This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
What did he do before May 1999? They don't just stick you on the Six O'Clock News without some previous experience and exposure to the viewing public. 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.17.141 ( talk)
On September 26th, 2012, Edwards had a rose named in his honour at the North Wales Horticultural Show. "Huw's News" was officially named during a small ceremony, with a token flower given to Edwards as a gift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.231.65 ( talk) 13:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The BBC said, in 2003, that Edwards was married with five children. This was backed up by Edwards himself, in 2012, in an interview with the Daily Mail: [1]. Should this simple fact be added? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Without wishing to offend anyone, can I please have a quick moan about a sentence in the "Other programming and appearances" subsection? This reads: "In January 2008, he introduced a special Songs of Praise programme in celebration of the organ, both playing the instrument and demonstrating some of the stops to be found on it." I find the bit starting "both" very difficult - I will argue this at length (and risk boring you to death) if you like but my basic point is it's clunky and overegged. If he played it then by definition he more or less demonstrated a minimum of ONE stop and probably more - the way we have it written at the moment seems to oddly isolate this one aspect. It's like saying he played the horn and also demonstrated how those funny buttons can change the note. Or something. I didn't see the programme in question so I am not sure I can fix it well (but could try!) and I'd be interested if someone else fancied a go. But YMMV and you may think it sounds fine! Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 14:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
What about the allegations of bias? ( 2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:C848:EEF:A546:1E86 ( talk) 16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC))
The result of the move request was: moved per snowball clause ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Huw Edwards (journalist) →
Huw Edwards – Huw Edwards The Journalist and Newsreader is surely the first thing that comes to mind at the hearing of Huw Edwards.
Andysmith248 (
talk)
18:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
FreeBMD here confirms that his birth name was just Huw, mother's name Protheroe. Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Where does the first listed pronunciation of his name come from? On TV, I've only heard his name pronounced /hju/, i.e. like the word "hue" (or the name "Hugh"). But the first pronunciation listed is /hiːʊ/, which something like "HEE-oo". If this is maybe how his name is pronounced in Welsh, I think it would be good to specify. — trlkly 23:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
In response to a now-deleted comment asking a topical question about this page:
There's not a universal procedure for when it's ok to publish something - there's just liability under British law. If a Wikipedia editor defames someone by bringing them into disrepute, they become the legally responsible party for creating & spreading that negative public sentiment. Perhaps Wikipedia could also be held responsible in a grander sense - eg negligence in removing defamatory content - but that's less clear cut. The editor is taking the primary risk.
Given the evolving & perilous nature of making public comment about Huw at the moment, I'd avoid publishing negative content unless you have a good grasp of British media law basics. The boundaries of what constitutes defamation aren't just made up by instinct - there's clear case law and guiding principles for what triggers legal & financial liability for publicly causing harm to an individual's reputation. The easiest & most effective defence to a defamation suit is (verifiable, provable) truth - clearcut evidence that the facts underpinning the negative publicity are accurate. So if public resources & media aren't presenting you as an editor with concrete evidence of Huw's relevance to a negative subject, you're exposing yourself by creating that link in the public sphere.
The fact that the allegations originated somewhere else - and you're merely repeating them - isn't an accepted defence. You can still be held liable for promulgating the defamatory remarks. Bottom line, if/when a negative subject is confirmed as relevant to Huw, it'll enter his profile organically. Until then, anyone making the link prematurely needs to understand & be wary of the legal minefield they're entering. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:EC19:B200:7536:298E:9EC8:434 ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
In the external links of the article is a table where it states he hosts BBC News at Five 2006–present. BBC News at Five discontinued in 2020, so it should state "2006-2020". In its place was the UK Government's daily press conference on COVID, but I'm not sure if this would be classed as its succession. Perhaps just state "Show Ended". 2607:FEA8:935A:3A00:4436:573E:6371:3255 ( talk) 01:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Named by his wife 86.178.1.22 ( talk) 17:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Huw Edwards has not resigned from the BBC as at 1815 on 12/07/23. This correction confirmed by UK's Sky News
https://news.sky.com/story/huw-edwardss-wife-names-him-as-bbc-presenter-accused-of-paying-teen-for-explicit-pictures-report-12917735 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.148.123.246 ( talk) 17:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I think this article should be lock for editors because I think some folk will cross the line. Earl of Sutton Coldfield ( talk) 18:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The article details claims of inappropriate behaviour by three young people. There was a fourth, now aged 22. This SkyNews source says:
The Sky report also says this: "The BBC also said on Wednesday that Edwards was facing further allegations of "inappropriate behaviour" towards colleagues." 86.187.224.83 ( talk) 21:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The article doesn't state when he was suspended. Presumably sometime between the lunchtime news on 5 July and the One Show the following evening (6 July). Dajanes ( talk) 00:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Should any of the recent "news" even be listed on this article? Be careful with WP:BLP. There is no evidence of criminal activity. So this article covers of events that didn't happen. Probably better to just remove the whole thing. "The Sun gets its knickers in a twist and gets sued" belongs on the Sun article not here. Anna ( talk) 01:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This thread refers to commentary over alleged gender discrimination regarding BBC salaries, some six years ago. It has nothing to do with more recent events. And see WP:NOTFORUM. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is there any factual evidence for this, or is it just opinion pieces? If there is no solid evidence, this may be libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.226.227 ( talk) 22:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
|
If this comment was about alleged gender discrimination regarding BBC salaries in 2017, the current source from The Guardian, used to support the claim in the article, "His salary was reduced voluntarily in the light of gender pay differences found within the BBC", ought to at least mention Edwards? Currently it does not. Thanks. 86.187.229.179 ( talk) 19:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Despite best efforts to keep this article clear of defamatory information before there were reliable sources available, it was Wikipedia where I first learned Huw was "the bbc presenter", nearly a full day before the news broke for real: This was listed as the top read article, and it doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. Probably this is irrelevant and nothing can or should be done... Altho I could almost see an argument to exclude BLPs from the top read list, out of an abundance of caution. You could almost make an argument that, when people are looking to determine the identity of an "unnamed bbc presenter", listing that person as the most read article is implicitly defamatory.
Idk, just some random thoughts. The fact remains that I learned this information _from_ Wikipedia, when it was still not considered public information, and existing BLP protections did nothing to prevent that. 8.9.82.32 ( talk) 14:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Should the part played by the South Wales Police be included? Currently only the Metropolitan Police are mentioned. 86.187.173.18 ( talk) 12:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Huw Edwards has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The lede to this article currently says: "following allegations in The Sun that he had paid a 17-year-old for sexually explicit photos". These allegations, to the extent that they were made (rather than heavily insinuated), do not appear to be substantiated. I'm not sure that this currently developing news story belongs in the lede at all, when a much better written section under the subheading "2023 Suspension" covers it more accurately. I would remove the poorly worded section in the lede entirely, in favour of this better written, and more up-to-date section. The current summary in the introduction may even be libellous, and I think its removal is one of urgency.
I'm really not sure sure this story belonds in the lede at all at this stage, while it is ongoing and murky. Neverthess, as a second option, if it is felt that the lede must include it, then perhaps just "In July 2023, Edwards was suspended by the BBC following allegations published in The Sun Newspaper", and leave the details of those allegations to be covered in its relevant subsection. Better to be vague than misleading.
Thanks,
-- Tomatoswoop ( talk) 07:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It does belong in the lead section due to the significant amount of news coverage. You are right, though, that The Sun appears to have backtracked on the key allegation that Edwards paid a 17-year-old for sexually explicit pictures. We now know that The Sun never had evidence that would have proved this, and that the police had already looked at the matter in April 2023 and decided that Edwards had done nothing illegal.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
In
this article The Guardian says: "One of the most extraordinary claims, made by multiple individuals in the newsroom, is that BBC journalists including
Victoria Derbyshire had been “taking initial soundings” in relation to claims against Edwards in the days before the Sun released its original story.
" It's also reported in The Telegraph
here.
86.187.170.249 (
talk)
18:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Huw Edwards has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To add the statement of No Criminality issued by South Wales Police in regard to the allegations against Huw Edwards from their investigation in April 2023
https://news.sky.com/story/no-criminal-offence-in-allegations-against-bbc-presenter-says-met-police-12919368 https://metro.co.uk/2023/07/12/second-police-force-issue-statement-about-huw-edwards-19118225/ Knowledgework69 ( talk) 15:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Xan747 ( talk) 18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
On Friday the Sun condemned “sanctimonious haters of tabloids” who have pushed back on its reporting, pointing to subsequent investigations into Edwards’s conduct by BBC News reporters. The newspaper said its original story was clearly in the public interest because it gave a “voice to two worried parents” who approached it to protect their child, after being unhappy with initial responses from South Wales police and the BBC.[5] Xan747 ( talk) 18:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
What about adding this: "
South Wales Police said, "Information was initially received by the force in April 2023 regarding the welfare of an adult. No criminality was identified... Following recent events, further enquiries have been carried out and officers have spoken to a number of parties to establish whether any criminal allegations are being made. At this time, there is no evidence that any criminal offences have been committed. There are no ongoing enquiries being carried out by South Wales Police."
" with that SkyNews article as a source? I guess they should also be mentioned in the lead section.
86.187.168.33 (
talk)
18:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police say that no criminal offence has been committed by Mr Edwards and neither force would currently be taking any further action in relation to the allegations." Thanks.. 86.187.168.33 ( talk) 19:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Done I basically did that, plus added the fact that SWP were the first police force contacted about the matter. Xan747 ( talk) 19:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Done Xan747 ( talk) 18:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
" The Guardian understands that an interview with the couple has been recorded and is being edited for broadcast on TalkTV, the sister station of the Sun. Sources said the parents have been offered a significant sum for this." - [6] Many other sources available. So obviously no question that Rupert Murdoch is out to destroy the BBC. 86.187.165.128 ( talk) 19:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit by User:DeFacto. It frames the story as some kind of battle between The Sun and The Guardian and suggests that it was only the latter newspaper that made such an interpretation of the story. Many other newspapers also reported what The Sun had said and made the same interpretation. I think this article should report what The Sun actually said. 86.187.237.6 ( talk) 21:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The lead currently says "following allegations in The Sun that he had paid a 17-year-old for sexually explicit photos". Yet if no criminal offence was committed, this cannot be true. And the Sun is now claiming that it never suggested any criminal offence had taken place. So did the Sun ever say, precisely that "he had paid a 17-year-old for sexually explicit photos" ? Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
We know that the person who was alleged to be the "victim" said they were rubbish. Well we don't know that for sure, all we know is that BBC News said a lawyer told them that. As for RSes supporting that The Sun said that stuff was given to them in "sworn affidavits", take your pick: BBC News, The Guardian, i. That seems to have been overlooked by our Wiki editors though. -- DeFacto ( talk). 16:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
got form for repeatedly publishing false stories that they knew at the time to be false. And after you said they get caught by IPSO doing it more often I asked if you had links to the stats you were alluding too, but none turned up.
BBC News have a massive COI in this story, so should not be considered reliable for it, at all.. But here's an RS that provides something more substantive. DeCausa ( talk) 20:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I too would be very interested to know if IPSO really are collating statistics regarding which newspapers are publishing stories they already knew to be false, and if those statistics damn The Sun in particular. As for this idea we should consult Wikipedia's encyclopedia articles to learn why Wikipedia editors distrust certain newspapers, that could either be very good advice, or an inadvertent admission that Wikipedia articles reflect the biases of its editors. The fact that the person giving that advice is unashamedly wearing their own bias, and has potentially already shown a propensity to lie when it suits their bias, one could be forgiven for thinking it's the latter not the former. GrandBlasterMash ( talk) 01:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add ", who were concerned the payments were helping fund their child's crack cocaine addiction." after the text "The allegations were said to have been made by the mother and stepfather of the young person" (from the already provided source).
This provides additional context to the public interest angle still being asserted by The Sun, since at present this page wrongly gives the impression the only thing anyone was concerned about was the potential for this to have allegedly been a case of child sexual abuse, and that perhaps this has gone away now and was maybe never there to begin with.
The unique way the BBC is funded means there would be manifest public interest in knowing whether such allegations are being handled properly (while still under current interpretations of privacy law meaning the names should not be reported). There at least seems to be wide agreement, even from the BBC, that it wasn't handled properly. GrandBlasterMash ( talk) 00:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: This needs to be talked out a bit first. Xan747 ( talk) 00:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.Parental allegations their child has used illegal drugs is clearly information suggesting commission of a crime. Xan747 ( talk) 02:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Please change "BBC journalists including Newsnight presenter Victoria Derbyshire were examining accusations of inappropriate behaviour involving Edwards before The Sun reported on the allegations." to "On Wednesday 13 July Newsnight reported that two current and one former junior BBC employees had received inappropriate messages from Edwards, but they had not filed a complaint in case it adversely affected their careers.
This is from the same source but more accurately records this was a separate incident, and further adds to the public interest element, namely the deficiency of the BBC's complaints system. GrandBlasterMash ( talk) 02:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Huw Edwards has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead where it states: On 12 July 2023, he was identified by his wife as the BBC presenter being investigated for allegedly paying a 17 year old for sexually explicit photos.
There should be a sentence added: The alleged victim has denied this through her lawyer, and claims to be estranged from her mother who made the initial claims [1]. The Met Police and South Wales Police have said they are not pursuing action [2]. Oh no no no no no ( talk) 19:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
the police have said that there was no illegality involved. That indicates that the person who was allegedly paid for photos was not under the age of 18 at the time? -- DeFacto ( talk). 22:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I wonder then why
A TOP BBC star is off air while allegations he paid a teenager for sexual pictures are being investigated. The well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images.
On 7 July 2023, allegations were first reported by The Sun that a "well known" name at the BBC had been paying a then-17-year-old tens of thousands of pounds for sexually-explicit photographs.
References
Partly done: Edit: I added "the mother and the young person are estranged" since that is reliably sourced, and pertinent. Xan747 ( talk) 16:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The article currently states: On 10 July, the lawyer of the alleged victim told the BBC that "nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in The Sun newspaper are rubbish".[40] [...] The Sun stated: "It is understood contact between the two started when the youngster was 17 years old", but that reporting did not mention whether explicit photos were exchanged when the alleged victim was 17 years old.[47]
Since the police did drop the investigation, it's reasonable to conclude that the explicit photos weren't taken until after the alleged victim turned 18, but it would be synth to actually put that in the article without an RS explicitly saying so. Edit: therefore I took no action per that part of the discussion. Xan747 ( talk) 16:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Black Kite, I thought cleanup templates should be left in place until the matter has been resolved - not reverted without a resolution. They are purely temporary tags that something is disputed and needs some sort of action, and when the problem is resolved they will be removed. As they are never intended to be permanent part of the article content, surely they are not within the scope of WP:BRD. -- DeFacto ( talk). 10:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
What did he do before May 1999? They don't just stick you on the Six O'Clock News without some previous experience and exposure to the viewing public. 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.17.141 ( talk)
On September 26th, 2012, Edwards had a rose named in his honour at the North Wales Horticultural Show. "Huw's News" was officially named during a small ceremony, with a token flower given to Edwards as a gift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.231.65 ( talk) 13:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The BBC said, in 2003, that Edwards was married with five children. This was backed up by Edwards himself, in 2012, in an interview with the Daily Mail: [1]. Should this simple fact be added? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Without wishing to offend anyone, can I please have a quick moan about a sentence in the "Other programming and appearances" subsection? This reads: "In January 2008, he introduced a special Songs of Praise programme in celebration of the organ, both playing the instrument and demonstrating some of the stops to be found on it." I find the bit starting "both" very difficult - I will argue this at length (and risk boring you to death) if you like but my basic point is it's clunky and overegged. If he played it then by definition he more or less demonstrated a minimum of ONE stop and probably more - the way we have it written at the moment seems to oddly isolate this one aspect. It's like saying he played the horn and also demonstrated how those funny buttons can change the note. Or something. I didn't see the programme in question so I am not sure I can fix it well (but could try!) and I'd be interested if someone else fancied a go. But YMMV and you may think it sounds fine! Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 14:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
What about the allegations of bias? ( 2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:C848:EEF:A546:1E86 ( talk) 16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC))
The result of the move request was: moved per snowball clause ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Huw Edwards (journalist) →
Huw Edwards – Huw Edwards The Journalist and Newsreader is surely the first thing that comes to mind at the hearing of Huw Edwards.
Andysmith248 (
talk)
18:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
FreeBMD here confirms that his birth name was just Huw, mother's name Protheroe. Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Where does the first listed pronunciation of his name come from? On TV, I've only heard his name pronounced /hju/, i.e. like the word "hue" (or the name "Hugh"). But the first pronunciation listed is /hiːʊ/, which something like "HEE-oo". If this is maybe how his name is pronounced in Welsh, I think it would be good to specify. — trlkly 23:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
In response to a now-deleted comment asking a topical question about this page:
There's not a universal procedure for when it's ok to publish something - there's just liability under British law. If a Wikipedia editor defames someone by bringing them into disrepute, they become the legally responsible party for creating & spreading that negative public sentiment. Perhaps Wikipedia could also be held responsible in a grander sense - eg negligence in removing defamatory content - but that's less clear cut. The editor is taking the primary risk.
Given the evolving & perilous nature of making public comment about Huw at the moment, I'd avoid publishing negative content unless you have a good grasp of British media law basics. The boundaries of what constitutes defamation aren't just made up by instinct - there's clear case law and guiding principles for what triggers legal & financial liability for publicly causing harm to an individual's reputation. The easiest & most effective defence to a defamation suit is (verifiable, provable) truth - clearcut evidence that the facts underpinning the negative publicity are accurate. So if public resources & media aren't presenting you as an editor with concrete evidence of Huw's relevance to a negative subject, you're exposing yourself by creating that link in the public sphere.
The fact that the allegations originated somewhere else - and you're merely repeating them - isn't an accepted defence. You can still be held liable for promulgating the defamatory remarks. Bottom line, if/when a negative subject is confirmed as relevant to Huw, it'll enter his profile organically. Until then, anyone making the link prematurely needs to understand & be wary of the legal minefield they're entering. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:EC19:B200:7536:298E:9EC8:434 ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
In the external links of the article is a table where it states he hosts BBC News at Five 2006–present. BBC News at Five discontinued in 2020, so it should state "2006-2020". In its place was the UK Government's daily press conference on COVID, but I'm not sure if this would be classed as its succession. Perhaps just state "Show Ended". 2607:FEA8:935A:3A00:4436:573E:6371:3255 ( talk) 01:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Named by his wife 86.178.1.22 ( talk) 17:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Huw Edwards has not resigned from the BBC as at 1815 on 12/07/23. This correction confirmed by UK's Sky News
https://news.sky.com/story/huw-edwardss-wife-names-him-as-bbc-presenter-accused-of-paying-teen-for-explicit-pictures-report-12917735 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.148.123.246 ( talk) 17:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I think this article should be lock for editors because I think some folk will cross the line. Earl of Sutton Coldfield ( talk) 18:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The article details claims of inappropriate behaviour by three young people. There was a fourth, now aged 22. This SkyNews source says:
The Sky report also says this: "The BBC also said on Wednesday that Edwards was facing further allegations of "inappropriate behaviour" towards colleagues." 86.187.224.83 ( talk) 21:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The article doesn't state when he was suspended. Presumably sometime between the lunchtime news on 5 July and the One Show the following evening (6 July). Dajanes ( talk) 00:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Should any of the recent "news" even be listed on this article? Be careful with WP:BLP. There is no evidence of criminal activity. So this article covers of events that didn't happen. Probably better to just remove the whole thing. "The Sun gets its knickers in a twist and gets sued" belongs on the Sun article not here. Anna ( talk) 01:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This thread refers to commentary over alleged gender discrimination regarding BBC salaries, some six years ago. It has nothing to do with more recent events. And see WP:NOTFORUM. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Is there any factual evidence for this, or is it just opinion pieces? If there is no solid evidence, this may be libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.226.227 ( talk) 22:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
|
If this comment was about alleged gender discrimination regarding BBC salaries in 2017, the current source from The Guardian, used to support the claim in the article, "His salary was reduced voluntarily in the light of gender pay differences found within the BBC", ought to at least mention Edwards? Currently it does not. Thanks. 86.187.229.179 ( talk) 19:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Despite best efforts to keep this article clear of defamatory information before there were reliable sources available, it was Wikipedia where I first learned Huw was "the bbc presenter", nearly a full day before the news broke for real: This was listed as the top read article, and it doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. Probably this is irrelevant and nothing can or should be done... Altho I could almost see an argument to exclude BLPs from the top read list, out of an abundance of caution. You could almost make an argument that, when people are looking to determine the identity of an "unnamed bbc presenter", listing that person as the most read article is implicitly defamatory.
Idk, just some random thoughts. The fact remains that I learned this information _from_ Wikipedia, when it was still not considered public information, and existing BLP protections did nothing to prevent that. 8.9.82.32 ( talk) 14:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Should the part played by the South Wales Police be included? Currently only the Metropolitan Police are mentioned. 86.187.173.18 ( talk) 12:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Huw Edwards has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The lede to this article currently says: "following allegations in The Sun that he had paid a 17-year-old for sexually explicit photos". These allegations, to the extent that they were made (rather than heavily insinuated), do not appear to be substantiated. I'm not sure that this currently developing news story belongs in the lede at all, when a much better written section under the subheading "2023 Suspension" covers it more accurately. I would remove the poorly worded section in the lede entirely, in favour of this better written, and more up-to-date section. The current summary in the introduction may even be libellous, and I think its removal is one of urgency.
I'm really not sure sure this story belonds in the lede at all at this stage, while it is ongoing and murky. Neverthess, as a second option, if it is felt that the lede must include it, then perhaps just "In July 2023, Edwards was suspended by the BBC following allegations published in The Sun Newspaper", and leave the details of those allegations to be covered in its relevant subsection. Better to be vague than misleading.
Thanks,
-- Tomatoswoop ( talk) 07:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It does belong in the lead section due to the significant amount of news coverage. You are right, though, that The Sun appears to have backtracked on the key allegation that Edwards paid a 17-year-old for sexually explicit pictures. We now know that The Sun never had evidence that would have proved this, and that the police had already looked at the matter in April 2023 and decided that Edwards had done nothing illegal.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
In
this article The Guardian says: "One of the most extraordinary claims, made by multiple individuals in the newsroom, is that BBC journalists including
Victoria Derbyshire had been “taking initial soundings” in relation to claims against Edwards in the days before the Sun released its original story.
" It's also reported in The Telegraph
here.
86.187.170.249 (
talk)
18:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Huw Edwards has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To add the statement of No Criminality issued by South Wales Police in regard to the allegations against Huw Edwards from their investigation in April 2023
https://news.sky.com/story/no-criminal-offence-in-allegations-against-bbc-presenter-says-met-police-12919368 https://metro.co.uk/2023/07/12/second-police-force-issue-statement-about-huw-edwards-19118225/ Knowledgework69 ( talk) 15:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Xan747 ( talk) 18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
On Friday the Sun condemned “sanctimonious haters of tabloids” who have pushed back on its reporting, pointing to subsequent investigations into Edwards’s conduct by BBC News reporters. The newspaper said its original story was clearly in the public interest because it gave a “voice to two worried parents” who approached it to protect their child, after being unhappy with initial responses from South Wales police and the BBC.[5] Xan747 ( talk) 18:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
What about adding this: "
South Wales Police said, "Information was initially received by the force in April 2023 regarding the welfare of an adult. No criminality was identified... Following recent events, further enquiries have been carried out and officers have spoken to a number of parties to establish whether any criminal allegations are being made. At this time, there is no evidence that any criminal offences have been committed. There are no ongoing enquiries being carried out by South Wales Police."
" with that SkyNews article as a source? I guess they should also be mentioned in the lead section.
86.187.168.33 (
talk)
18:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
The Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police say that no criminal offence has been committed by Mr Edwards and neither force would currently be taking any further action in relation to the allegations." Thanks.. 86.187.168.33 ( talk) 19:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Done I basically did that, plus added the fact that SWP were the first police force contacted about the matter. Xan747 ( talk) 19:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Done Xan747 ( talk) 18:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
" The Guardian understands that an interview with the couple has been recorded and is being edited for broadcast on TalkTV, the sister station of the Sun. Sources said the parents have been offered a significant sum for this." - [6] Many other sources available. So obviously no question that Rupert Murdoch is out to destroy the BBC. 86.187.165.128 ( talk) 19:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit by User:DeFacto. It frames the story as some kind of battle between The Sun and The Guardian and suggests that it was only the latter newspaper that made such an interpretation of the story. Many other newspapers also reported what The Sun had said and made the same interpretation. I think this article should report what The Sun actually said. 86.187.237.6 ( talk) 21:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The lead currently says "following allegations in The Sun that he had paid a 17-year-old for sexually explicit photos". Yet if no criminal offence was committed, this cannot be true. And the Sun is now claiming that it never suggested any criminal offence had taken place. So did the Sun ever say, precisely that "he had paid a 17-year-old for sexually explicit photos" ? Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
We know that the person who was alleged to be the "victim" said they were rubbish. Well we don't know that for sure, all we know is that BBC News said a lawyer told them that. As for RSes supporting that The Sun said that stuff was given to them in "sworn affidavits", take your pick: BBC News, The Guardian, i. That seems to have been overlooked by our Wiki editors though. -- DeFacto ( talk). 16:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
got form for repeatedly publishing false stories that they knew at the time to be false. And after you said they get caught by IPSO doing it more often I asked if you had links to the stats you were alluding too, but none turned up.
BBC News have a massive COI in this story, so should not be considered reliable for it, at all.. But here's an RS that provides something more substantive. DeCausa ( talk) 20:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I too would be very interested to know if IPSO really are collating statistics regarding which newspapers are publishing stories they already knew to be false, and if those statistics damn The Sun in particular. As for this idea we should consult Wikipedia's encyclopedia articles to learn why Wikipedia editors distrust certain newspapers, that could either be very good advice, or an inadvertent admission that Wikipedia articles reflect the biases of its editors. The fact that the person giving that advice is unashamedly wearing their own bias, and has potentially already shown a propensity to lie when it suits their bias, one could be forgiven for thinking it's the latter not the former. GrandBlasterMash ( talk) 01:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add ", who were concerned the payments were helping fund their child's crack cocaine addiction." after the text "The allegations were said to have been made by the mother and stepfather of the young person" (from the already provided source).
This provides additional context to the public interest angle still being asserted by The Sun, since at present this page wrongly gives the impression the only thing anyone was concerned about was the potential for this to have allegedly been a case of child sexual abuse, and that perhaps this has gone away now and was maybe never there to begin with.
The unique way the BBC is funded means there would be manifest public interest in knowing whether such allegations are being handled properly (while still under current interpretations of privacy law meaning the names should not be reported). There at least seems to be wide agreement, even from the BBC, that it wasn't handled properly. GrandBlasterMash ( talk) 00:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: This needs to be talked out a bit first. Xan747 ( talk) 00:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.Parental allegations their child has used illegal drugs is clearly information suggesting commission of a crime. Xan747 ( talk) 02:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Please change "BBC journalists including Newsnight presenter Victoria Derbyshire were examining accusations of inappropriate behaviour involving Edwards before The Sun reported on the allegations." to "On Wednesday 13 July Newsnight reported that two current and one former junior BBC employees had received inappropriate messages from Edwards, but they had not filed a complaint in case it adversely affected their careers.
This is from the same source but more accurately records this was a separate incident, and further adds to the public interest element, namely the deficiency of the BBC's complaints system. GrandBlasterMash ( talk) 02:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Huw Edwards has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead where it states: On 12 July 2023, he was identified by his wife as the BBC presenter being investigated for allegedly paying a 17 year old for sexually explicit photos.
There should be a sentence added: The alleged victim has denied this through her lawyer, and claims to be estranged from her mother who made the initial claims [1]. The Met Police and South Wales Police have said they are not pursuing action [2]. Oh no no no no no ( talk) 19:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
the police have said that there was no illegality involved. That indicates that the person who was allegedly paid for photos was not under the age of 18 at the time? -- DeFacto ( talk). 22:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I wonder then why
A TOP BBC star is off air while allegations he paid a teenager for sexual pictures are being investigated. The well-known presenter is accused of giving the teen more than £35,000 since they were 17 in return for sordid images.
On 7 July 2023, allegations were first reported by The Sun that a "well known" name at the BBC had been paying a then-17-year-old tens of thousands of pounds for sexually-explicit photographs.
References
Partly done: Edit: I added "the mother and the young person are estranged" since that is reliably sourced, and pertinent. Xan747 ( talk) 16:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The article currently states: On 10 July, the lawyer of the alleged victim told the BBC that "nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in The Sun newspaper are rubbish".[40] [...] The Sun stated: "It is understood contact between the two started when the youngster was 17 years old", but that reporting did not mention whether explicit photos were exchanged when the alleged victim was 17 years old.[47]
Since the police did drop the investigation, it's reasonable to conclude that the explicit photos weren't taken until after the alleged victim turned 18, but it would be synth to actually put that in the article without an RS explicitly saying so. Edit: therefore I took no action per that part of the discussion. Xan747 ( talk) 16:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Black Kite, I thought cleanup templates should be left in place until the matter has been resolved - not reverted without a resolution. They are purely temporary tags that something is disputed and needs some sort of action, and when the problem is resolved they will be removed. As they are never intended to be permanent part of the article content, surely they are not within the scope of WP:BRD. -- DeFacto ( talk). 10:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)