Talk:Jimmy Savile

Sunday Mirror story

BBC axe investigation into Sir Jimmy Saville and schoolgirls is in the Sunday Mirror today (they spelled his name wrong in the headline)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Having read the article, it is clear that they have nothing on him. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The story was reported in every newspaper including the Telegraph, so it should be mentioned in the article. (92.7.18.192 (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC))

Not if it's nonsense. It may be notable as far as the BBC is concerned, but how is it relevant to our understanding of Savile exactly? Do you have a Telegraph reference - that might add more weight? But as it has already been discussed here, I think you should get consensus before re-adding. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Telegraph story is here and is basically a rehash of the Mirror story mentioned above. I don't think that this is notable enough for the article in its current form. It is no great secret that the UK tabloids spent years trying to dig up information about Savile's private life, but they never found anything worth publishing. A better source on this is his Telegraph obituary, which says: "Savile always claimed that the key to his success on Jim’ll Fix It was that he actually disliked children, although in later years he maintained that he had offered this explanation to allay any untoward suspicions that he liked them too much. Rumours of under-age sex circulated for some years, although the fact that no allegations of impropriety ever appeared in print seemed to confirm Savile’s own insistence that he had “no past, no nothing”. But he was always careful to guard against the possibilities of any misunderstandings, and the predatory intentions of parents or the press. When children knocked on his door for autographs, he would refuse to open it, instead passing the signed photographs and scraps of paper back through the letter box. In later years he even refused to have a computer in his home, explaining that he did not want anybody thinking he was downloading child pornography." Some of this could be used in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Have added a new para in Career and Personal life, although I found it difficult to paraphrase. Please add or amend as you see fit. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've tweaked it, and also played around with the order a little to try and give better flow and reduce duplication. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that looks much better. I had doubts about a single section headed "Career and Personal life". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This was copyedited because it borrowed several sentences almost word for word from the Telegraph obituary and looked like a copyvio. I also removed the sentence with "Rumours of under-age sex circulated for some years" as it is too serious an allegation to make without any evidence to back it up. What really matters is that the tabloids spent years trying to prove this but never did.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Television documentary

This is in the news today. It looks like a rehash of the allegations that were dropped from Newsnight.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Death details

The death details have been removed a few times by IPs and a newish editor and these have been restored. As the initial reverter I feel that these details are relevant to the article and should be present. These could probably be trimmed down a little but do not think there are grounds for wholesale deletion of these details. Any one else got any comments? Keith D (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This whole section has been drastically reduced from its original form. I see nothing that is now obviously superfluous. Maybe the phrase "where they found his body" might be softened. But I would like to see concrete examples and logical reasons why other details should be removed. Savile was a local, if not national, celebrity and I see no reason why the public expression of loss should be disposed of, just because one editor assumes, quite wrongly, that it was "breathlessly added on as events unfolded." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There were some WP:NOTNEWSPAPER issues in this section, but not enough to justify removing the whole thing, Instead, some of the detail was trimmed back.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• It seems ok to me. --John (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Very serious allegations of paedophilia

A documentary on the prime UK national commercial TV channel, ITV, will be aired on 3rd October 2012 "investigating alledations that (Savile) sexually abused teenage girls. (Source: TV & Satellite Week Magazine 29 Sept 2012.)

This is discussed above. It is notable that the documentary will be broadcast when Savile is dead and not in a position to sue for libel. There is a WP:BDP issue here, and the BBC has already dropped these allegations because Savile was never charged or convicted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

We aren't really meant to predict what next week's TV will be, or even mention it, until it has been broadcast (even if The Telegraph does). Once someone has died, former managers and publicists are not always quite so keen to seek injunctions which might protect their former client's reputation. It seems that the media always has a way of finding its own level, by one means or another. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted to removed this per WP:CRYSTAL but it looks like the media hoo-ha will be significant. The BBC dropped the allegations because no contemporary complaints were found in the BBC archive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

But ITV never had Jim'll Fix It, did they. Not sure we have WP:OUIJA yet, do we. Martinevans123 (talk)

This story has been bumping around since January 2012, and it looks like ITV will air the allegations. The media has wanted to make claims like this about Savile's private life for years, but it is significant that they never did so during his lifetime. Savile was not known as a litigious person, but he did call in lawyers in 2008 over the claims relating to a children's home in Jersey.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, allegations of this nature were made before he died, and may well have been looked in to by the police at the time, because they were made during the major police investigation in Jersey. Danrok (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Surprising to hear news reports today (Sunday), in advance of Wednesday's ITV broadcast, on BBC Radio 2, including a short eye-witness account and Esther Rantzen saying that "the jury is no longer out" on the matter. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The tabloids have already given a preview of what will be in the documentary [2], producing a response from his relatives, one of whom said that he was ""disgusted and disappointed".[3] All of this is very reminiscent of what happened with Jonathan King in the early 2000s, the only difference being that since Savile is now dead, he cannot defend himself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The story has clearly now moved on from what was said at the time of his death, and the latest allegations have been reported prominently in UK media. Not just the tabloids - also the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Times, the Independent, etc., and on BBC TV news. I've added a link to the latest BBC news report, but no doubt there will be more to add in coming days. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the focus has moved on now to the ITV defending its decision to broadcast, e.g. [4]. And Savile's nephew has expressed his concern over the possible damage to his legacy, including the charity work, which apparently continues. Rantzen has been particularly outspoken. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In this edit, reference is made to the 2008 story about the Haut Garenne case, which was previously raised here. Is it sufficiently noteworthy to be included now? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that in the light of breaking news, it is potentially VERY noteworthy and apposite. Manxwoman (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The 2008 Jersey allegations should now be mentioned in the article, because Savile called in the lawyers over them. The material was removed from The Sun's website and cannot be found there today. Raising the Staines allegations during Savile's lifetime might well have prompted a similar legal response.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

But, on second thougts, this seems a little perverse. If allegations were removed from a website as a result of a legal challenge, surely they should not be re-reported here? Not contempt of court, and not in breach of any injunction, but wholly contrary to most people's view of "natural justice"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Obviously this is made partly more notable by the magnfiyign effect of the forthcoming ITV documentary and associated media frenzy, although this obviously has made no material change to those original allegations. Perhaps it is notable in its own right, given that Savile himself began the legal procedings, but still raher borderline I feel. If The Sun incident is kept in, though, I think it should be made clearer how it was concluded. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the legal proceedings were (quietly) dropped, as I cannot source a conclusion... Manxwoman (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no legal requirement for the details of any out-of-court settlement me to be made public, of course. So we will probably never know. Should all the material on alleged child abuse now be grouped togther in one separate section? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Would make sense... Do you want me to have a go? Manxwoman (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. But note my second thoughts above. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I did word it ambiguously, so that it is clear that Savile denied the allegation, as opposed to stating the information as fact. Manxwoman (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What is now happening, predictably, is that more material is being added, including lengthy quotes from other celebrities. I'm minded to start reverting some of this - it doesn't add any substantive information to the article, merely commentary on a current media story. We need to be impartial and balanced here, and not merely add commentary and unsubstantiated allegations into the article simply because they exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Esther Rantzen material is non-notable. She has been making the rounds of the TV studios but had probably just heard the same gossip and rumours as everyone else.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that quote should certainlty be trimmed, if not removed. She is right, of course when she says that she "has to believe them" - that's her self-appointed media role. But since when did the Pope give knighthoods? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I totally disagree. a) She is the founder of Childline, a registered charity that deals in child-abuse, so she should be regarded as qualified and b) the Pope DOES gives religious knighthoods, see Order of St. Gregory the Great. I am going to undo the rv. Manxwoman (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant hnighthoods in the British honours system. I see it's fully included in the article. Glad to see that Esther is reading her wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Esther Rantzen is also a mega self-publicist. She is entitled to her views, but would not be able to substantiate them in a court of law.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I do not think either of those comments are relevant. Rantzan would not have to defend herself in law as it is an opinion having seen a preview of the programme. The programme makers may/will have to defend themselves, which is different. Rantzan acknowledged expertise as a result of Childline carries considerable weight and without her "gift" for self-publicity, Childline would be financially struggling. Manxwoman (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've cut out most of the quote, which is barely relevant at all. The "There were always rumours...." bit might be worth keeping, just about. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Having seen the documentary, Rantzen's comments came across as very eloquent and well-balanced. I think it might be worth adding back more of what she said, particularly about the "unwitting collusion" that she felt had taken place in the BBC. She was also quite visibly shocked by the footage that was shown to her. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to revert, as I do not want to get into an editing war over something like this, but I am shocked, truly shocked, that you should call her comments over something so revolting as these accusations "barely relevant" when she states that she was aware of an independent witness who saw such abuse taking place. We are talking about the possible sexual abuse of children here: "Might be worth keeping, just about"???? Shame on you. Manxwoman (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever our personal feelings might be, they are not very relevant. We are writing an encyclopedia, not selling newspapers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Emotion can cloud the mind sometimes. Manxwoman (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It is also now worth recalling that Lynn Barber asked Savile in plain language about this issue in an interview in January 2000.[5]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take note that the alleged victims are of both sexes, and amend the wording "women" or "girls" in due course. The newspaper reports of some of the victim statements are carefully worded to avoid a gender pronoun. It is an important issue for alleged male victims and for child protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.216.93 (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The WP:RS currently used, the report from The Telegraph, mentions only women and uses the feminine pronoun throughout. Do you have an alternate or additional reliable source which supports your claim? I would imagine that the gender of the victims will be made clear in the documentary when it is broadcast. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The gender of the victims will not be revealed since there are no confirmed victims. He was acquitted due to lack of evidence. Depending on how neutral you approach that statement, the allegations were either baseless, untrue, or he got away with something in a perfect crime scenario.83.70.170.48 (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There was no "aqcuital" as there were no charges, let alone any court case. The question here is over the gender of those who are or were alleged victims. Sorry if that was not clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The documentary gives no suggestion that Savile had any interest in boys. So unless there are other sources for such a claim this cannot be assumed. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Further to this theme, there is now at least one published allegation from a male victim at [6] or [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.187.187 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 October 2012

Given that the term "paedophilia" is so emotive, it is important to note that none of the allegations concerns paedophilia, properly understood. Paedophilia is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Not a single one of the children that Savile is alleged to have kissed, molested or raped was pre-pubescent. The youngest was 14, as far as we know. 31.54.43.87 (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is very similar to what Jonathan King says here. The age of consent in the UK is 16.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. I'm aware of the age of consent, though that has nothing to do with the definition of the word "paedophile". I am not familiar with Jonathan King's case, but he makes a useful point - if we really did base our definition of the word on the particular age of consent, that would mean that a 21-year-old male making moves on a 20-year-old male before the gay age of consent was lowered would have been a paedophile - which is a ludicrous way to define things. Paedophilia has a specific definition and while the word is widely used in a very loose way colloquially, it's important we avoid this in encyclopedic contexts (and therefore it may be helpful to be careful about the use of terminology on the talk page as well). 31.54.43.87 (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

See Pedophilia: "The words "pedophile" and "pedophilia" are sometimes used informally to describe an adult's sexual interest or attraction to pubescent or post-pubescent teenagers and to other situations that do not fit within the clinical definitions. The terms "hebephilia" or "ephebophilia" may be more accurate in these cases." We do need to be accurate over terminology in the article itself, but I don't think it's necessary to change the heading of this discussion thread, as it was written by its initiator. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Jerry Lee Lewis set off a huge controversy in 1958 after claims that he had married his 13 year old cousin (Lewis said she was 15). Some cultures accept this type of marriage, but they would be illegal in the UK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Tend to agree that the term is a very loaded one. It was claimed clearly on several occasions that Savile was attracted to teenage girls. One eyewitness, however, estimated the age of one girl, who was a guest at a Chinese restaurant and later in Savile's bed, was between 12 and 14 and "probably about 12". No clear images were presented of what any of the girls looked like at the time, although the clear suggestion was that they were the same age as the girls who appeared on stage with Savile in the Clunk Click programme, i.e. teenagers. The very public televised incident with Coleen Nolan, on Top Of The Pops, and her comment on it, which was broadcast separately some time ago, might be a useful addition to the section. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Coleen Nolan clip is on YouTube here, but she was not in the ITV1 documentary. However, she told Alan Titchmarsh in October 2012 that Savile invited her to a hotel when she was 14.[8] This should probably be in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

She certainly was in the documentary, as was the clip? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, the clip of Nolan mentioned above comes from 2007 though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be against starting to list every allegation of improper conduct individually. When they are substantiated, of course; and if they become the centre of specific investigations, of course - but I don't think the Nolan allegations fall into those categories. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think perhaps you're right. The Nolan incident was hardly "an allegation". What I found more shcoking in the documentary was that, certainly early on, Savile made very little effort to hide his activities. In fact he seemed almost proud of what he was doing. There was just an ever-growing "consipracy of silence" in the media bubble around him. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have restored information about a nine year old girl at Haut de la Garenne (undo by Ianmacm) and information that Michael Grade heard rumours about Savile's behaviour. Yes, one of the allegations is sourced from the Sun newspaper. Remove the citation if you wish, but please note it is also cited in the Daily Mail as was evident in my first edit. The reference to knowlege of rumours in the BBC the cites the BBC's own webpage. Ianmacm's claim that he removed my edit because it was sourced to Sun newspaper ingnores the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waugh Bacon (talk • contribs) 11:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Waugh Bacon (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There were several reasons for reverting this: a) The Sun is not an ideal source. b) A laundry list of all the allegations does not add to the article. c) "it was claimed yesterday" in the source is weasel wording. This is not the same as the Jersey police announcing a formal complaint. For the sake of policies such as WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, the article should not recite all of the claims unless they relate clearly to an investigation. Contrary to the claim in the edit summary, the headline "Jimmy Savile groped my sister...aged 9" is not found in other more reliable sources. This leads to a WP:RS issue. The material about Michael Grade was moved, not removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You say there were several reasons for reverting this.

"a) The Sun is not an ideal source." The claim that Savile assaulted a nine year old and an eleven year old came from two sources, the Sun and the Daily Mail. You could have just removed the cite link to the Sun article, leaving the link to the Daily Mail, but instead you deleted my edit. Why not just remove the cite link to that source, which would still leave the allegation intact and sourced to another newspaper? You say, 'Contrary to the claim in the edit summary, the headline "Jimmy Savile groped my sister...aged 9" is not found in other more reliable sources', except for the Daily Mail that is. Is the Daily Mail also considered to be an unreliable source by Wikipedia? (I am no fan of the Daily Mail, in case you are wondering, I would just like to know whether you are maintaining a neutral point of view or are dismissing a source because you don't like what it says). If you genuinely believe the Daily Mail to be an unreliable source you must have to spend LOTS of time editing out cite links to that paper. As for the use of weasel wording the paragraph about Savile includes, 'On 30 September 2012, it was reported by UK newspapers that up to ten women claimed that they had been sexually molested or raped, by Savile during the 1960s and 1970s'. Do you intend to remove this? The title of the paragraph is 'Sexual assault allegations', so lets acknowledge just what the recent edits are all about; allegations.

"b) A laundry list of all the allegations does not add to the article". I hope most people would agree that claims that Savile abused a child as young as nine substantially changes the nature of allegations, probably permitting the correct technical use of the word paedophilia in relation to his alleged activities.

"The material about Michael Grade was moved, not removed". You did not make this clear in your edit summary.

Waugh Bacon (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the ITV1 documentary was broadcast, several new people have come forward claiming to have been abused by Savile. Under normal circumstances, if this happened, WP:SOURCES would apply if the claims were made only in a tabloid newspaper. There has been a reversal of fortune for Savile and there is now a tendency to report any new material uncritically. The claim about the nine year old girl is a good example, because despite the attention-grabbing headline, the story accompanying it is not very strong and is based on the old tabloid technique of qualifying it with "it was claimed yesterday". In other words, "she said this but we have no way of knowing if it is true."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

'She said this but we have no way of knowing if it is true'? The whole paragraph IS ABOUT allegations! "There is now a tendency to report any new material uncritically ?!" Do you think we should be either critical or uncritical ?? I thought the idea was to cite sources and maintain a neutral point of view ? I think Peteb16 (See Reliable sources below 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)) covered how we should word our edits. "Several new people have come forward claiming to have been abused by Savile ?" I think the count now stands at over 40 with Janet Street Porter also stating that she was aware of the allegations and Paul Gambaccini 'waiting 30 years' for the allegations to come out. A former nurse at Leeds General Infirmary, June Thornton (Daily Telegraph, 5 Oct 2012) claims to have witnessed abuse. A former patient at the hospital has also come forward. It has been reported that an audio recording from the BBC programme Savile's Travels has emerged appearing to reveal him behaving inappropriately with a young girl. The audio can be found at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9589207/Jimmy-Savile-abuse-audio-recording-emerges.html A cruise ship captain is reported to have confined Savile to his cabin before throwing him off a ship because of his behaviour with a 14 year old girl. I am tempted to include some of the above in a future edit. What the allegations demonstrate is a reluctance to deal with what was perceived as appauling behaviour over decades with the complicity of many 'responsible' adults. I hope they won't be seen as additions to a list as they suggest Savile's behaviour took place in many different surroundings and under different circumstances.

Waugh Bacon (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I also see that KC9TV claims that the Sun is a reliable source, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. See KC9TV 07:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC) comments below. Is it in fact Wikipedia policy to strike out information sourced from the Sun?

Waugh Bacon (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The Sun and the Mail have a questionable track record of reliability (Elton John and Philip Mould spring to mind). Tabloids may also have paid the participants for their stories, and promised more money if a person is convicted. It is best to avoid using UK tabloids as a source for material on Wikipedia when more reliable sources are available.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Should we be including claims made in tabloid newspapers? I've removed a reference to the Sun, which I'm sure is not generally considered a reliable source and didn't add any substance to the article anyway, but references to articles in the Mirror, Mail, etc., remain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As long as the information is presented in such a way as to state "such-a-body of the tabloid newspaper The Thingy said such-a-thing" then the reference is valid. Otherwise we're trying to present what the newspaper said as fact and we cannot do that regardless of how reliabile it is. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Have edited and replaced info from The Independent (usually reliable) that goes to show possible collusion at the BBC, which I suggest is at the heart of the problem. Manxwoman (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The tabloids have gone to town on this. The UK tabloids (Sun, Mail etc) are regarded as having questionable reliability over gossip and BLP issues. The other main issue is WP:RECENTISM, because there is no need to recite all of the allegations and counter-allegations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree totally, but the Independent piece (repeated elsewhere) is of importance as it adds a new and equally disturbing strand to the possible cover-up at the BBC, which I predict will be where this story now goes. Manxwoman (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

We also need to keep an eye on WP:NPOV. The media have tipped the balance on from wanting to report good things about Savile and keep quiet about anything that would oppose that, to wanting to report every single negative rumour they can find and keep quiet if anything comes up to counter it. If we're influenced by that, the result is a heavily biased article which doesn't conform to Wikipedia policy. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You appear to have just completely deleted the new info as to a cover-up, in spite of the discussion above. Reason would be a polite response before arbitarilly deleting... Manxwoman (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The material about Douglas Muggeridge has not been deleted, but it needs some qualification because it comes from a former BBC press officer and Muggeridge died in 1985, so cannot give a direct account of what happened.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

""copyedit, this claim comes from a former BBC press officer, Douglas Muggeridge is now dead" "so cannot give a direct account of what happened". So is Savile. Your point is? Manxwoman (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The tabloids have tried to portray this as a "BBC cover-up". The reality is that these stories had been going around for years, but without a successful complaint or prosecution, it would have been potentially libellous to repeat them in public. Douglas Muggeridge, Esther Rantzen and the tea boy in the BBC canteen may well have heard these stories, but they would have had difficulty in substantiating them. The same is still true today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The wording I used, while using a source who must also be aware of the libel laws, which do not apply if someone is dead, was very carefully chosen as to show that Muggeridge had asked if any papers were running with any similar story about Savile and young girls. This contradicts the BBC statement and therefore has every reason to be included. I'm not sure I am happy that you appear to have "taken over" the decision making position on this page and seem to be calling the shots, without consensus. Manxwoman (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Libel laws still apply in this case as we do still need to be careful about libellous claims about the BBC. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware that you could libel a corporation... Manxwoman (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed you can. I would refer you to the McLibel case. The BBC, however, like the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, and Channel Four, is a QUANGO, or similar, of Her Majesty's Government, or a Government agency, and normal rules for simple companies and corporations probably do not apply. -- KC9TV 07:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of other people watching this page. I'm sure that any of us who disagree with the edits made will make our views known - there is no need to get consensus in advance for every change, per WP:BRD. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but certainly a fundamental edit as had been made, which went to show possible collusion and therefore take the story into a much more serious realm, should not be just cut out. It seems, however, that a rather grudging inclusion has now been made. But I stand by my comment above. Similar edits could be misinterpreted as an editor having an SPV. Manxwoman (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The headline in the Independent story Boss of Radio 1 'knew Jimmy Savile was abusing young girls' has quotation marks. This is a favourite journalistic technique for saying something without actually proving it. The story is based on the recollections of a former BBC press officer, and Muggeridge cannot comment on it. The BBC also insists that no documents in its archive reveal complaints about Savile during this era. The claim about Muggeridge should not be presented as a fact.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comment "Muggeridge cannot comment on it" is presumably factitious as if we followed that reasoning, then we should not include any of the allegations made within and without the documentary, as Savile is dead and cannot comment on it either. Where are you going with this line of thought? Manxwoman (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Independent story mentioned above is largely anecdotal and dates from nearly forty years ago. This means that it does not carry the same weight as the evidence showing that Richard Nixon lied about the Watergate break-in. For the sake of WP:NPOV, the article should not imply that Savile was a child abuser, or that the BBC deliberately attempted to cover it up. None of the evidence is strong enough to say these things.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course the Independent story deals with matters from 40 years age. The alleged crimes are also 40 years old... Where in the article does it say that the allegations are fact? To compare it with Nixon is plainly naive. Would you rather that no mention of the scandal appears at all until St Savile returns from the dead and answers the allegations in person? We could just reduce the entire article to one paragraph and say he was a DJ and tireless advocate for charity and young people... Manxwoman (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Ian is trying to point out that nothing presented by any newspaper or TV documentary must be treated as fact or regarded as evidence of anything. Therefore putting it there to try to, in your words, "show possible collusion" cannot be done. We must simply say 'a newspaper reporter says this in this newspaper' and leave it at that. Your obvious negative thoughts against Savile (which I share) are coming out in the way you are behaving as a Wikipedia editor, especially the way you are talking to other editors. We must stick to the facts and there are no facts, just newspaper reporters with pitch forks shouting 'He's a witch!'. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the article should try to avoid going from one extreme to the other. Given the length of time involved, it is unlikely that the exact truth of any of these allegations will ever be determined. Had all of this come out thirty years ago, Savile would probably have faced charges like Jonathan King. Savile is probably smiling in his 45-degree grave over this, because despite a load of mudslinging, there is still no conclusive evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Both Peteb and Ian are correct, I am letting emotion get in the way with my edits and I apologise if I have offended either of you, but still, the article is reporting reports and I cannot find anywhere that is saying it is fact. Of course it is and remains allegation only, but just as the Catholic church was eventually implicated in the child-abuse by certain (several) priests, so I predict the BBC will be found to have colluded in a cover-up and I am trying to say as much without an overt accusation. Manxwoman (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No offence taken, I was concerned I was offending you. I was just hoping to stop the tension before it got worse and I'm glad I succeeded. If there are other breaches of Wikipedia policies in this article, you're entitled to remove them. I'll admit I've barely read the section as the more I read what Savile is believed to have done, the more I feel myself becoming less able to be impartial as an editor and just want to bring him back so we can hang the... see what I mean? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Sun (or anything except the Daily Sport or the Sunday Sport) is a reliable source, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The general reliability of the Daily Mail, again, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is never really in serious question. If we were to strike them out as unreliable, then surely by the same token we must also dismiss The Guardian also as unreliable. -- KC9TV 07:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The BLP policy surely, as the name suggests, only applies to and protects "living natural persons", and not the named "subject" of a death certificate. Libel, slander, or defamation in general, of the dead, or, against a deceased person, is not, at least since Victorian times or the 19th. Century, generally a crime, nor actionable in a court of law as a civil matter, or known to be such, either in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, or in most states or parts of or to the United States of America (save perhaps Louisiana or Puerto Rico), as far as I am aware of. This is a crime, or otherwise actionable, only in Continental Europe under the European civil law or under Roman-Dutch law, and states elsewhere under similar legal systems. Anything against Savile in particular, proven or otherwise, in my opinion, should only be removed if they were unsourced, or obviously, manifestly false, or obvious blatant hoaxes. -- KC9TV 07:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has raised the BLP policy in relation to this article since his death. But of course there are plenty of other policies and guidelines that apply to this article, notably WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT (as part of WP:NPOV). Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:BDP is part of the policy. Even when a person is dead, certain types of statement may affect living people. Although a dead person cannot sue for libel, the fact that a person is dead does not mean that the normal rules of reliable sourcing and NPOV no longer apply.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really "recent" when in all likelihood his death certificate is probably now available for all to order from the Home Office. Your definition is probably stretching a little too far. We are not e.g. still waiting for his Inquest from a Coroner. This policy probably applies instead only to the likes of e.g. Lord Lucan, who is, as far as I am aware of, also never convicted, even in absentia, of any crime as such. -- KC9TV 07:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

From GRO anyway: [9] Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

While editing Lord Lucan's article, the real problem would be accusing living people of assisting or hiding him, which would be potentially libellous. The same problem has cropped up after the ITV1 documentary, as some of the allegations affect people still alive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although not named, the staff at Duncroft, for example, were accused of being wholly complicit in hiding the abuse and in one case punishing a girl who tried to speak out. It is possible, although perhaps unlikely, that some of those staff are still alive and could be traced. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Daily Record Autobiography revelations

Have you read the commentary of Jimmy's autobiography 'Love is an uphill struggle' reported in the Daily Record.

Savile admitted to a string of relationships with young women and teenagers.

In one example, Savile – who died last October aged 84 – describes an encounter with a young runaway from a remand home who was being hunted by the police.

He said: “A high-ranking lady police officer came in one night and showed me a picture of an attractive girl who had run away from a remand home.

“‘Ah,’ says I all serious, ‘if she comes in I’ll bring her back tomorrow but I’ll keep her all night first as my reward’.” Savile describes how the girl came to one of his dances that evening and stayed the night with him before he handed her over.

He added: “The officeress was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues for it was well known that were I to go, I would probably take half the station with me.”

On another occasion, he asked organisers of a charity event to choose a group of young girls to spend the night camping with him after the disco.

Etcetera...

Does some editor have a copy of the book, who can make the additions to the article impartially.

Zfishwiki (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thing, rather than struggle, apparently. But uphill nonetheless. Alas no. I think any owners might be reluctant to admit to having a copy just at the moment. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Also a piece by Hugo Rifkind about this book on The Times website. Philip Cross (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Report here. It raises the question of how "shocked" people should be by a book that he wrote (or authorised) for open and widespread publication 38 years ago. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This must be a rare book, the only second hand copy of "Love is an Uphill Thing" on Amazon costs £51.92.[10] Any rich Wikipedians here, because I'm not going to buy it purely for research purposes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You just missed one on eBay for £2.96. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If you read those quoted sections in the context of the superhero that Savile was originally portrayed as then you wouldn't assume there was any connection with child abuse. It's only now it is being read in the context of someone who is being portrayed as a child molester that it's obvious what really was going on. But it still can't be used impartially as he doesn't actually admit to laying a finger on any of them, or at least he doesn't in any of the given excerpts. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine that the pages are not littered with scanned copies of the girls' birth certificates. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see whether contemporary reviewers of the book were "shocked". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul Gambaccini comments in Huffington Post

"Gambaccini went on: "On another occasion, and this cuts to the chase of the whole matter, he was called and he said, 'Well, you could run that story, but if you do there goes the funds that come in to Stoke Mandeville - do you want to be responsible for the drying up of the charity donations?' And they backed down."" [11]. Worthy of any (separate) mention? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Gambaccini said this on the ITV1 breakfast show. It is an interesting anecdote, but I'm not sure if it is notable enough for the article. Gambaccini and Emperor Rosko were the only Radio 1 contemporaries to comment, the others had nothing to say.[12]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps surprising, given that The Great Gambo was a relative newcomer, starting in 1975. Rosko was much more of a Savile contemporary, but he left in 1976. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Gipsies

Misspelt in footnote 28