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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hi. I read, but did not take part in, the RfC on the use of "alleged". On the basis of Joe's close, there is an obvious need to decide when to use the word and when not to. I would like to make a few suggestions:
Scolaire ( talk) 12:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the Lack of Neutrality banner from the article, as there's no evidence that the article's neutrality is actually disputed. If it is, the reasons for the dispute needs to be detailed on this page so that it can be discussed. Obscurasky ( talk) 16:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to edit this document about jimmy savile as there is some key information missing that leaves people asking question, i feel that this need to be answered on wikipedia immediately. KieranBartram02 ( talk) 15:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The lead to this article is far too long and detailed. It needs to summarize the contents of the page, but it goes into too much detail, and simply repeats what's written further down. Obscurasky ( talk) 16:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Since "these honours automatically expire when a person dies" (as stated in the article via https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19884359), could (or should) "Sir" and the post-nominals be removed from the titles and opening paragraph of this article? Sunny Clark ( talk) 15:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Carl Beech and the ilk need to be mentioned here. See e.g. https://quillette.com/2019/07/25/the-many-lies-of-carl-beech/ for analysis. Zezen ( talk) 05:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
"Born during the Great Depression" is the first thing you read in his bio, but the birthdate given is just about exactly three years BEFORE the Wall Street crash that is (in America anyway) regarded as the starting point of that global catastrophe. I know the UK was struggling economically between the world wars and for a while after the second war too, but still, it's probably better to change "during" to "shortly before" or rewrite it to say he was just three years old when the Depression hit. My note here can be erased after the deed is done. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.64.106 ( talk) 10:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I didn't think that the description for Jimmy Saville is accurate nor morally proper, it should not have any reference to 'sir' jimmy saville as he was stripped of his knighthood Paulus Rhodinious ( talk) 20:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that given he was stripped of his knight hood any references to 'sir' should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulus Rhodinious ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I changed the opening text to say that Savile is an entertainer and sex offender, and Ianmacm reverted me saying it's not NPOV. On the other hand, the current article is half a paragraph of praise for his entertainment and donations before even mentioning this which isn't a neutral point-of-view either. Ian disputes the sex offender label since Savile was never convicted, which is certainly true, but that has big caveats. His crimes weren't really known until after he died, and it was a major scandal in multiple areas of British society that he never was convicted. He can't be convicted now because he's dead, but reliable sources leave zero doubt whatsoever that he was possibly the most prolific sex offender that Britain had ever seen. In short, Savile is notable as a sex offender even if he had never spent a second on television. Based on that, I think it's fair to give entertainer and sex offender equal billing in the first sentence. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 03:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
".. but reliable sources leave zero doubt whatsoever that he was possibly the most prolific sex offender that Britain had ever seen."I suspect there may have been equally prolific sex offenders whose crimes were not detected or, if they were, never reached the public eye like those of Savile. His notability was the magnifying lens. I'm also not sure what you mean about "zero doubt... possibly." No-one wants to appear as an apologist for Savile, but as Ianmacm says, he was most notable in his lifetime for his media presence and charity work. The chilling contradiction is that his celebrity status protected him so completely. Martinevans123 ( talk) 08:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the opening sentence should describe him as an "entertainer and sex offender". That is what he is known for; the latter is clearly his primary claim to fame in a global perspective, and prior to the scandal he was only known locally in one country. In the United States, France, Belgium, Australia, Poland and Finland people don't care about Savile's career as "charity fundraiser", "dance hall manager" and other bizarre and obscure descriptors that have been included in the first sentence; all that WP:RS globally care about is the fact that he is the UK's best known predatory sex offender. And we go by RS. The removal of sex offender from the opening sentence violates WP:LEAD and is just a form of POV pushing, and it should be reinstated. Perhaps it would be an idea to have an RfC on the wording of the first sentence to settle this problem once and for all. -- Tataral ( talk) 04:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG (/ˈsævɪl/; 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011) was an English DJ, television and radio personality who was claimed after his death to have been a predatory sex offender. He hosted BBC shows including Top of the Pops and Jim'll Fix It and raised an estimated £40 million for charities so that, during his lifetime, 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 conclude that Savile had been possibly one of Britain's most prolific sex offenders, although allegations made during his lifetime had been dismissed and accusers ignored or disbelieved; Savile took legal action against some accusers.
Can someone please remove the "sir" as the opening word, thanks. We don't use such titles as part of title and he has been stripped posthumously of his honours, serve him right as well. Omar Hatlas ( talk) 15:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we always put the "Sir" in the opening line. In British usage, at least, it is regarded as part of the person's name, not exactly analogous to Dr and Mr. "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." (from WP:MOSBIO -- Alarics ( talk) 20:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I support the removal of this title from the opening sentence based on the fact that it is WP:UNDUE. Reliable sources in most countries refer to him just as Jimmy Savile; Elizabeth II's insistence on bestowing this title upon him until this day can be mentioned below. There is no reason to let what is essentially the POV of Elizabeth II be the very first word of the article, especially when it strikes most people as highly inappropriate (as seen by the many comments about this issue on this talk page) and when it is not widely reflected in or recognised by RS. Also, we don't include titles such as "Dr" or "Professor" before the name, although they are in some countries regarded more or less as "name parts" much in the same way as the title "Sir" in the UK. -- Tataral ( talk) 05:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the text "agreed with assessments of Savile as a psychopath, and stated:" to "considered Savile to be a psychopath, stating:". The supporting reference gives Allen's own opinion; it says absolutely nothing about "assessments" of psychopathy, or that he is echoing someone else's viewpoint. As monstrous as Savile may have been, the article should not be misquoting his former colleagues, or implying that he was ever assessed using the PCL-R. Also, the named disorder should be linked for the layman.
If the cited Telegraph page demands you sign up, the piece is archived here. Perhaps you could also change the URL to this archived one. Thanks in advance. 82.132.219.105 ( talk) 19:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I've left the cite for the time being, because although Daily Telegraph cites usually require a login nowadays, this one doesn't.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
{{cite news |url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8857428/Sir-Jimmy-Savile.html|title= Obituary: Sir Jimmy Savile |date=29 October 2011 |work=The Daily Telegraph |location= London |access-date=4 November 2012}}
to
{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8857428/Sir-Jimmy-Savile.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20200601114004/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8857428/Sir-Jimmy-Savile.html |archive-date=2020-06-01 |title=Obituary: Sir Jimmy Savile |date=2011-10-29 |work=The Daily Telegraph |location= London}}
92.27.188.173 (
talk)
06:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The former covers 2012 to 2019, and the latter covers 2012 to 2020. Is there any need for two similarly-titled, tangled sections? Perhaps someone with access to the article would care to tidy it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savlis ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please move the Adrian Street commentary out of the "During his lifetime" section, as Street made these statements in 2013, not during Savile's lifetime. I'm not sure where the best landing place would be, given that the "After his death" and "Aftermath" sections are deeply confused and intertwined chronologically, with the former covering 2012 to 2019, and the latter covering 2012 to 2020. Anywhere would do, I suppose.
Also the reference supporting John Lydon's 2014 commentary is dead. https://web.archive.org/web/20141022202145/http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/what-s-on/music/audio-john-lydon-outspoken-at-sheffield-s-off-the-shelf-1-6899790
Thanks.
Sir, OBE, and KCSG should be removed from this page.
2603:8080:F904:300:81A8:326F:BA2F:20DA ( talk) 21:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Bryan St.John
This, or something appropriate, should appear on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.137.217 ( talk) 14:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
So I added "and sex offender" to the short description for this page. This was reverted by @ Ianmacm: with the rationale that "Savile was never arrested, charged or convicted during his lifetime, so this is inaccurate". This strikes me as odd. It is not necessary that someone be arrested, charged and/or convicted during their lifetime to be a criminal. Our coverage should follow reliable sources, which generally treat the allegations against him as a matter of fact, for instance this and this. So I can't see any reason for not including "sex offender" in the short description. What do others think? The Land ( talk) 16:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the current text is accurate, well-sourced and clear:
I don't think anyone who reads that would be in any doubt. -- Slashme ( talk) 08:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate both sides of this, but I tend to think we should leave out "sex offender". Savile was the subject of allegations, but so are myriad others on Wikipedia. Naming only select individuals as sex offenders, especially in the absence of due process, is a slippery slope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.219.39 ( talk) 14:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Every couple of months, an editor adds child molester, sex offender, or similar, to either the first sentence of the article or the short description. All of these edits have been promptly reverted, and a group of regular editors argue against this. The argument against including this is that Savile was never tried in a court of law or convicted of such acts. The counter-argument is that his crimes weren't known until after his death (making a trial impossible) and all reliable sources describe as a child molester and that there is no serious doubt that he molested hundreds of children.
So the question for this RFC is: Should the first sentence of the article and the short description describe Savile as a child molester? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 02:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
"American stand-up comedian, comedian, actor, author and aggravated indecent assault convict..."? Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Former editor of The Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore noted that the report does not reveal the "extent of abuse" and that it "contains [no actual evidence], in a sense which a court would recognise."[31] He commented that it "undermines justice" by "treat[ing] allegations as facts", noting the report's admission that "the information has not been corroborated" and viewing its contents as "not a contribution to the truth". He did not feel it right to overcompensate for previously dismissive attitudes to such an extent "that every accusation must be considered true".[31] Referring to the 2000 BBC Two documentary When Louis Met... Jimmy, Moore noted Savile's response to claims of paedophilia: "How does anyone know whether I am or not?" He concluded that this specific question (and also concerning "future Saviles") is "not [made] easier to answer" by the "uninformative and self-righteous" report.[31] -- Alarics ( talk) 17:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Although It's not a !vote, the debate is currently running at 13 oppose, 4 support. This is similar to past discussions.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove Sir, OBE & any other title from his page 82.132.227.78 ( talk) 10:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
'SIR' should be taken off as his knighthood was stripped
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
LawrenceAdovey ( talk) 10:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
This is in the news today. [10]. Quote: "The Forfeiture Committee can confirm that had James Wilson Vincent Savile been convicted of the crimes of which he is accused, forfeiture proceedings would have commenced." Hmm, this is somewhat stating the obvious though. Also "The committee said on Thursday it will now issue a statement saying forfeiture proceedings would have been initiated against an honours recipient if credible allegations are made against them within 10 years of their deaths." The real problem is that Savile and Cyril Smith were never charged or convicted during their lifetimes, which made it impossible to revoke the knighthoods under the current rules.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a new hour long documentary about Savile on ITV at 9 PM this evening, Savile: Portrait Of A Predator. [11] How's about that then, guys and gals?-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
As one who lived through the 70s as a teenage news follower, I recall (IIRC) that Savile was one of a number of figures who supported or endorsed Lord Longford's then anti-pornography campaign and House of Lords Report on the subject. I well recall a JAK cartoon of Longford addressing a meeting of his campaign group that included a cigar smoking Savile in his audience when (referencing Longford's other cause in penal reform) Longford makes the caption comment: "When we've put the pornographers in prison we'll look for ways of getting them out again!" In view of the later revelations of Savile's private life, this now seems incredible in hindsight. If published evidence could be found from news files (more likely those published at time rather than since Savile's death) that would make an interesting addition. It would have been another feather for Savile's respectability cap. Cloptonson ( talk) 17:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The lead section now says "Savile worked in
coal mines as a teenager
Bevin Boy, reportedly sustaining spinal injuries at the age of 18, during the
Second World War."
I was about to remove the source, as per
WP:LEADCITE, but I see that the BBC source
used says: "During World War II he is conscripted as a Bevin Boy, working in the coal mines, reportedly suffering spinal injuries in a mining accident aged 14." Of the sources used in the main body
The Guardian gives no age and The Times has no online link. Any suggestions? Thanks.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
11:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
"Chosen by lot as ten percent of all male conscripts aged 18–25, plus some volunteering as an alternative to military conscription."So 14 seems doubly implausible. But then it is grim in Leeds, isn't it. Maybe it doesn't really belong in the lead at all? Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
About the injury, a possible avenue to investigate to pinpoint the accident might be in local newspaper reports. It used to be press procedure (until, by my experience of local news reading, the 1990s) to identifyingly list people reportedly taken to hospital as casualties in accidents reported say on the roads or in workplaces. No doubt Savile's injury would have been hospitalisable and, had he died of it, been subject to inquest which in those days were reported in greater detail than is usual today. Something that might be of interest to those in WikiProject Yorkshire who have access to those sources via public archives. At the time Savile was yet to be famous, but he could have been reported under his full Christian names and age detailed. Cloptonson ( talk) 06:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He isnt a Sir please remove this. He was stripped of this and its disrespectful to the people he abused. 2A00:23C6:7002:9701:4078:FCBA:DA0D:2661 ( talk) 03:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The NOT DONE response to this is incorrect.
Savile cannot be 'stripped' of his Knighthood after death because it no longer applies. Death is the end of a Sir, and it's only through courtesy we refer to people as Sir and Dame.
Savile deserves no such courtesy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesism ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Savile is not a Knight or a Sir.
That particular club is only for life. Now he's dead, there is no reason anyone should be calling him Sir or referring to him as such.
This is from The Guardian, but you can find other sources on this elsewhere (including The Cabinet Office)
'The Cabinet Office confirmed on Tuesday morning that in Savile's case there was no knighthood to revoke, after David Cameron had raised the prospect of the Jim'll Fix It presenter being posthumously stripped of the honour in the wake of allegations of sexual abuse against young girls.
"It's a living order and then you cease to be a member when you die," a Cabinet Office spokesman said. "There isn't an honour to revoke."'
Continuing to refer to him as Sir is both incorrect and offensive.
Put a paragraph in about his Knighthood, in life, for sure - but take the Sir away from this bastard?
Do the right thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesism ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In subsection § Aftermath, there's a paragraph about the Giving Victims a Voice report. This feels out of place, as it's a key part of the investigation itself rather than something that happened in its wake. I'd suggest moving it to the chronologically appropriate spot (third-to-last paragraph?) of the previous subsection, § After his death. - 89.183.221.7 ( talk) 22:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This horrific person had his knighthood removed and therefor should not have that honour associated with his profile. He is no longer a sir. Viperdan10 ( talk) 18:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Per the article, As a knighthood expires when the holder dies, it cannot be posthumously revokedScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
This is on the BBC News website today. Louis Theroux looks back at his meeting with Savile, also covered in The Guardian here. Louis Theroux: Savile is broadcast on Sunday, 2 October at 9pm on BBC2. Worth watching as it may be useful for expanding the article.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06: 39, 1 October 2016 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hi. I read, but did not take part in, the RfC on the use of "alleged". On the basis of Joe's close, there is an obvious need to decide when to use the word and when not to. I would like to make a few suggestions:
Scolaire ( talk) 12:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the Lack of Neutrality banner from the article, as there's no evidence that the article's neutrality is actually disputed. If it is, the reasons for the dispute needs to be detailed on this page so that it can be discussed. Obscurasky ( talk) 16:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to edit this document about jimmy savile as there is some key information missing that leaves people asking question, i feel that this need to be answered on wikipedia immediately. KieranBartram02 ( talk) 15:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The lead to this article is far too long and detailed. It needs to summarize the contents of the page, but it goes into too much detail, and simply repeats what's written further down. Obscurasky ( talk) 16:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Since "these honours automatically expire when a person dies" (as stated in the article via https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19884359), could (or should) "Sir" and the post-nominals be removed from the titles and opening paragraph of this article? Sunny Clark ( talk) 15:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Carl Beech and the ilk need to be mentioned here. See e.g. https://quillette.com/2019/07/25/the-many-lies-of-carl-beech/ for analysis. Zezen ( talk) 05:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
"Born during the Great Depression" is the first thing you read in his bio, but the birthdate given is just about exactly three years BEFORE the Wall Street crash that is (in America anyway) regarded as the starting point of that global catastrophe. I know the UK was struggling economically between the world wars and for a while after the second war too, but still, it's probably better to change "during" to "shortly before" or rewrite it to say he was just three years old when the Depression hit. My note here can be erased after the deed is done. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.64.106 ( talk) 10:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I didn't think that the description for Jimmy Saville is accurate nor morally proper, it should not have any reference to 'sir' jimmy saville as he was stripped of his knighthood Paulus Rhodinious ( talk) 20:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that given he was stripped of his knight hood any references to 'sir' should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulus Rhodinious ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I changed the opening text to say that Savile is an entertainer and sex offender, and Ianmacm reverted me saying it's not NPOV. On the other hand, the current article is half a paragraph of praise for his entertainment and donations before even mentioning this which isn't a neutral point-of-view either. Ian disputes the sex offender label since Savile was never convicted, which is certainly true, but that has big caveats. His crimes weren't really known until after he died, and it was a major scandal in multiple areas of British society that he never was convicted. He can't be convicted now because he's dead, but reliable sources leave zero doubt whatsoever that he was possibly the most prolific sex offender that Britain had ever seen. In short, Savile is notable as a sex offender even if he had never spent a second on television. Based on that, I think it's fair to give entertainer and sex offender equal billing in the first sentence. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 03:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
".. but reliable sources leave zero doubt whatsoever that he was possibly the most prolific sex offender that Britain had ever seen."I suspect there may have been equally prolific sex offenders whose crimes were not detected or, if they were, never reached the public eye like those of Savile. His notability was the magnifying lens. I'm also not sure what you mean about "zero doubt... possibly." No-one wants to appear as an apologist for Savile, but as Ianmacm says, he was most notable in his lifetime for his media presence and charity work. The chilling contradiction is that his celebrity status protected him so completely. Martinevans123 ( talk) 08:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the opening sentence should describe him as an "entertainer and sex offender". That is what he is known for; the latter is clearly his primary claim to fame in a global perspective, and prior to the scandal he was only known locally in one country. In the United States, France, Belgium, Australia, Poland and Finland people don't care about Savile's career as "charity fundraiser", "dance hall manager" and other bizarre and obscure descriptors that have been included in the first sentence; all that WP:RS globally care about is the fact that he is the UK's best known predatory sex offender. And we go by RS. The removal of sex offender from the opening sentence violates WP:LEAD and is just a form of POV pushing, and it should be reinstated. Perhaps it would be an idea to have an RfC on the wording of the first sentence to settle this problem once and for all. -- Tataral ( talk) 04:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG (/ˈsævɪl/; 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011) was an English DJ, television and radio personality who was claimed after his death to have been a predatory sex offender. He hosted BBC shows including Top of the Pops and Jim'll Fix It and raised an estimated £40 million for charities so that, during his lifetime, 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 conclude that Savile had been possibly one of Britain's most prolific sex offenders, although allegations made during his lifetime had been dismissed and accusers ignored or disbelieved; Savile took legal action against some accusers.
Can someone please remove the "sir" as the opening word, thanks. We don't use such titles as part of title and he has been stripped posthumously of his honours, serve him right as well. Omar Hatlas ( talk) 15:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we always put the "Sir" in the opening line. In British usage, at least, it is regarded as part of the person's name, not exactly analogous to Dr and Mr. "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." (from WP:MOSBIO -- Alarics ( talk) 20:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I support the removal of this title from the opening sentence based on the fact that it is WP:UNDUE. Reliable sources in most countries refer to him just as Jimmy Savile; Elizabeth II's insistence on bestowing this title upon him until this day can be mentioned below. There is no reason to let what is essentially the POV of Elizabeth II be the very first word of the article, especially when it strikes most people as highly inappropriate (as seen by the many comments about this issue on this talk page) and when it is not widely reflected in or recognised by RS. Also, we don't include titles such as "Dr" or "Professor" before the name, although they are in some countries regarded more or less as "name parts" much in the same way as the title "Sir" in the UK. -- Tataral ( talk) 05:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the text "agreed with assessments of Savile as a psychopath, and stated:" to "considered Savile to be a psychopath, stating:". The supporting reference gives Allen's own opinion; it says absolutely nothing about "assessments" of psychopathy, or that he is echoing someone else's viewpoint. As monstrous as Savile may have been, the article should not be misquoting his former colleagues, or implying that he was ever assessed using the PCL-R. Also, the named disorder should be linked for the layman.
If the cited Telegraph page demands you sign up, the piece is archived here. Perhaps you could also change the URL to this archived one. Thanks in advance. 82.132.219.105 ( talk) 19:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I've left the cite for the time being, because although Daily Telegraph cites usually require a login nowadays, this one doesn't.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
{{cite news |url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8857428/Sir-Jimmy-Savile.html|title= Obituary: Sir Jimmy Savile |date=29 October 2011 |work=The Daily Telegraph |location= London |access-date=4 November 2012}}
to
{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8857428/Sir-Jimmy-Savile.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20200601114004/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8857428/Sir-Jimmy-Savile.html |archive-date=2020-06-01 |title=Obituary: Sir Jimmy Savile |date=2011-10-29 |work=The Daily Telegraph |location= London}}
92.27.188.173 (
talk)
06:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The former covers 2012 to 2019, and the latter covers 2012 to 2020. Is there any need for two similarly-titled, tangled sections? Perhaps someone with access to the article would care to tidy it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savlis ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please move the Adrian Street commentary out of the "During his lifetime" section, as Street made these statements in 2013, not during Savile's lifetime. I'm not sure where the best landing place would be, given that the "After his death" and "Aftermath" sections are deeply confused and intertwined chronologically, with the former covering 2012 to 2019, and the latter covering 2012 to 2020. Anywhere would do, I suppose.
Also the reference supporting John Lydon's 2014 commentary is dead. https://web.archive.org/web/20141022202145/http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/what-s-on/music/audio-john-lydon-outspoken-at-sheffield-s-off-the-shelf-1-6899790
Thanks.
Sir, OBE, and KCSG should be removed from this page.
2603:8080:F904:300:81A8:326F:BA2F:20DA ( talk) 21:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Bryan St.John
This, or something appropriate, should appear on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.137.217 ( talk) 14:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
So I added "and sex offender" to the short description for this page. This was reverted by @ Ianmacm: with the rationale that "Savile was never arrested, charged or convicted during his lifetime, so this is inaccurate". This strikes me as odd. It is not necessary that someone be arrested, charged and/or convicted during their lifetime to be a criminal. Our coverage should follow reliable sources, which generally treat the allegations against him as a matter of fact, for instance this and this. So I can't see any reason for not including "sex offender" in the short description. What do others think? The Land ( talk) 16:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the current text is accurate, well-sourced and clear:
I don't think anyone who reads that would be in any doubt. -- Slashme ( talk) 08:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate both sides of this, but I tend to think we should leave out "sex offender". Savile was the subject of allegations, but so are myriad others on Wikipedia. Naming only select individuals as sex offenders, especially in the absence of due process, is a slippery slope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.219.39 ( talk) 14:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Every couple of months, an editor adds child molester, sex offender, or similar, to either the first sentence of the article or the short description. All of these edits have been promptly reverted, and a group of regular editors argue against this. The argument against including this is that Savile was never tried in a court of law or convicted of such acts. The counter-argument is that his crimes weren't known until after his death (making a trial impossible) and all reliable sources describe as a child molester and that there is no serious doubt that he molested hundreds of children.
So the question for this RFC is: Should the first sentence of the article and the short description describe Savile as a child molester? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 02:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
"American stand-up comedian, comedian, actor, author and aggravated indecent assault convict..."? Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Former editor of The Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore noted that the report does not reveal the "extent of abuse" and that it "contains [no actual evidence], in a sense which a court would recognise."[31] He commented that it "undermines justice" by "treat[ing] allegations as facts", noting the report's admission that "the information has not been corroborated" and viewing its contents as "not a contribution to the truth". He did not feel it right to overcompensate for previously dismissive attitudes to such an extent "that every accusation must be considered true".[31] Referring to the 2000 BBC Two documentary When Louis Met... Jimmy, Moore noted Savile's response to claims of paedophilia: "How does anyone know whether I am or not?" He concluded that this specific question (and also concerning "future Saviles") is "not [made] easier to answer" by the "uninformative and self-righteous" report.[31] -- Alarics ( talk) 17:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Although It's not a !vote, the debate is currently running at 13 oppose, 4 support. This is similar to past discussions.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove Sir, OBE & any other title from his page 82.132.227.78 ( talk) 10:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
'SIR' should be taken off as his knighthood was stripped
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
LawrenceAdovey ( talk) 10:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
This is in the news today. [10]. Quote: "The Forfeiture Committee can confirm that had James Wilson Vincent Savile been convicted of the crimes of which he is accused, forfeiture proceedings would have commenced." Hmm, this is somewhat stating the obvious though. Also "The committee said on Thursday it will now issue a statement saying forfeiture proceedings would have been initiated against an honours recipient if credible allegations are made against them within 10 years of their deaths." The real problem is that Savile and Cyril Smith were never charged or convicted during their lifetimes, which made it impossible to revoke the knighthoods under the current rules.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a new hour long documentary about Savile on ITV at 9 PM this evening, Savile: Portrait Of A Predator. [11] How's about that then, guys and gals?-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
As one who lived through the 70s as a teenage news follower, I recall (IIRC) that Savile was one of a number of figures who supported or endorsed Lord Longford's then anti-pornography campaign and House of Lords Report on the subject. I well recall a JAK cartoon of Longford addressing a meeting of his campaign group that included a cigar smoking Savile in his audience when (referencing Longford's other cause in penal reform) Longford makes the caption comment: "When we've put the pornographers in prison we'll look for ways of getting them out again!" In view of the later revelations of Savile's private life, this now seems incredible in hindsight. If published evidence could be found from news files (more likely those published at time rather than since Savile's death) that would make an interesting addition. It would have been another feather for Savile's respectability cap. Cloptonson ( talk) 17:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The lead section now says "Savile worked in
coal mines as a teenager
Bevin Boy, reportedly sustaining spinal injuries at the age of 18, during the
Second World War."
I was about to remove the source, as per
WP:LEADCITE, but I see that the BBC source
used says: "During World War II he is conscripted as a Bevin Boy, working in the coal mines, reportedly suffering spinal injuries in a mining accident aged 14." Of the sources used in the main body
The Guardian gives no age and The Times has no online link. Any suggestions? Thanks.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
11:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
"Chosen by lot as ten percent of all male conscripts aged 18–25, plus some volunteering as an alternative to military conscription."So 14 seems doubly implausible. But then it is grim in Leeds, isn't it. Maybe it doesn't really belong in the lead at all? Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
About the injury, a possible avenue to investigate to pinpoint the accident might be in local newspaper reports. It used to be press procedure (until, by my experience of local news reading, the 1990s) to identifyingly list people reportedly taken to hospital as casualties in accidents reported say on the roads or in workplaces. No doubt Savile's injury would have been hospitalisable and, had he died of it, been subject to inquest which in those days were reported in greater detail than is usual today. Something that might be of interest to those in WikiProject Yorkshire who have access to those sources via public archives. At the time Savile was yet to be famous, but he could have been reported under his full Christian names and age detailed. Cloptonson ( talk) 06:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He isnt a Sir please remove this. He was stripped of this and its disrespectful to the people he abused. 2A00:23C6:7002:9701:4078:FCBA:DA0D:2661 ( talk) 03:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The NOT DONE response to this is incorrect.
Savile cannot be 'stripped' of his Knighthood after death because it no longer applies. Death is the end of a Sir, and it's only through courtesy we refer to people as Sir and Dame.
Savile deserves no such courtesy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesism ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Savile is not a Knight or a Sir.
That particular club is only for life. Now he's dead, there is no reason anyone should be calling him Sir or referring to him as such.
This is from The Guardian, but you can find other sources on this elsewhere (including The Cabinet Office)
'The Cabinet Office confirmed on Tuesday morning that in Savile's case there was no knighthood to revoke, after David Cameron had raised the prospect of the Jim'll Fix It presenter being posthumously stripped of the honour in the wake of allegations of sexual abuse against young girls.
"It's a living order and then you cease to be a member when you die," a Cabinet Office spokesman said. "There isn't an honour to revoke."'
Continuing to refer to him as Sir is both incorrect and offensive.
Put a paragraph in about his Knighthood, in life, for sure - but take the Sir away from this bastard?
Do the right thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesism ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In subsection § Aftermath, there's a paragraph about the Giving Victims a Voice report. This feels out of place, as it's a key part of the investigation itself rather than something that happened in its wake. I'd suggest moving it to the chronologically appropriate spot (third-to-last paragraph?) of the previous subsection, § After his death. - 89.183.221.7 ( talk) 22:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Jimmy Savile has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This horrific person had his knighthood removed and therefor should not have that honour associated with his profile. He is no longer a sir. Viperdan10 ( talk) 18:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Per the article, As a knighthood expires when the holder dies, it cannot be posthumously revokedScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
This is on the BBC News website today. Louis Theroux looks back at his meeting with Savile, also covered in The Guardian here. Louis Theroux: Savile is broadcast on Sunday, 2 October at 9pm on BBC2. Worth watching as it may be useful for expanding the article.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06: 39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)