenty of CC and freely licenced pictures of him on the page. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Quite agree. Most people will already know what he looks like. His appearance in the mugshot is not radically different. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Also agree. I don't see that the mug shot adds anything to an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Although, yes, he's not smiling in that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Some good news for Edwards today: UK police mugshots are copyrighted and so are not added to a Wikipedia article without a good reason that meets WP:NFCC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, it cuts off the top of his head! Why would we want to use it? DeCausa (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah - not all versions do. DeCausa (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add it. Cut off head, or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and no £200,000 fine. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Do we need to add any remarks by the judge, e.g. "‘long-earned reputation in tatters’" or from the psychiatrist e.g. "concluded Edwards was at “considerable risk of harm from others” and the risk of taking his own life was “high and significant” if he was imprisoned."? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that User:NAADAAN has added the mugshot anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Mugshot date

Where is the evidence that the police mugshot was taken in September 2024? The EXIF states 12 September 2024, when Edwards was not in custody, and is more likely a processing date. I'm sure I heard the image described as "at the time of his arrest" on TV today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Does this matter for its use under "fair use"? Does it's use add anything to the article anyway? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it matters for fair use, but if we already have a picture of him in the infobox I don't see what a mugshot is going to add except for humiliation of someone who's admitted to committing crimes that will effectively end his public life. Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, the difference between the two images, taken only three years apart, is quite striking. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 It matters because we say it's from September 2024 in the caption. It's also not "fair use", but on Commons as OGL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The CPS released it under OGL, I think it's worth including beyond the NFCC (since it's under the OGL) insofar as there's some coverage discussing it. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5; from a cursory search) NAADAAN (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there a difference between "discussing" the image and merely describing it? Martinevans123 (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just because the media are using it, doesn't mean we should. As said above, we already have plenty of images of him in the article and adding the mug shot does nothing more than compound the humiliation to someone who is now a criminal and his career is over. We don't need to be gratuitous. Its the same with Rolf Harris, his article doesn't have a mug shot because there were plenty of other images of him in the article and the same principle seems to be held here. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I had assumed that any material under copyright required a definite date. Does it need only a month and year? Martinevans123 (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Does the mugshot really need to be in the article? It is a bit too newsy for me. I nearly removed it, but didn't want to set off a revert war.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, per the above, and I removed it yesterday. It is not in the article now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Making versus receiving revisited

Last month we had a discussion around whether the article should use the legal phrase "making indecent images of children" - which in common, non-legal understanding implies Edwards would have created the original images himself - or a more easily understood phrasing that indicates the actual nature of his offense - soliciting, receiving and keeping copies of the images. The discussion can be found at Talk:Huw_Edwards/Archive_2#Clarification_of_the_"making"_crime and the consensus was that we should use plain English, not the legal phrase. The discussion includes a number of verifiable sources that either discuss this matter, or use a phrase other than "making" when mentioning what Edwards was charged with.

I notice there's currently a bit of an edit war going on between @Martinevans123 and @Defacto about this very issue. As far as I'm aware, the consensus hasn't changed - and very likely isn't going to change - that we should use plain English, rather than the legal name of the offence, in the lead. WaggersTALK 12:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, was unaware. No objections. But explanations of what applies in this case are easily found. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't worried about the legal phrase being used, I didn't change it one way or the other, I was only concerned about whether the parenthesised re-interpretation of it was reliably sourced. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it as any kind of "re-interpretation", just plain English explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The translation from the literal wording of the charge to "plain English" surely requires the support of reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I added this source by Joshua Rozenberg. Do you need further explanation, and/or do you think the reader needs any? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks like a blog to me, so I don't know if it's adequate, but I'll leave that for others worry about that. Similarly, I'm not convinced that we need the sanitised translation of the charge added in parentheses after each mention of it, but I'll let others worry about that one too. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No-one else seems to be very worried. But the issue here is to actually replace the legal term in all cases, or at least in the lead section? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

In the body we have "making", followed by something in brackets, followed by a description of the making offence. In that case I am not sure what is in brackets is actually required, so there, the parenthetical could go. In the lead the parenthetical is needed unless we can rephrase as "accessing" or similar and not mention making at all. We don't have to have making in the lead as long as we cleary describe the offence. In the infobox we also have making without explanation, so that might need a parenthetical. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

An alternative to parentheses might be a piped link. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. We wikilink a lot of things, and most readers will not click them. The prose on this page should be clear and should not require an understanding of this peculiarity of English law. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The article page for official legal term shouldn't be linked at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It should be linked, and it is linked, but the article prose should still be clear, without a requirement that a reader clicks off the page to understand an obscure legal term. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Self-published sources (including blogs) are permissible when written by reputable (in his case, highly) commentators such as Rozenberg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The addition of a new source with a very clear quote may now render the Rozenberg article redundant. So happy to remove it if is not deemed to provide any additional explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

On a related note, perhaps we should change the archive timeframe on this talk page - 14 days seems a little keen for the amount of activity here at the moment. WaggersTALK 13:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

This BBC article [1] includes an explanation of "making" - a better source than substack. Southdevonian (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox criminal?

Having reverted the bold addition of this template here and an embedded inclusion of it here, the latter edit was reverted by Martinevans123 and, in a deviation to the BRD convention to BRRD, they told me to bring it here. So here I am...

The documentation on Template:Infobox criminal says:

1. "Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies."
2. "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal."

Is the subject of this article to be one of those rare exceptions? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the guidance you quote, I think I oppose use of that infobox here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

How is Edward's Biography "violated" by use of this template? Does the statement "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal" apply equally when the template is used as a nested subsidiary template to "Inbox person"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Does the documentation say but ignore that if nesting it? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If you don't know, I think you ought to check. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't see it, can you? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to have another look... Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that Rolf Harris didn't get one. It's still possible to include criminal_charges, criminal_penalty and criminal_status as parameters in Infobox:person. I'm not really sure what difference it makes to the reader. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that if we don't use the infobox then it would also not be correct to add those parameters to infobox person. The infobox summarises, but a summary for someone who is notable for being a criminal will always look different from the summary for someone who is notable for something else. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Harris was notable only for being a criminal. But I don't see any advice about that at Infobox:person. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll go and see if I can remove it from Rolf Harris. In the meantime I note that Jonathan King doesn't use that infobox, and that was my basis from removing the same from Chris Langham last March. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Two relevant talk sections in the archive of the Harris page discuss the infobox. I see you took part in each. See Talk:Rolf Harris/Archive 3#Infobox and Talk:Rolf Harris/Archive 3#Infobox. They are both quite old though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we ought to restrict discussion here to Huw Edwards. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not see this caution before I removed it there. But there is, in fact, an advantage to seeing how the edit goes there. Harris' conviction is old news, but an established part of his history. Any discussion there will be less influenced by recentism. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Cross-article discussion threads? Not sure that's generally accepted. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Not my intention. Any discussion there should focus only on that article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The guidelines are clear on this issue. If a person's primary source of notability is not as a criminal, the infobox is not used. However much we disapprove of the crimes of Edwards, Harris etc, it is not suitable to use infobox criminal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

And we also can't add criminal convictions to the Infobox:person? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You can do that, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Media coverage

The article gives no real indication of the scale of the media coverage surrounding Edwards' sentencing. This BBC source shows a variety of newspaper front pages and so might be a useful source for this. The article also makes no mention of Edwards' shame and the apology offered on his behalf by his lawyer, which may both have contributed to the leniency of his sentence. This also looks like an omission. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that is reasonable to include those as an explanation of why the sentence appeared so lenient. The BBC did mention the magistrate's breakdown as to why he passed the sentence that he did (starting at a year, deduct 3 months for first offence, deduct another 3 for the apology and remorse etc). That will make it more rounded and stop people thinking there was anything improper with the sentence. So I would support that being included @Martinevans123:. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I've just added a sentencing breakdown and the apology to the article @Martinevans123:. What do you think of it and please feel free to reword as necessary. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Edwards and Flind

Metro now has this: "Huw Edwards' wife 'files for divorce' after being 'put her through hell'". Other media outlets support. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Other media outlets being the Mirror and Express. Are there any reliable non-tabloid sources we can use? WaggersTALK 07:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's still relying on the wording of "a source said", ie not coming directly from Edwards and Flind, who have made no public comment on this as yet. It is quite likely that they are in the process of separating, but I don't think that the infobox is the best place to say this and it should be left to the article text.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Are the sources even good enough for any article text addition? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Have not found any. The origin reported by Metro is "a source" via The Sun. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)@

I doubt there's going to be any public comment from Edwards or Flind until/unless the process is complete. I've just read this useful explainer - the only part of divorce proceedings that's considered public is the final record of the divorce being granted by a court. In the meantime we're unlikely to get anything reliable enough to be usable. WaggersTALK 09:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Separation and divorce are not quite the same thing.[2] Friends of Edwards and Flind say that they are now living apart and this is probably true. However, there is a lack of reliable sourcing so it isn't suitable for the article to state it as an uncontroversial fact.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess they were "living apart" from when Edwards was hospitalised. Although the article doesn't say if or when he was discharged. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW the Telegraph is now reporting it too, but it's still based on the Sun story. Possibly enough for us to include that she has *reportedly* filed for divorce? WaggersTALK 13:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)