Talk:Jimmy Savile/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

"Jimmy Savile's secret daughter"

• And he's back on the front page of today's Sunday Mirror, this time with a claim that he may be the father of a 29-year-old woman.[1] None of this would have any hope of being considered reliable without a DNA test. There was a similar claim by a 40-year-old woman in December 2011, discussed here in the talk page archive. This turned out to be "inconclusive".[2]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Refs: [3][4] [5] Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No specific information, poor tabloid sources, and not worthy of inclusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, those refs are for 40-year old Georgina Ray, who's now decided she doesn't want to be Savile's daughter. The new claimant is 29-year old daughter of Georgina Martin, who says that Savile was "likely" to have been the father. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It's puzzling, and at first I thought that the Sunday Mirror story might be a rehash of the December 2011 one, as it involves two women named Georgina. However, the names and dates are different in the December 2011 claim, so it looks like this is a separate and new claim. Also, I couldn't resist a link to this article as it shows the media's ongoing fascination with Savile.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How very odd. What would anyone want to do with two and a half tons of concrete? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop Jimmy Savile from coming back. Britmax (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure he's yet really gone away. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, well. no. Britmax (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I reverted this change. I'm sure it's been discussed before, and I'm in line with the existing consensus - but further comments would be welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Pedophile - not suitable, pedophilia is a medical condition, not a media label. Child rapist, not suitable, because allegations made after a person's death, regardless of the available evidence, are not the same as a court conviction during the person's lifetime. As you point, this type of labelling has been discussed and rejected before.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. A retrospective (and assumptive) diagnosis might be possible (although not sure what purpose it would serve), but "a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger" does not seem to apply. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Child sex causing stripping of "Order of British Empire"

He has been stripped of his Order of British Empire following child sex convictions 182.255.99.214 (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Needs a source. British titles and honours cease to apply on a person's death, which is why Savile has not been stripped of his knighthood.[6] Rolf Harris is still alive, so his honours can be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Knighthoods

I have added 'Kt' after his name to make it clearer from the start he had two knighthoods, one from the Queen (Knight Bachelor) and one from the Pope (KCSG). Usually Knight Bachelor gives no letters after the name (which is presumably why there weren't any here) but in adding 'Kt' to indicate Knight Bachelor I follow the usage described in the Wikipedia entry Knight Bachelor at 'Honorifics and post-nominals' for those with more than one honour bestowing the title 'Sir'. 'Kt' is also used in sources such as Whitaker's Almanack for knights bachelor. If others think this addition is unnecessary I am quite relaxed to have 'Kt' removed. Both knighthoods are discussed in the body of the entry where it is also explained why he cannot be stripped of either. JordiYiman (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

New play about Savile

An Audience with Jimmy Savile is a play about Savile, written by Jonathan Maitland and with Alistair McGowan playing Savile. It is at The Park Theatre from 10 June to 11 July.[7] Something to watch out for.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This has gone ahead, reviewed here. Is this notable enough, maybe here or at Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that a brief mention is justified - even if it's not a very good play (as that review suggests), it's received a fair amount of publicity, has been reviewed in reliable sources - more examples here, here, here, here, etc. - and stars a notable celebrity. Perhaps it could be mentioned at Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal#Related actions (a section that needs a substantial rewrite and update, by the way) - though this article would be equally appropriate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Savile and Edward Heath

Savile and Edward Heath are on the front page of The Sunday People today. The claim is that Heath secured an OBE for Savile in 1972. The story is thin and innuendo-laden stuff. Even if Heath did do this, it was Margaret Thatcher who insisted that Savile should have a knighthood, despite objections from civil servants including her Cabinet Secretary Robert Armstrong on four occasions. Savile was turned down for an MBE by Harold Wilson in 1970.[8] Despite claiming an exclusive, the documents cited by the People are freely available under the thirty-year rule.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you are suggesting we ignore this claim, and if so I agree. Even by the standards of The Sunday People this is scraping the barrel. -- Alarics (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The Sunday People does not quote the documents directly, but Heath may well have given the green light to Savile getting an OBE in the 1972 New Year Honours; it is perfectly normal for these to be approved by the Prime Minister. Like Alarics, I hear the sound of a barrel being scraped, and mentioned this purely to point out the media coverage which has been focused on Edward Heath this week. The claim is nowhere near suitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought, as Michael Shrimpton told us, Savile was "supplying Heath with little boys" for his yachting trips before he "bashed the boys on the bogo and tossed them overboard"? Are we sure Heath wasn't one of those giant reptile illuminati? I wonder if that nice Mr Icke has anything to say about the Royal family??Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Savile did not have the sort of close friendship with Heath that he did with Margaret Thatcher. The photo of Heath and Savile together comes from a 1980 epsiode of Jim'll Fix It, where Jim fixed it for an elderly lady for Heath to conduct a piece of music that she had written. Nevertheless, some people have vivid imaginations. This type of stuff about Heath and Savile has been going around the web for years, but it is only in the last week that the mainstream media has touched on it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah-ha, it's all becoming clear now. I never knew the Queen Mother wrote music. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Surname pronunciation.

I think most British English speakers would rhyme this name with "travel", not with "Tamil". After all, we don't all talk in that weird Mykill Howerd way, do we? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is certainly my impression (especially having listened to a few relevant YouTube clips). W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Savile Row is usually pronounced /ˈsævɪl/. With Jimmy it can be somewhere between /ˈsævɪl/ and /ˈsævəl/ depending on the speaker. Some speakers tend to pronounce all unstressed English vowel sounds as /ə/. Personally I would go with /ˈsævɪl/.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

True, but Savile Row isn't exactly in Leeds, is it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at some YouTube videos and the pronunciation varied. It is hard to give an exact IPA pronunciation for a given word, particularly in English. There is an estate agent in the UK called Savills [9] which is an alternative spelling of the surname. The name should not really be pronounced to rhyme with "travel", even if some people do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I do hope you're not being prescriptive there, Ian. Hard to distinguish that vowel when it's pronounced with the usual mixture of disgust and venom? I wonder what Fiona Bruce would say. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A search inside this book does not turn up any results for JS, so that was £13.42 saved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

In this YouTube video of a BBC Panorama documentary, both pronunciations can be found.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That is so, but the Panorama voice-over reporter happens to have a very Scottish accent. In English RP (which I assume our pronunciation guides are supposed to represent), I think you more often get a clearer "i" vowel in the second syllable. -- Alarics (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

To me, the Scottish pronunciation sounds more like an "i" than the RP one, if anything. I doubt we can find any reliable sources for this, so I suppose we should either ditch the pronunciation altogether or use that symbol that is supposed to mean either schwa or "i" depending on speaker. Namely ɨ. The same goes for "Savile Row", as far as I can tell - the great majority of instances I can find on YouTube seem to be schwa to me. Perhaps everyone just hears these words as they think they pronounce them. W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I've opened a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The pronunciation should not be ditched, because of the risk of a unfamiliar person assuming that the word is pronounced as in "vile" (although some people may prefer this). Savile Row also has an IPA for the same reason. The difference between /ˈsævɪl/ and /ˈsævəl/ is not that great and is within the normal range of variations in pronunciation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

From a northern UK viewpoint, I'd say that it rhymes with cavil rather than gavel ... so should we add /ˈsævɪl/ as an alternative? (In Leeds, of course, it would be /ˈsavɪl/, but I interpret all "æ"s as just "a"s, so we needn't alter that.) Dbfirs 12:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I think (from the descriptions in this thread, not from personal knowledge) that W. P. Uzer's suggestion to use /ɨ/ in the IPA respelling is the best idea. Deor (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that too closed? It doesn't sound like either pronunciation to me, but do we have a tradition of using it out of place in the IPA vowel trapezoid? How about using /ɘ/? Will anyone understand it? Dbfirs 15:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia has a tradition of using an abomination of the IPA system designed to cause maximum confusion with minimum information. It would be preferable to use a non-IPA symbol for "either ɪ or ə", like the OED does (something like ɪ), but Wikipedia has decided to use ɨ, which does at least have some usage behind it in American (non-IPA) linguistics, I believe. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and I find, on checking, that Wikipedia does indeed use ɨ. The problem for non-Americans is that they might confuse ɨ with the standard IPA symbol which is much more closed and sounds different from your American ɨ in our Vowel article (and other similar articles). I suppose the vowels are not far apart, but why not give the two alternative pronunciations rather than try to combine them? Dbfirs 20:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree (but there are worse examples than this ɨ in use on Wikipedia, unfortunately). W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

So have we all agreed that there are no reliable sources for this and that it's just down to a consensus of editor's personal opinions? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added both IPA pronunciations to the lead. Neither is wrong and speakers from different parts of the UK could argue ad infinitum over this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Longer, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

She's just saying it slowly and clearly for clarity. It's still /ˈsævɪl/ not /ˈsæviːl/ or /ˈsævaɪl/. Dbfirs 21:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has argued about the IPA at Savile Row (yet). There is no easy answer to the question of how to write Savile in IPA, as people would say it differently. I think that /ˈsævəl/ is biased in favour of southern English as a northern or Scottish person would say /ˈsævɪl/.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

From an a priori perspective, if the variotion is between an unstressed short vowel and an unstressed reduced vowel, the short vowel should be given, since those who automatically reduce such vowels will do so without our help. Unless the subject himself has insisted that it's /ˈsævəl/ not /ˈsævɪl/, the latter should be used. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Criminal categories

I and other editors have added this articles to categories identifying Savile as a criminal (namely English criminals of the 20th and 21st centuries, Criminals from Yorkshire, and English sex offenders), but User:Ianmacm has consistently reverted these edits on the basis that Savile was never criminally convicted and that most of the criminal claims against him arose posthumously. I will present my argument as so why he should be included in these categories so we can hopefully build some consensus.

This is a well-sourced article and Savile's crimes are discussed in extensive details using these sources, which identify him as a criminal based upon the overwhelming amount of evidence to prove his prolific offending as a rapist and child sex offender. In some cases there is even video and audio footage of him committing offences. The intro itself states that the police believe that Savile was a predatory sex offender, thus a criminal. It seems like original research for him to not be included in criminal categories based on the subjective technicality that he was never convicted. We are supposed to edit based on our sources and in this case they identify Savile as a criminal. Should Adolf Hitler not be included in the "Holocaust perpetrators" category because he was never brought before the Nuremberg Trials? (This might be an example of Godwin's law but is the most obvious example). JJARichardson (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Criminal categories are for people convicted of crimes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence, presented within due legal process, that Hitler was a "Holocaust perpetrator". Savile was never convicted and it would be WP:OR to decide at this stage, which crimes, if any, he might have been convicted of. Life is unfair - but it's not Wikipedia's job to redress the balance. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

When Jimmy Savile died in October 2011, the mainstream media and his home city of Leeds treated him as a national treasure. This was the consensus at the time of his death, but things can change, and Savile's reputation began to fall apart after the ITV documentary was broadcast a year later and many people came forward to make similar claims about his behaviour. *But* a person cannot be tried after their death, and categories on Wikipedia should not be used in a misleading way. Savile is not a criminal or a sex offender, because he went to his 45-degree angled grave without being arrested, charged or convicted of any sexual offence. The categories should not give the impression otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump and Martinevans123 and ♦IanMacM♦. We should also bear in mind that, though you might not guess this from the press coverage, nothing has yet been proven against Savile: it's all just uncorroborated assertions, which the police admit they have not investigated (they have simply assumed the accusations are correct) and at least a few of the more crucial of which have actually been disproved. -- Alarics (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

ianmacm's statement above needs to be qualified with the use of the word "convicted": i.e. Saville is not a CONVICTED criminal or sex offender. However as is perfectly clear from the public record, including statements as reported on the Wikipedia entry itself, Saville was indeed a sexual abuser whose actions were criminal - see cited statement from Sir Jeremy Hunt as one example.As for the comment from Alarics, that's just outrageous - these are not "uncorroborated assertions" and the police HAVE investigated not "assumed" they are correct. The statements in the para below are simply lies.Alex Paige (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

What I wrote was true, and still is. Describing my comments as "lies" does not change their veracity. Nothing against Savile (the correct spelling, by the way) has been proven, and one or two of the complaints have actually been disproven. The police have not investigated the allegations; they simply collated them into a list and took them as read. Just because Jeremy Hunt (who is not a Sir, by the way) says something does not make it true; he is just a politician giving out the official line. -- Alarics (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Given the hash that the police that the police have made of the investigations of Lord Bramall and Leon Brittan, it is just as well that they are not in a position to be arbiters in matters of guilt or innocence. With Savile and Cyril Smith it was the other way round. During their lifetimes the police failed to pursue various complaints against them that might have stood up in court. But we will never know what the verdicts at a trial would have been, so categories like criminal and sex offender are unsuitable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"Criminal categories are for people convicted of crimes" - There does seem to be some elasticity, though. Fred West was never convicted of the crimes which earn him a place in criminal categories. So the qualification there is that West was subject to criminal investigation and charges, which falls short of conviction in a court of law. If future developments, reported by reliable sources, prompt consensus amongst Wikipedia contributors that the evidence is sufficient that the police would have charged Savile were he still alive, then perhaps there should be a reassessment. I'm not arguing that that stage has been reached, but we should be open to the possibility that it could be reached on the basis of future police investigation alone, in the absence of conviction or charge. Alrewas (talk) 02:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I broadly agree about Fred West, but in cases like Savile and Cyril Smith it is unclear how many of the accusations would have stood up in court. Some might, some might have not. Trials like those of William Roache and Dave Lee Travis contained a large number of accusations that were rejected by a jury due to insufficient and in some cases flimsy evidence. The real surprise is that Savile and Smith were never arrested or charged during their lifetimes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence needs to mention the sexual abuse

I know this has been discussed before, but I believe the lead sentence needs to change. Savile was, first and foremost, a sex offender. That is what he is most famous for now. Perhaps in the UK he's more famous for his TV career, but Wikipedia is worldwide. I'm Australian and only know of him as a sex offender. There is no shortage of reliable sources which state it as fact, e.g. his profile at the BBC says "he was also one of the UK's most prolific sexual predators" [10]. It goes on to detail his assaults and rapes as facts, not allegations. Therefore I think something of the lines of "and sexual predator" should be added to the lead sentence. Adpete (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

As you've said, this has been discussed before. Savile was not a sex offender, because he was never arrested or convicted for a sexual offence during his lifetime. Some allegations were made during his lifetime and a huge number were made after his death; we will never know how many of them would have stood up in court. Savile's reputation is now ruined, nobody is denying that. During his career which stretched from the 1950s onwards, Savile was famous for many things other than the sexual abuse allegations that were made after his death. The WP:LEAD has to take this into account, and the fact that allegations are not convictions. Saying "Savile was a paedo" in the opening sentence is too tabloid in its style. The current version of the lead section gives context to Savile's career and the allegations that were made against him. Here is what Britannica says about Savile in its online biography of him. It also does not mention the sexual abuse allegations in the opening sentence and follows a style that is broadly similar to the Wikipedia article. Incidentally, it is remarkable how short Britannica's online bio of Savile is when compared to his Wikipedia equivalent. Maybe they just can't get the staff these days.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• An additional thought: it is important to avoid falling into the same trap as the Metropolitan Police in Operation Midland, where an officer said that the allegations were "credible and true" even though they had never been anywhere near a court.[11] Matters of guilt or innocence are for a jury, and Giving Victims a Voice was also criticised for falling into this trap.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Courts are not the only route by which the truth of statements might be established. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's what reliable sources say on the matter that counts. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Personally I doubt whether Giving Victims a Voice is a reliable source. As academics at the University of Edinburgh pointed out, it has fallen into the fashionable politically correct trap of regarding allegations of sexual abuse as facts. The Metropolitan Police also did this in Operation Midland and lived to regret it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Police Commissioner is not a good example: he was commenting on a murder investigation, in which it was his *job* not to pre-empt the outcome. It was an entirely different case and, from what I can glean from that article, the suspects might be alive. WP does not need to rely on courts, otherwise WP would say almost nothing. The BBC bio is cite is a reliable source (by Wikipedia standards), and I can easily provide many more. Giving Victims a Voice is certainly a RS and I'd be surprised if you can produce substantial RS saying otherwise. The Britannica article is behind a subscription wall for me. I can only see the first 100 words, and from what I can see, the Britannica article is also disappointing in that it fails to mention the sexual abuse allegations at the outset. I did not propose saying the lead sentence should say "Savile was a paedo", so why did you even bring that up? I think it should say something like,

Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile, OBE, KCSG (/ˈsævᵻl/; 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011), commonly known as Jimmy Savile, was an English DJ, television and radio personality, charity fundraiser, and sexual predator. Adpete (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Poor wording. It implies that sexual predator is a parallel career choice that goes with these areas. The lead section needs to mention the allegations in context and not fall into the Operation Midland trap.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Well actually, in a sense it *was* a parallel career choice. But anyway there's precedent for doing this, e.g. Oscar Pistorius. I realise that a difference is that OP was convicted in a court of law. But that doesn't matter. The point is that OP is famous as a runner and as a murderer; while JS is famous as a TV presenter and sexual predator. And both of these can be substantiated by ample reliable sources. Again, Operation Midland is irrelevant because it was an inquiry that was ongoing at the time, and police cannot pre-empt a police investigation. A number of investigations have been done into JS and the results are easily conclusive enough for WP standards. Adpete (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've put the text of Savile's online Britannica bio on Pastebin here. As far as I can see, this is all of it and there isn't a paywall to see more of it. Anyway, it does attempt to put the allegations into context. It also says "hundreds of possible victims came forward" which is correct. Hundreds of victims did not come forward, as this would have been impossible to prove after his death.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that Britannica article is inadequate and out of date. All it says is, "In 2012, a year after his death, Savile became the centre of a sexual-abuse scandal after the British television channel ITV aired a documentary that detailed allegations that he had molested or raped numerous underage girls. Various investigations were launched as hundreds of possible victims came forward." It appears to date from before the investigations were finished, because it gives no indication that the allegations were found to be true. In fact, the lack of a space before the words "In 2012" makes me think it was hastily stuck in (possibly as long ago as late 2012), with no attempt to rewrite the article. Because it's out of date (and extremely short), it's not a good counter-example. Adpete (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we're agreed that the Britannica online bio is pretty scant and out of date. However, its style and tone are correct as it has not fallen into the trap of assuming that all of the allegations against Savile would have stood up in court. Most of the allegations against Dave Lee Travis and all of the allegations against William Roache did not. I'm not in any way against mentioning these allegations but they are allegations. The Britannica article has got this much right.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There have been other inquiries and reliable secondary analyses, however, that have concluded that the Savile allegations were essentially true. As Wikipedia, we don't require a court verdict to justify stating something as fact (indeed, such a verdict might not be sufficient, if significant reliable sources have called its correctness into doubt). Since dead people are not put on trial, that particular route is closed in the case of JS, but there are other routes by which facts can be and are reliably established. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There has been a rethink on this in Britain in the past few years and Savile (and Cyril Smith) could and probably should have been prosecuted in their lifetimes. However, history cannot be written backwards and legalistic phrases such as "sex offender" and "sexual predator" should not be used in cases where no trial occurred.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph tells us how he was born and did this and then that and then died. It then tells us that after he died his behaviour became apparent and this takes up roughly the second half of the first paragraph, which is not long. I think it would be very hard to improve on this order without distorting the chronological order of the narrative to move his unacceptable side about an inch further up the article. Britmax (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with User:ianmacm. These are only unproven allegations. None of them has been investigated (as the police admitted in "Giving Victims a Voice" if you read the small print), so we cannot know how many of them, if any, are true. -- Alarics (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The allegations were investigated. What the report says is "Further investigation seeking corroboration of individual allegations, the majority dating back many years, is considered disproportionate when there is no prospect of criminal proceedings.", emphasis mine. And again, Wikipedia does not need a court of law verdict to assert something, all it needs is reliable sources. I think what some people are missing is the scale of this abuse, there is almost no precedent. Adpete (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Even though the Crown Prosecution Service thought that there was enough evidence to prosecute Dave Lee Travis and William Roache on multiple charges of sexual abuse, a jury thought otherwise. Savile probably should have been prosecuted over the Duncroft Approved School allegations, and his reputation would have been ruined if he had been found guilty on any of the charges. As I've said before, this is similar to The Shipman Inquiry. The figure of around 250 deaths includes cases that were excluded from the trial because the evidence was insufficient. Giving Victims a Voice has basically accepted every allegation as if it were a fact, which is a huge legal fallacy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Adpete that the sexual abuse needs to be mentioned more prominently, in the first sentence, which is supposed to summarise what the subject is most notable for. Savile is globally known for the sexual abuse scandal, and entirely unknown in 195 of 196 countries for his other activities. Having "charity fundraiser", "dance hall manager" and other completely irrelevant and obscure activities for which the subject is not primarily known in the first sentence, while not including the activities for which he is primarily known, is POV.

As already noted, court decisions are not really that relevant for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not court decisions. Hitler wasn't convicted for the Holocaust either. Reliable sources credibly establish that he committed numerous and severe acts of sexual abuse, and furthermore that he is primarily known for these acts and the resulting scandal (it is also highlighted by the fact that his sexual abuse has a lengthy in-depth article, in addition to other articles related to the case). Essentially, he is a man who in his lifetime was known only domestically in his own country for various TV and fundraising activities, and mostly for eccentric behaviour, and who only achieved real worldwide fame after his death as the most notorious sex offender in British history and the main figure of a scandal far larger than anything he was known for in life.

In any event, how he is perceived in just one country cannot take precedence over how he is perceived globally. I believe there is now consensus to make the change suggested by Adpete. --Tataral (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we need some reliable evidence that, outside the UK, he is primarily known as a sexual abuser - that is, we need sources that mention his alleged abuse without mentioning the media career for which he was previously notable in the UK. I am not necessarily opposed to mentioning the abuse scandal in the first sentence if it can be done without creating an over-long introductory sentence covering too many points - and I am not convinced that is possible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources which discuss someone who has committed a crime usually mention the background of the subject; that is entirely normal. For example if a school shooter worked as a kindergarten teacher, sources would mention that, but he wouldn't be notable as a kindergarten teacher, but as a school shooter. What matters in this case is that there were few reliable sources from outside the UK which reported on Savile before he became known for sexual abuse, while there is an enormous amount of sources from across the planet which reported on him as a sex offender, with the main focus on his sexual abuse, and his other activities (if mentioned) merely as background information. --Tataral (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph, which is not long, establishes why he was notable. It then describes the events that happened after his death. In what way would shoehorning the later discovery of hs unsavoury behaviour nearer the start of the article improve it? It isn't hidden, it's half a short paragraph down. Britmax (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Tataral - This was the article immediately before the allegations were first made public. As would be expected, most of the sources were from the UK, but there was also a New York Times obituary - and other international obituaries included this, this, this, etc.. So, he was certainly internationally notable as a media personality at the time of his death. There is a need for the text to establish his prior notability as a media personality, before giving due weight to the alleged abuses and resulting scandal that arose as a result of his notability. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• To me, he was a sexual offender, as has come out much in the public media, and it is unlikely that there will be a formal trial in absentia to properly sort out what he did and what he did not do and what is not proven. He was not a convicted sexual offender, as he escaped court accusation until he died. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding first paragraph

Would there be any mileage in tweaking the current first paragraph which is:

Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile, OBE, KCSG (/ˈsævᵻl/; 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011), commonly known as Jimmy Savile, was an English DJ, television and radio personality, dance hall manager, and charity fundraiser. He hosted the BBC television show Jim'll Fix It, was the first and last presenter of the long-running BBC music chart show Top of the Pops, and raised an estimated £40 million for charities. At the time of his death he was widely praised for his personal qualities and as a fund-raiser. After his death, hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse were made against him, leading the police to believe that Savile was a predatory sex offender—possibly one of Britain's most prolific. There had been allegations during his lifetime, but they were dismissed and accusers ignored or disbelieved; Savile took legal action against some accusers.

To read

Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile, OBE, KCSG (/ˈsævᵻl/; 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011), commonly known as Jimmy Savile, was an English DJ, television and radio personality, dance hall manager, and charity fundraiser. At the time of his death he was widely praised for his personal qualities and as a fund-raiser. After his death, hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse were made against him, leading the police to believe that Savile was a predatory sex offender—possibly one of Britain's most prolific. There had been allegations during his lifetime, but they were dismissed and accusers ignored or disbelieved; Savile took legal action against some accusers.

Savile hosted the BBC television show Jim'll Fix It, was the first and last presenter of the long-running BBC music chart show Top of the Pops, and raised an estimated £40 million for charities.

Or a "Mk II" version that moves the allegations to the second sentence:

Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile, OBE, KCSG (/ˈsævᵻl/; 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011), commonly known as Jimmy Savile, was an English DJ, television and radio personality, dance hall manager, and charity fundraiser. Widely praised at the time of his death for his personal qualities and as a fund-raiser, he was later the target of hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse. The police and other authorities believe that Savile was a predatory sex offender, possibly one of Britain's most prolific. There had been allegations during his lifetime, but they were dismissed and accusers ignored or disbelieved; Savile took legal action against some accusers.

Savile hosted the BBC television show Jim'll Fix It, was the first and last presenter of the long-running BBC music chart show Top of the Pops, and raised an estimated £40 million for charities.

The last sentence is additional detail to his other roles and there may even be a borderline argument for it being too much detail for the lead. This moves the abuse descriptions nearer the start of the article. Britmax (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the huge controversy over Savile arose after his death. For over fifty years he was famous for things other than the sexual abuse allegations, and to write these off in favour of the allegations leads to problems with WP:LEAD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, and don't forget that these roles were the source of his apparent invincibility. If it were just me I'd leave the lead as it is but someone will probably change it and I'm trying to make suggestions that cause the least possible damage. Britmax (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Leave it. It is perfectly OK as it stands. -- Alarics (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Title relinquished after death?

This man is no longer a Sir. The title is relinquished after death Danpalmer80 (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind sharing your source for this information with the rest of us? Britmax (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

This is addressed in the "Honours and awards" section.LM2000 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The Honours and Awards section in the article could be made clearer as to why it cannot currently be revoked.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the talk page archive on several occasions. David Cameron raised the prospect of stripping Savile of his knighthood in October 2012, but since it ceased to apply at the time of his death, he cannot be stripped of it under current rules.[12] The "Honours and awards" section makes this clear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Herald Express article

There is an article about Savile in the Herald Express here. It is interesting because it uses phrases like "During Savile's lifetime, sporadic allegations of child abuse were made against him dating back to 1963, but only became widely publicised after his death. Savile claimed the key to his success on Jim'll Fix It had been that he disliked children, although he later admitted to saying this to deflect scrutiny of his personal life." It is of course a pure coincidence that this is exactly the wording that appears in the Wikipedia article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Criminal categories

This was discussed in the archives, but consensus wasn't reached. There's no doubt that Savile was a habitual sex offender for decades. If he were alive, he'd be serving a long prison sentence. That he got away with it doesn't change that. Andrew Cunanan was never arrested, let alone charged - does that mean he should be considered innocent? Jim Michael (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Jim - sorry but, yes, it "does change that" and fundamentally so. Wikipedia can't decide who should be (or should have been) convicted of any crime - that's a job for the courts, as much as it might irk all of us in this case. You also seem to be struggling under the misapprehension that "criminal conviction" vs "innocent of any crime" is a dichotomy. That is far from the truth, even for living people. Even for people who are in prison. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

We routinely describe and categorise known dead killers, such as Fred West, Chris Benoit and Andrew Cunanan as murderers. Why would we not do likewise with known dead sex offenders? I didn't say there's a dichotomy - but Savile's criminality isn't in doubt. Jim Michael (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

West had confessed to murder, had been formally charged and was on remand when he killed himself. Not sure about Benoit and Cunanan, although they were obviously in a different country. Perhaps it's a question of circumstances and weight of "evidence". You are right, it seems somewhat contradictory. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

We can't write history backwards. Savile pretty much certainly had some nasty habits, but he was not a criminal or sex offender unless a court said so.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• The BBC's obituary of Savile from October 2011 makes no mention of the sexual abuse allegations. Crowds lined the street for his funeral in Leeds, with the great and the good attending. But it didn't last. As Savile had perhaps realised himself with his choice of epitaph for his headstone, "It was good while it lasted." Never was there a case where De mortuis nil nisi bonum was abandoned to such a great extent as it was with Savile. The difference between Louis Theroux's 2000 and 2016 documentaries is striking. In the 2000 documentary, Theroux asks Savile about the allegations that he is a paedophile, but for most of the documentary seems to view Savile as an amiable eccentric, which is of course what Savile wanted. In the 2016 documentary, Theroux seems racked by guilt at allowing Savile to portray his standard persona on screen in 2000 with little in the way of contradictory input. Many people, including the great and the good, were taken in by Savile. Margaret Thatcher was a huge fan, even though her civil servants said no to a knighthood four times because they had presumably heard mutterings about Savile's unsavoury behaviour. If he had been a criminal or sex offender, things would have been a lot simpler. No knighthood, no hobnobbing with Prince Charles and Princess Diana, no lying in state in Leeds. But he got away with it during his lifetime. That is the real lesson here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

West confessed to the murders? When? He was awaiting trial when he killed himself, which wouldn't have been necessary if he's pleaded guilty to all the charges.

Neither Benoit or Cunanan confessed. Benoit's murders weren't discovered until after he killed himself and Cunanan killed himself before he could be arrested.

Savile was very rich, powerful, intelligent and influential. He had the backing of many people in high places and was protected from prosecution by doing lots of charity work. People were afraid of telling the police, media etc. about his crimes because of the fear of being wrongly prosecuted for defamation. Savile was one of the BBC's biggest stars, so they presented him in a very favourably biased light - until it became impossible to do so any more in 2012. Some of the BBC's staff at the time would have been aware of Savile's sex offending, but they would have been silenced or were afraid to speak out. He was one of the worst sex offenders in British history. Try having a conversation with anyone about him and see how many seconds (not minutes) it takes for him/her to mention Savile's sex crimes. Savile was an unconvicted habitual sex offender, just as West was an unconvicted serial killer. Jim Michael (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

West confessed in 1994, after the bones of his daughter Heather were found buried in his garden. The conviction of his wife Rose, for 10 of the 11 murders, leant immense weight to the likelihood that West was guilty. I'm not sure it's going to be productive to argue over whether or not West's suicide was "necessary", but I think most people would connect it in some way with his guilt. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No-one's doubting that Fred West was a serial killer and that he killed himself to avoid spending years in prison. Surely we're not giving Savile the benefit of the doubt (not that there is doubt), just because he died naturally? Jim Michael (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Categories should be clearly supported by text and citations within the article. The text of the article does not say "Savile was a criminal and a sex offender" because this is not what happened. The WP:LEAD says "After his death, hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse were made against him, leading the police to believe that Savile had been a predatory sex offender — possibly one of Britain's most prolific." This summarises the sourcing accurately. Just as Savile cannot be stripped of his knighthood, he cannot be tried in absentia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Ian is right. Not one of the allegations has been proven, and some of them turn out on investigation to be distinctly unreliable, e.g. the original Duncroft claims. Most of the press have decided he is guilty "on the balance of probabilities", and we can say that that is their view, but the people they describe as "victims" are actually only "alleged victims" because the allegations are uncorroborated and at least some of them might not be true. We cannot describe him in the same terms as if a court of law had found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. -- Alarics (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It's inconsistent that we describe and categorise dead, unconvicted Lee Harvey Oswald, Fred West, Andrew Cunanan and Chris Benoit as having been murderers - yet describe dead, unconvicted Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith as having been suspected sex offenders. Is there a policy or guideline that explains this discrepancy? Jim Michael (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I can sympathise with your concerns, Jim, which I think look very reasonable. Is this inconsistency in any way connected to having one or more dead bodies, which is rather more conclusive than first-hand accusations of assault, rape, etc? I think there should be some kind of policy or guideline explanation written somewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussed before no doubt, but why can he not be stripped of his knighthood? Is that not at the monarch's discretion, meaning his legal guilt or innocence is irrelevant.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It has been explained numerous times that he cannot be stripped of his knighthood under current rules. The rules would have to be changed to allow it to happen for dead as well as living people, and there is no sign of this happening. The Vatican has said the same thing about the Papal knighthood.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Off topic. Discussed many times before. Let's just stick to "Category:20th-century criminals" etc., here? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Both sides make good arguments in the criminal categories discussion. I will suggest that Category:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom should be included here as it is with the similar cases of Cyril Smith and Clement Freud.LM2000 (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

As well as Category:English sex offenders and Category:Criminals from Yorkshire. Jim Michael (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope. The fact that a person is dead does not mean that WP:V ceases to apply. Terms like criminal and sex offender are misleading when they are not supported by the text or citations in the article. Sleazy though Savile undoubtedly was, we do not have criminal guilt by accusation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Savile's grave and flat in Leeds

This is in the news today, and it isn't really news because it has been known for a long time that Savile's 45 degree angled concrete encased grave in Scarborough cemetery has not been dug up due to a dispute about the cost, estimated at £20,000. Also, the flat in Roundhay Park, Leeds which was regarded as Savile's primary home, has been demolished in October 2016.[13] Although described as a luxury penthouse, it was in a poor state of repair. Not sure if this is notable enough for a mention either.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I would say not. -- Alarics (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note on the flat, which was at Lake View Court: it has been described as a luxury penthouse, but it cannot have been very luxurious if it was sold for just £250,000 in 2013.[14] It was apparently in a poor state of repair and the fittings were years out of date.[15][16] The sourcing does not say that it was demolished specifically because of its links with Savile, so it probably fails article notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Surprised that gorgeous kitchen wasn't listed. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2016

I would like to remove the 'Sir' from Jimmy Savile's name as his knighthood was stripped.

BigBaddyBleach (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't stripped, it lapsed on his death. Under current rules, only living people like Fred Goodwin can have their knighthood revoked.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Attempt to create accurate and mobile friendly lede

Could editors please take a look at my edit of the lede for this article? It was reverted by another editor, accusing me of using "tabloid" language, and claims that what I think was a vague and unbalanced lede - giving the impression that Saville is principally known for showbusiness and charitable work, rather than the clear fact that his name is now synonymous with predatory sexual offences. I think this needs proper discussion. Saville was plainly exposed for what he was. The word is not "tabloid", and even if it were then there would be nothing wrong with that. Nor was there anything wrong with my edit. I hope there are other editors around who will chip in on this, so as to avoid this taking up the time of people who may need to be brought in to be involved in this. Bluehotel (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

We have a separate article on the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, where the allegations against him, and the repercussions, are set out at length. This is a biographical article about the man, who was clearly notable before his death. Why was he notable? For his showbusiness and charitable work. Words like "his exposure as a serial predatory sex offender..." are indeed somewhat tabloidese and unencyclopedic - don't forget, he was never charged in his lifetime, and we have proof of nothing. More to the point, those words are not supported by the citation that follows that sentence. The lede to this article has been argued over at some length over the last few years, with the current version reflecting something approaching a consensus, and has been changed over that period to give considerable weight to the allegations against him. I do not agree that the lede gives "the impression that Saville [only one "l", by the way] is principally known for showbusiness and charitable work". It briefly explains why he was notable in the first place - doubtless, if he had not been notable first, the abuse would not have taken place on the scale it did - and gives a great deal of weight to the abuse allegations. For more information on that, readers will look to the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal article. For more information on why he was notable in the first place, they will read this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Ghmyrtle. The opening paragraph is a fair balance as it stands, after a lot of discussion here, and I think it should now be left alone. -- Alarics (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I reverted this for two reasons: Savile was not a sex offender, as he was never charged or convicted during his lifetime. Secondly, during his lifetime, he was treated as a national treasure and awarded every honour going by the great and the good, but it all fell apart within 18 months of his death. The reverted edit lost this important part of the context, supposedly to make the lead more "mobile friendly". We can't write history backwards and it is easy to discredit Savile now that he is dead. It would have been far more difficult to discredit him during his lifetime. People often ask why this did not happen, and the case of Gordon Anglesea is the answer. In November 2016, the former Welsh police superintendent was sentenced to 12 years in prison for child sexual abuse.[17] However, in 1994, he had successfully sued for libel over these allegations.[18] Long before Savile's death in 2011, the British national newspapers had been given detailed and credible accounts of unsavoury behaviour by Savile. They never published them during his lifetime, because they knew that Savile would have thrown the kitchen sink at a libel action and might well have won, bankrupting the newspaper. This is why Paul Connew backed off at the Sunday Mirror, even though he believed that the accusations were accurate.[19] Things have moved on considerably since 1994, but we cannot be armchair experts branding Savile as a sex offender when it would have been much more difficult during his lifetime.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Ghmyrtle, Alarics and Ianmacm. I'm also a bit alarmed by the need to create "mobile friendly" versions of anything, not least article ledes. I think the project would want to agree a clear set of criteria and guidelines before embarking on such a move. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Having read the "mobile friendly" version, I would like two things explained to me. First, exactly how does shortening the lead in this way make it mobile friendly? Secondly, the sentence "I hope there are other editors around who will chip in on this, so as to avoid this taking up the time of people who may need to be brought in to be involved in this." Who are these "other people"? If this is a legal threat you may wish to strike it. Either way the lead is the result of some discussion and is fine as it is. Britmax (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

"A Cabinet Office spokesman said that there was no procedure to posthumously revoke an OBE or knighthood, as these honours automatically expire when a person dies."
If this is the case then why does it have Sir and OBE in the infobox?--Mobile mundo (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to have been able to point to a guideline about this - WP:HONOUR could be said to apply - but I think the simple answer is, because we always do. Everyone from Henry Eam to Walter Raleigh to John Peel retains these honours in the infobox and article lede. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed various times in the talk page archive here. Neither the British Government nor Wikipedia can strip Savile of these titles after his death. However, making an exception for Savile and not Walter Raleigh or Ronnie Barker would be problematic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Scottish/American Descent?

I have noticed that Jimmy Savile has been categorized as being of Scottish, Irish and American descent.

Irish descent would seem likely given that his mother's maiden name is of such origin.

Scottish and American descent do not seem to be backed up by any evidence, is there a reason for which Savile has been categorized as such?

JoeyofScotia (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a fair point because categories should be clearly supported by text and citations in the article, and these aren't. The use of findmypast.co.uk as one of the sources should not be allowed because it leads to original research. The use of the book God'll Fix it is also vague. Savile is known primarily as a Yorkshireman born and bred in God's own county, but his ancestry isn't supported by the current text and citations. I've removed these unless the sourcing is improved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This article points toward Scottish and American linage. If not already, it aught to be quoted.

JoeyofScotia (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a reliable source but it doesn't really add much to an understanding of Savile. Many people have foreign ancestors but a Wikipedia biography is not trying to do Who Do You Think You Are? This would need to be notable enough to mention in the text of the article before adding it as a category.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jimmy Savile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005092222/http://www.sixtiescity.com/PopTV/PopTV6064.shtm to http://www.sixtiescity.com/PopTV/PopTV6064.shtm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404090330/http://www.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/file/1401/honorary_graduates_2014 to http://www.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/file/1401/honorary_graduates_2014
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120208095027/http://www.soundsofthe60s.com/html/artistes/poolebrian.htm to http://www.soundsofthe60s.com/html/artistes/poolebrian.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

POV fork?

This article and Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal are dangerously close of being POV forks of each other. While the lead does eventually provide enough coverage on his pedophilia and sexual abuse, there's a lot of careful wording and lightened assertation compared to the "scandal" article. The other article is enormous, for obvious reasons, and some editors seem to believe that information on that page doesn't need to be addressed on this page anymore. That's POV forking. I'd also argue that this is a case of false balance, since any and all current sources on him share mostly the same point of view. It's not fair to treat older sources as equal since those authors did not have all the information available. It would be like glorifying Lance Armstrong before casually addressing his doping abuse. This isn't recentism: it's not a temporary thing and the allegations had been apparent all throughout his life but were only taken seriously since a few years ago. All Google News articles about him are - without exception - about the rape and sexual abuse. I wouldn't say it's especially problematic right now but there's a good chance of this going in the wrong direction. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, something should be done about the first time it's even addressed: "After his death, hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse were made against him, leading the police to believe that Savile had been a predatory sex offender." This isn't a news article, we don't leave readers in the dark until they read ahead. The constant "alleged", "claimed", "believed" falsely expresses doubt. Independent (in 2016) refers to him as a paedophile, without "alleged" or "believed" etc. and isn't ambiguous. There's even footage by now. BBC, who should arguably be the least willing to discuss it, introduces him in 2016 as a "disgraced broadcaster", explaining: "One of Britain's most prolific sex abusers, Savile exploited his celebrity status to abuse hundreds of adults and children across the country, assaulting or raping them in television dressing rooms, hospitals, schools, children's homes and his caravan." Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

This is still the lead of the article. We seem to have another attempt to describe everything in detail in the first sentence of a summary. Reading takes place one line at a time. The sexual behaviour is mentioned in the second sentence of the lead, and as Savile became famous as a DJ then did these things there is really nowhere else in the narrative for it to go. Britmax (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We shouldn't "glorify" Lance Armstrong or anyone else. This lead section for this article certainly doesn't "glorify" Savile. His fame as a DJ, the charity work, the TV shows - these are facts that made him famous. The sexual abuse scandal made him infamous. But after his death. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

One of the problems is WP:TOPIC because there is so much to say about the controversy that occurred after his death. This article isn't the best place to look at it in great detail, so it has been spun off into a separate article. I don't think that this is a POV fork, simply an attempt to keep this article on topic and at a readable length. Savile is probably going to be remembered by historians mainly for the controversy that occurred after his death, not for smoking cigars, hosting Top of the Pops etc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

... or for possibly being a wizard, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Criminal categories

We don't include them because he wasn't convicted, yet we don't likewise assume that Fred West, Andrew Cunanan etc. were innocent. Jim Michael (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

We've been through this before. I don't doubt that West and Cunanan would have been found guilty, but it still requires assuming what a court would have said. In the case of Savile, it's notable that he was never arrested, charged, cautioned or convicted for a single sexual offence during his lifetime. The floodgates opened after his death, but we can't write history backwards, which is what various people have tried to do to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Savile was actually questioned under caution by the police for an assault against a child in the 1970s. It is still my viewpoint that not including him in the criminal categories is a form of original research as all major sources, including law enforcement themselves, refer to him as a serial rapist and paedophile. Not that it really makes any difference as the body of the article speaks for itself, but that's just my two cents. As the above poster says, Savile was no less technically innocent than Fred West. JJARichardson (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This may have been dealt with before, but I thought I would raise it anyway. Why can't we say that someone is a sex offender just because they have not been convicted in a court? WP is not a court so the standards applying to a court do not apply. All we need to do is supply reliable sources that confirm someone was a sex offender. If the person is still alive then other factors about publication might prevent that, but not if they are dead. In the case of people like Savile and West the supply of very high quality reliable sources is huge. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Is no-one going to mention the elephant in the (next) room? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Or Harvey Weinstein for that matter? Despite the huge media hoo-ha, he isn't a criminal and hasn't been convicted of anything. It's worrying if some people think that allegations of sexual abuse = the person is a criminal. This effectively turns accusations into automatic criminal guilt, which bypasses the criminal justice system. To expand, although Savile and Cyril Smith would easily have been arrested and charged under the rules that exist today, under the rules that existed in the 1990s, they weren't. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service knew about the allegations back then, but they kicked them into the long grass. We can't write history backwards, which is why we have to be careful about using the "criminal" tag where it doesn't apply--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I mean Cyril is pretty well Catted up over there, isn't he? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Saying "Mr X was a child molester" is not the same as saying "Mr X was a criminal", unless we put today's values on to a past time. I have trouble connecting 'what a court would have said' (in the past or now), with what we can say on Wikipedia. If the person is alive defamation issues arise, which complicate the matter, but if the person is dead then that is not the case. Savile was not a criminal but he was a sex-offender. The same distinction applies to Fred West and many others. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, that's perfectly true. I think most people's sense of outrage and retribution might lead them to label him as a criminal who had escaped justice. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

So then, maybe we can reach the consensus that including this article in the "English sex offenders" category would be appropriate. JJARichardson (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Except that a Wikipedia article is not an appropriate venue for outrage and retribution? I think a similar discussion is needed at Talk:Cyril Smith. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

But this isn't a question of "outrage". It's a question of following the conclusions of multiple verifiable sources, as we as Wikipedians are supposed to do. I suppose you think the police are engaging in "retribution" by describing Cyril Smith as a sex offender? Bizarre, frankly. JJARichardson (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll make no comment on the motives of the police which, over the course of the last 40 years, seem to have been at best "variable". You have a perfectly good point with regard to verifiable sources, but I'm pretty sure you won't find one that tells us Savile was convicted of any crime. I guess it all hinges on one's definition of "a criminal". Maybe that is a frankly bizarre, but it's my reading of how Wikipedia currently works. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add to main page

{{linkrot}}

There are no bare urls in the entire article? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Clean your glasses. Look again.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us where? And could you sign your posts here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Normally people should run Reflinks themselves rather than complaining about it, but since the article is semiprotected it can't be done by an IP (207.35.33.162 requested this).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"I should have gone to Specsavers." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Plus, of course, some of us don't give a goddamn about the subject, so why should we be the ones to fix it, eh?

We fix our own pages. 207.35.33.162 (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

One wonders why you made the request. Which are the goddamn pages you "own"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This was raised at User talk:207.35.33.162 as far back as July 2017. In the time it takes to moan about linkrot, you can usually fix it yourself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected all that time, so the IP was unable to do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

It was mentioned at User_talk:207.35.33.162#Linkrot_tags in July 2017 that the user could create an account. For some reason, this user prefers adding linkrot tags and then expecting others to do it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

His title

If his knighthood and OBE cease to apply after death as stated by the British government then shouldn't the 'Sir' be removed from his name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:B697:9800:757A:52CC:99B2:9CC9 (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This is discussed numerous times in the talk page archive. Yes, the titles ceased to apply after his death, which is why they cannot be formally removed. This means that we can't make an exception for Savile to strip him of the titles posthumously. The text of the article explains this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Savile in Gimme Gimme Gimme

There were already cynical jokes about Savile's abuse of girls in the 2000 BBC comedy series Gimme Gimme Gimme (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtTuHC_iZDA). Worth a mention? Yintan  13:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jimmy Savile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922053228/http://www.djhistory.com/interviews/jimmy-savile to http://www.djhistory.com/interviews/jimmy-savile

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Checked the link, it works. Yintan  13:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Father's day cards

With Savile are in the news today [20] with a complaint from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. They can be purchased here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing Savile's Title

Could someone please remove the 'Sir' from Jimmy Savile's title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcrouch0 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

See the talk page archive, eg here. Knighthoods cease on a person's death so Savile cannot be stripped of it.[21]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

So, quite contrarily, for the purposes of encyclopedia entires, they don't really "cease" at all, but carry on in perpetuity? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that. The infobox heading includes pre-nominals, name and post-nominals as separate elements. The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name." Savile has been awarded this in line with the MOS, but the previously identified problem is that stripping the title would look like making an exception for Savile and not Francis Drake, Walter Raleigh etc. Most of the requests to remove Savile's knighthood from the Wikipedia article aren't in line with the MOS and are based on the "he's a paedo" argument. David Cameron said in 2012 that the Honours Forfeiture Committee might reconsider the rules [22] but as things stand, it would be breaking the MOS to make an exception and remove Savile's knighthood.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

At least Jimmy never beheaded his co-commander then chained the clergyman to a hatch cover. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as we presently know, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Honorary Green Beret anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, none of this is relevant to making a content decision here, but for the record I feel that is a bit of a false analogy. Drake was a murderous privateer in an era of murderous privateers--and more to the the point, at a time when such activities did not generally endanger a knighthood, but indeed, could in fact bolster one's claim to "valour". Savile, on the other hand, was a sexual predator whose actions, had they been more widely known during his lifetime, would have destroyed his public image and quite possibly (I want to say probably, but who really knows when it comes to this sordid affair) lead to the stripping of his honours. So I don't really see your implied analogy to be a particularly compelling one.

That said, I must reluctantly agree that Ian has the right end of the stick with regard to policy here. Until such time as Savile is officially stripped of his title, it would be inappropriate to remove reference to it in a manner that is inconsistent with how we approach the question in articles generally. And this is no mere pro forma matter; readers may reasonably want to be informed that, despite repeated allegations across decades, the man's stature in British society rose and rose, with victims ignored and a very loud silence prevailing in the media over reports that were apparently quite well known in certain influential circles--and that to this day, he maintains his honours, despite the general acceptance of the horrific extent of his crimes. That's relevant encyclopedic information and I would say to even an inexperienced editor who wishes to remove the title from the lead/infobox because of the non-WP:Neutral (but quite understandable) assertion that it is offensive that he would hold such an honor given his actions that yes, that is so--but it is the existence of that fact that is the offensive part, not our coverage of the matter (which is just us faithfully representing the reality of the subject). Indeed, I'd go further and argue that it is more respectful of Savile's victims to leave reference to the title in place until such time as it may be revoked, as it underscores the manner in which the survivors were ignored, partly in favour of maintaining the image of a "national treasure". Snow ^{let's rap} 07:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)