Talk:Huw Edwards

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)

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)

Duration of Sentence

The article says both he got 12 months and he got 6 months. Which is it? Darmot and gilad (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Alex Williams received twelve months suspended, Edwards received six months suspended. The article wording looks ok.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)