Jump to content

Talk:Jimmy Savile

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 15:05, 26 November 2024 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Jimmy Savile/Archive 10) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Former good article nomineeJimmy Savile was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 31, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 29, 2019, October 29, 2023, and October 29, 2024.

Too bad little has been said about the seriousness of the evidence

[edit]

Without a specific explanation, this whole story looks very suspicious. So it pulls to put a hyperlink to the incident of Salem witches. 84.245.221.32 (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain that one to me? Knitsey (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failure of the C.P.S. to prosecute Savile

[edit]

Question: why is there no mention of the Crown Prosecution Service's failure to prosecute Savile? In light of the evidence available when Savile was still alive, how was it deemed that there was insufficient evidence? Regardless of any embarrassment to anyone involved in the decision not to prosecute Savile, I feel that it is worthy of mention here. ChrisgenX (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section says "The scandal had resulted in inquiries or reviews at the BBC, within the NHS, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Department of Health." which is supported by this source? The Crown Prosecution Service is also mentioned twice in the main body? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the era before Operation Yewtree it was just too easy for people like Savile and Cyril Smith to lie and bluff their way out of allegations of this sort. Fortunately things have moved on since then.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to "English Rapists" category

[edit]

I was considering making this change, but wanted to check beforehand, as I understand that, due to his lack of convictions, we have to be careful with how we present information relating to the posthumous conclusion that Savile was a serial sex offender. I want to make the case for this as an appropriate category, however, as the main category that this subcategory falls under, "Rapists", states that it "consists of individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law as well as those who are considered by most historians to have committed the crime." As the posthumous consensus reached through various enquiries and research is that Savile was a serial sex offender and serial rapist, I think the only point of contention would be whether enough of those authorities would meet a metric to be considered "historians", hence why I want to propose the suggestion rather than implementing it immediately. JellyfishReflector (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category seems to fit. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No real objections here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2024

[edit]

Remove the Sir from his name 193.237.193.14 (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See the Honours section of the article for the explanation, plus numerous messages requesting the same thing. Knitsey (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]