Talk:Jimmy Savile/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

My recent edit

Good evening, all. I recently edited this article's short description to highlight the subject's sexual abuse history. I would have edited the lead paragraph to point this out earlier on, as when you search for Savile on Google it displays the Wikipedia article but only the first few sentences, but a notice would require me to gather a consensus on the talk page. Anyway, another editor reverted my edit, arguing that calling him a "predatory sex offender" is misleading as he wasn't investigated until a year after he died. I strongly object to this, as in my view it's more important to point out his sexual abuse history well early on, ESPECIALLY if he's believed to be one of the country's most prolific. I saw a YouTube video where this person googled Savile and it only displayed the first half of the lead paragraph and he was left thinking of this great role model for the rest of the video and only found out later on. Could you imagine someone describing Hitler simply as someone who annulled a harsh war treaty and went on to conquer most of Europe with Napoleon-like honours? GOLDIEM J (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• I noticed your edit and its reversion. I think it's worth having a discussion here about it. I agree with calling him a predatory rapist in the short description; as time goes by, it becomes more and more what he is remembered for. John (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Past discussions have come out against saying that Savile was a sex offender, rapist etc. This creates a misleading impression, as none of this was said or happened during his lifetime. The lead section is more nuanced, as it says that "After his death, hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse made against him were investigated, leading the police to conclude that he had been a predatory sex offender and possibly one of Britain's most prolific." But the police do not get to decide who is innocent or guilty (just as well for Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini). The short description should not contain things that are not an accurate reflection of what the article says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

So by that logic, you would be against describing Fred West as a serial killer, as our article currently does? He was also never convicted of any serious offence. Point taken re Richard and Gambaccini (of course they are still alive, which changes things somewhat for us), but in this case we have Giving Victims a Voice and that was done by the NSPCC as well as the Metropolitan police. It found that he sexually assaulted 450 people (of whom 328 were minors) and committed around 30 rapes. That's good enough for me and most fair-minded people to conclude that he did these things, and that it is way beyond unevidenced allegations or suspicions. As Savile is long dead, we can use the usual standard of WP:NPOV rather than the more cautious approach we take for living people. As I said, each year that passes, the coverage of Savile focusses more and more on his depraved acts and the way they were covered up at the time, with the support of powerful figures. It's quite normal for our perceptions of things to change over time; this article looked a lot different in 2006 when I first edited it! I also take your point that the short description and the lead need to reflect what the article says. So if we need to look at the article first, that would be fine with me. When was the last time you saw anything on Savile that did not discuss his crimes? No, I almost buy GOLDIEM J's hyperbole about Hitler, Godwin's Law notwithstanding. John (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing does not say that Savile was a rapist or sex offender, and the short description should not either. After Savile's death, the rules for investigating cases of historic sexual abuse were changed considerably. In the old days, it was hard and perhaps well nigh impossible to get cases of historic sexual abuse to stand up in court. This was why the newspapers never published allegations against Savile during his lifetime, although they had all heard stories about him doing this sort of thing. Unlike killing people, where the laws in the UK are pretty much the same as they were twenty or thirty years ago, it is now much easier to get allegations of historic sexual abuse to stand up in court. This is Savile's lasting legacy. Also, Giving Victims a Voice was criticised for accepting the virtually all of allegations against Savile on an "as is" basis, without any of the cross checking that would have occurred in court. Giving Victims a Voice does not constitute a court's findings. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

That's true and well said. On the balance of probabilities, Savile was a serial sex abuser specialising in young people. The other side of your point is that Savile, like West, cheated justice by dying before a trial could take place. From a legal point of view of course you are right, but although it was much harder to make allegations like this stick twenty years ago, the acts he has been found by an unbiased official enquiry to have perpetrated were as illegal in 1970 or 1980 as they are now. Criminal allegations against living people are dealt with on a beyond reasonable doubt basis to protect us from mistaken verdicts, as the consequence on someone wrongly convicted is so major. Posthumous enquiries are able to proceed on a balance of probabilities basis, like civil trials or air crash investigations. There is no stronger process available to us for dealing with crimes committed by the dead. (My feeling is that even if there had been, the weight of evidence against Savile was so great that it would have made no difference if witnesses had been cross-examined, but that's not germane.) Wikipedia has no problem with using Air Accidents Investigation Branch reports to assign cause to air crashes, even though there is no inquisitorial process as there would be in a criminal trial, and their findings and recommendations are based on an investigation by experts, as in this case. I think from our point of view in writing an article about him, we should have no problem in giving weight to Giving Victims a Voice on the same basis. If there are good sources which dissent from this, we could reflect them to a due degree in the article. If there are good sources which take issue with the methodology of Giving Victims a Voice, we could maybe use that too. But I think the time has come in the evolution of our thinking about this case, and the evolution of the sources, to evolve this article as well. I think the lead should state that he was a serial paedophile predator, and I also think that the short description should. John (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that we should at the very least start looking at more recent sources, and specifically avoid giving so much weight to his obituaries. It might be worth putting together a list of how sources in the past ten years have described him, which we can use to gauge the current weight, focus, and direction of coverage; especially with article subjects where there has been significant events, relying excessively on older or more obsolete sources is a mistake. If we're going to have the lead read like "people viewed him like this, but then THIS happened", we should ideally rely on sources from after the revelations for the whole thing, not WP:SYNTH up our own contrast by relying on obituaries and other primary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what courts say, it matters what reliable sources say. There has been plenty of good investigative journalism done on his abuse. Shadybabs (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from a review of previous RFCs, they only reached a consensus to exclude from the first sentence, not anywhere else. --Aquillion (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'd like to highlight a related problem. Currently the article says, in the lead, that During his lifetime, Savile was widely praised for his personal qualities and his work raising an estimated £40 million for charities - cited solely to two obituaries. I don't think that we should cite obituaries for things like that all per my reasoning in WP:OBITUARIES; they're not intended to be neutral, they're intended to celebrate the deceased, so they are WP:RSOPINION at best, require attribution, and are WP:UNDUE for the lead. But at the very least it is plainly incorrect to cite eulogies of him in his obituaries as proof that he was widely-praised in life. I feel we should find secondary non-obituary sourcing for that or remove it entirely (and in my view we definitely cannot use obituaries alone for the second sentence of the lead), but at the absolute bare minimum we cannot represent things stated in his obituaries as praise he received in life - that is flatly misusing the sources. EDIT: Also, the comments in the lead were completely inappropriate and I have trimmed them to a much narrower one - per WP:COMMENT, broad comments discouraging specific edits are not allowed, only ones pointing to specific consensuses. And the only standing consensus I could find was an extremely specific question about the first sentence alone. --Aquillion (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with removal. Shadybabs (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This discussion moved on after this point was raised in August, so removing the sentence unilaterally, before consensus had been reached, was unhelpful. I've reverted the removal pending further discussion on the opening paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest writing a short description that includes his nationality, his main occupation and role, and the main issue he is notable about. For example, British media personality accused of sex crimes. Although to comply with the advised length (40 characters), maybe just "British media personality". Short descriptions are "not intended to define the subject of the article. Rather, they provide a very brief indication of the field that is covered, a short descriptive annotation, and a disambiguation in searches (especially to distinguish the subject from similarly titled subjects in different fields)." Thinker78 (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Any further thoughts on this? John (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Right, well we're not exactly racing towards a solution here, are we? I propose using a similar structure to what we have on Savile's friend Cyril Smith. What do you think? John (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

We currently have:

Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG (/ˈsævɪl/; 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011) was an English DJ, television and radio personality who hosted BBC shows including Top of the Pops and Jim'll Fix It. In obituaries, Savile was praised for his personal qualities and his work raising an estimated £40 million for charities. After his death, hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse made against him were investigated, leading the police to conclude that he had been a predatory sex offender and possibly one of Britain's most prolific. There had been allegations during his lifetime, but they were dismissed and accusers ignored or disbelieved. Savile took legal action against some accusers.

and the shortdesc is "English DJ and media personality (1926–2011)"

I propose that we change it to, following the example of Cyril Smith, a contemporary of Savile's (they were friends) who was of comparable fame and had a similar posthumous expose:

Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG (/ˈsævɪl/; 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011) was a prominent English DJ, television and radio personality who was revealed after his death to have been a highly prolific predatory sex offender. Savile hosted BBC shows including Top of the Pops and Jim'll Fix It and was praised for his personal qualities and his work raising an estimated £40 million for charities. After his death, hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse made against him were investigated, leading the police to conclude that he had committed hundreds of sexual assaults and dozens of rapes, some against children. Allegations during his lifetime had been dismissed, and accusers ignored or disbelieved. Savile took legal action against some accusers.

with a shortdesc of "Disgraced English DJ & sex offender (1926-2011)".

How does that sound? John (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2022‎ (UTC)

Discussion

"Sex offender" has been rejected on numerous occasions due to the lack of convictions. An English person cannot be tried in absentia. Savile was never "revealed to have been a predatory sex offender"; the current version of the WP:LEAD correctly attributes this as a quote used by the Metropolitan Police (whose track record in this area is not infallible). As for Cyril Smith, it is surprising that he was never charged during his lifetime, but this was pre-Yewtree, so he wasn't. We can't write history backwards. Also, the proposed version uses the phrase "sex offender" twice in a short space, so it is labouring the point. I can't see much wrong with the current wording, which has been arrived at after a lot of discussion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Smith also had no convictions. Fine to tweak the wording, but I think the current version, however noble the effort to produce it was, is no longer an accurate reflection of the subject, as we were discussing. Also, as regards "infallible", no, the Met aren't infallible, but then no human institution is. As we discussed, it was a joint police NSPCC report that led to the reevaluation of Savile's reputation. It was quite a while ago now, and our article should probably reflect that. John (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Savile may well have been a paedophile, but many of the complaints were made by adults (eg the female nurses at Stoke Mandeville refused to be left unattended with him). He really couldn't keep his hands to himself.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It is inaccurate and misleading to describe Savile as a paedophile. It appears that most of his alleged victims were above the age of puberty. "Sexual predator" will suffice. -- Alarics (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

He appears to have been omnivorous in his assaults upon people, preferably but not exclusively females, from 5 to 75, and possibly also dead bodies. I think he had a preference for younger victims, so calling him a predatory paedophile in the lead sentence seems a reasonable simplification, which we can enlarge upon later in the article. I am open to discussing the exact form of words, but I think we should let go of the option of keeping the status quo ante. John (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree on this with ianmacm and Alarics. The current wording is preferable to any of the alternatives suggested so far. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The lead fails to summarize the body of the article; for example, it mentions praise for his charity fundraising but fails to mention that his charities were found to be linked to child sex abuse and were shut down following his death. In general it overemphasizes praise and diminishes his criticism and scandal.Shadybabs (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

There was no great improvement in this revert.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I would not oppose removing the second sentence - "In obituaries, Savile was praised for his personal qualities and his work raising an estimated £40 million for charities" - if it would lead to the tag being removed. I don't think it's needed in the opening paragraph - it is adequately covered in later paragraphs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I was disappointed with the revert, because the previous edits removed the part about obituaries that some people had objected to earlier in the discussion. Here are my thoughts on all of this:

• Savile was one of the most famous celebrities in Britain for at least three decades. Although there were rumours about his private life during his lifetime they did not damage his career, and his reputation did not collapse until after his death and the broadcast of the ITV documentary.
• Mentioning Savile's charity work is not praising him. The estimated £40 million that he raised for charity is an extraordinary amount and gave him widespread respectability with influential people, including Margaret Thatcher and Prince Charles (now Charles III).
• When discussing cases like Savile and Cyril Smith, it is important to understand the distinction between the pre Operation Yewtree and the post Operation Yewtree era. During the pre Operation Yewtree era in Britain, it was practically impossible to get allegations of historical sexual abuse to stand up in court, something that Savile and Smith both benefited from.
• While Savile may have sexually abused children, many of the complaints were made by adults.

I know that a lot of this has been said before, but some people still want to ditch the charity references in favour of saying that Savile was a paedophile/sex offender/rapist as soon as possible in the article. This is not an accurate or nuanced description of what happened. It should also be noted that placing a POV tag on the article does not ban other editors from making edits, or give an editor a free hand to revert edits.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, without sources I'll largely take this as personal feelings/anecdotes. Lets look at what the BBC profile has to say:

In his lifetime, millions knew Jimmy Savile as an eccentric TV personality. To some, he was Saint Jimmy, who raised £40m for charity. But it has transpired that he was also one of the UK's most prolific sexual predators.

Savile was one of Britain's biggest stars, a larger-than-life character who was known for tea-time TV favourites like Top of the Pops and Jim'll Fix It as well as stints on BBC Radio 1.

At the same time, it has since come to light, he was exploiting his status to prey on hundreds of people - girls and boys, men and women, but mostly vulnerable young females.

He assaulted and raped them in television dressing rooms, hospitals, schools, children's homes and his caravan.

[1]

We can either edit the lead paragraph for brevity and omit the charity trivia, or explicitly state that he exploited his status to prey on hundreds of people - girls and boys, men and women, but mostly vulnerable young females.

To give the implication that his acts of charity were not primarily a cover used to rape children is simply untrue, contradictory to sources, and POV pushing. Shadybabs (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to engage in a sensible discussion on this issue, because Shadybabs is assuming that anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint is POV pushing, which fails to assume good faith. This discussion is essentially a rerun of what Shadybabs wanted to do at Roman Polanski and failed. The same tactic of tagging the article as POV has also resurfaced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

If there are problems of editor conduct on this (or any) article, there are avenues to address that. On the article content discussion we are having, I agree with Shadybabs that we should mention early on the main thing he is known for. That isn't his tracksuits, being a pioneering DJ, his royal connections, his charity work, his cigars or his catchphrases, it's his decades of serial rape and sexual assaults, principally on young girls. If the improvement tags helps focus editors on making it better, I support it. It's what they are for. John (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The charity work does not seem like trivia when it was a key part of his camouflage/persona, which seems clear from reading the whole of the introduction. If it is thought necessary to explicitly state the connection between the two then an appropriate place could be in the second paragraph immediately after the names of the hospitals where his offences are alleged to have taken place. EdwardUK (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• What about:

'Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG (/ˈsævɪl/; 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011) was an English predatory sex offender, possibly one of Britain's most prolific. During his lifetime he was known primarily as a DJ, television and radio personality who hosted BBC shows including Top of the Pops and Jim'll Fix It, with the hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse made against him not becoming public until after his death. There had been allegations during his lifetime, but they were dismissed and accusers ignored or disbelieved. Savile took legal action against some accusers, and was never charged with a crime. In obituaries, Savile had been praised for his personal qualities and his work raising an estimated £40 million for charities.'

It's almost exactly the same words as the current opening paragraph, but in a different order, highlighting his abusive behaviour first and foremost, but stressing quickly that he was never charged with a crime in his lifetime. This is assuming that it contains all the same references. George.millman (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This is another very clumsy attempt to shoehorn the phrase "predatory sex offender" into the article at the earliest possible opportunity. It is not a statement of fact, and should make clear that it is actually a quote from the Metropolitan Police after his death, which the article currently does. As stated previously, the police do not determine who is guilty or innocent.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay. What about 'Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG (/ˈsævɪl/; 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011) was an English celebrity who, following his death in 2011, had hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse made against him. During his lifetime he was known primarily as...' etc. George.millman (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

As stated previously, the police do not determine who is guilty or innocent. No, when the perpetrator is alive, we have the criminal courts. When we have a dead perpetrator we have the inquiries that we have had. This is as good sourcing as we can ever have. Of course the main thing he is nowadays known for should be mentioned early in the article. I repeat my challenge; find a modern source (<5 years old) that doesn't stress his offending. If it's good enough for the best sources, it's good enough for Wikipedia. John (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion of the wording (second one) doesn't actually say that he was guilty though. It just says in the opening sentence that hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse were made against him following his death, which at this point, is what he is best known for, far more than his work in the media. George.millman (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

"Best known for" is always somewhat subjective, and difficult to support by sourcing. The point is that Savile has had the last laugh in all of this, because he will still be famous in a hundred years' time. Not because he was a disc jockey, television presenter or charity fundraiser, but because of the controversy that occurred after his death. As Britannica says, "Jimmy Savile, in full Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile, (born October 31, 1926, Leeds, England—died October 29, 2011, Leeds), British entertainer who was a flamboyant radio and television personality known as much for his platinum-dyed hair, gaudy tracksuits, and enormous cigar as he was for his zany comedic style. After his death in 2011, he was the centre of a sexual abuse scandal."[2] This is broadly in line with the current wording in the article. It's clear that some people would like to mention the sex abuse controversy as soon as possible, but without establishing Savile's somewhat fake credentials as a national treasure and living saint during his lifetime, it doesn't explain why all of this is notable in the first place, or how he was able to do it. As another example, there is a long standing consensus not to mention Gary Glitter's sex offence convictions in the opening sentence, because it was his career as a glam rock star that made the offences notable. For any reader with an attention span longer than the proverbial goldfish, the opening paragraph there is sufficient.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Savile and marathons

Re this edit: see this thread. Savile said in an interview that he had run 217 marathons, but other runners questioned this and said that many of them were 10km or half-marathons. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of second sentence

The second sentence of the article used to read:

In obituaries, Savile was praised for his personal qualities and his work raising an estimated £40 million for charities.

It was changed in this edit on 21 November (by a subsequently blocked sockpuppet) to read:

He was well known in the United Kingdom for his eccentric image and was generally respected for his charitable work.

The sentence has now been entirely removed, in this edit by Shadybabs, with the edit summary: "No consensus for this; unsourced". The "unsourced" suggestion is easily refuted - the lead simply summarises sourced information in the main text. Although there was no consensus for the precise wording introduced on 21 November, there have been lengthy previous discussions over the wording of the paragraph, and I would interpret the general view of most editors as supporting a statement that acknowledged his importance in UK culture at the time of his death. The problem now is there is no explanation in the opening paragraph of why the uncovering of Savile's predatory behaviour was so shocking. It simply says that he was a DJ, TV and radio personality who had hundreds of allegations made against him after his death - true, but an inadequate and incomplete explanation of what made him notable. The second sentence that was removed this evening, or a similar wording - giving a factual summary of material included in the article - needs to be reinstated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I've more or less given up on editing the article while Shadybabs is involved with it. The article is being held to ransom with a POV tag that amounts to his personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT statement. As Ghmyrtle points out, it is correct to say that Savile - for better or worse - used his charity work to acquire an image as a national treasure, and it made him very hard to challenge during his lifetime. It is clear that the simplistic "OMG he's a paedo!" brigade has turned up and doesn't want to add in any context for why this is notable and important.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

That's an understandable position, but there seems to me to be absolutely no consensus to remove entirely the second sentence, giving necessary context. So, a second sentence needs to be reinstated - and the discussion should be around whether which of the two versions - before, or after, the 21 November edit - is preferable (or, a new wording, of course). Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a great fan of the phrase "Savile was praised for his personal qualities" because it is a bit vague. What is clear is that his charity work gave him access to many influential people, including Prime Ministers and members of the Royal Family. It also meant that the various hospitals where he was involved did not do anything during his lifetime, even though the junior members of staff had received many complaints about his behaviour. Savile's obituaries in 2011 show that his self-created image an an eccentric Mister Wonderful was more or less intact at the time of his death, but it all fell apart within 18 months.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2023

Include mention of 14 part series done on Savile by US based podcast, The Deathcast entitled, “The Life and Crimes of Jimmy Savile.” Link to show is included as a point of reference.

https://welcometothedeathcast.podbean.com/e/the-life-and-crimes-of-jimmy-savile-part-1-the-early-years/ Rasslinandcrime666 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This needs to be covered by secondary sources to demonstrate that it is WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Sir ??? Jimmy Savile. Surely this vile paedo is no longer a sir

Needs to be amended 92.25.153.96 (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Replying under here because I had the same question. (Maybe I'm blind, but I can't find the FAQ) Anyways it seems Savile's knighthood was not revoked because it is a living honor, which ceases to exist at death. If he is no longer a knight, is it correct to still call him Sir? Do we take the title away from every knight who dies? I feel like the Cabinet Office used weasel words to avoid dealing with the issue. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18180496/was-jimmy-saviles-knighthood-taken-away 45.40.89.222 (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The FAQ is the fourth box down from the top of this page. This is part of what it says:

Q: Then why can’t you remove it? [i.e. the "Sir"]

A: Extensive consensus is against it and it would mean we would have to remove all life-only honours from every single biography of a deceased person on Wikipedia. Alarics (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Another article of possible interest?

I thought this article had similarities with the Ben Roberts-Smith article - a person highly regarded who falls from grace as revelations appear that all is not as it seems. Legal issues and interpretations and their use in WP are also present, although of a different nature. Some people here might find it interesting. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not directly similar because Ben Roberts-Smith did not face sexual allegations. Also, Savile's reputation was not ruined until after his death. Savile never became involved in a major libel action, even though all of the newspapers had heard stories about his behaviour.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Addition to 'allegations during his lifetime'

In episode 4 of series 2 of Drop the Dead Donkey, first broadcast on Channel 4 on the 17th of October 1991[3], the character Henry Davenport states that he has heard a rather disturbing rumour at his club, to which Damien Day asks "Not Jimmy Savile again?" Muptard (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not really notable enough per WP:DUE. Also, it is more like a joke than a serious allegation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery

There are pictures of Savile at the NPG here, including a caricature made by Barry Fantoni for The Listener. Apparently the gallery have made a conscious decision not to remove any of them. So that link could be added at the External links section. 86.187.225.105 (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting but doesn't really add much to a reader's knowledge of Savile, leading to problems with WP:EL. As you say, though, it is notable that they haven't censored these images to prevent people from being offended.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2023

Remove "sir" from his name as knighthood is removed upon death otherwise it would have been revoked as stated later in the article. 2A02:C7E:5A15:F500:D157:1136:F367:3C46 (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/09/jimmy-savile-knighthood

There's your consensus. 85.255.234.79 (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile The Philanthropist

The use of the word 'philanthropist' is comical in English Wikipedia. The word translates to 'a lover of humanity', which means a person who has dedicated his/her life to helping other people. Here it's used as a title ANY rich person can buy with money. Ukas (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of knighthood title

He died 12 yrs ago and should of had his "sir" title removed by Wikipedia then. Canman57 (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

See the section, Aftermath 'Most of Savile's honours were rescinded following the sexual abuse claims. As a knighthood expires when the holder dies, it cannot be posthumously revoked. Episodes of Top of the Pops hosted by him are not repeated.' Knitsey (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Time/date of death and do "fingers crossed" bear mentioning?

How exactly do we know his time/date of death? According to one article, his nephew, Roger Foster, said he "passed away quietly in his sleep during the night". This makes it unclear if Savile died on the night of October 28, or the early hours of the 29th. Should the article also mention, if there's any truth to the claim, that Savile was found with his fingers crossed? The claim suggests he was hoping for the best in what waited him in death. Grimly, some accounts suggest he had a smile on his face. One hopes that it was the face contorting, depending how long he had been dead for. If the original calim could be found, it could be added within the events' timeline of the article along with attribution, in the last paragraph of the "death" section worded something along the lines of: "According to some reports, Savile had a smile upon his face and his fingers were crossed." 92.23.219.201 (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd be astonished if any source meeting WP:RS requirements ever published such a claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if Dan Davies' book can be regarded as a reliable source but it is one of the earliest mentions of the "fingers crossed". {https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1iFhBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT7&lpg=PT7&dq=jimmy+savile+fingers+crossed&source=bl&ots=DteGJcBeHY&sig=ACfU3U0-8XK5EghD2Bz4E22iikqOolvKSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNy5OZ7-6BAxUqhP0HHQcYBnM4ChDoAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&q=jimmy%20savile%20fingers%20crossed&f=false} Some articles omit the "smile", probably because the idea that he died with one final taunt is an image, that even the people he abused, can't get out of their heads. Intestingly, "The reckoning" has him in his armchair, rather than bed, and seems to have his face natural (with one viewer suggesting that the writer implied he died fearful of the idea he was going to Hell). One hopes that the quote, unquote, "smile" was a facial spasm. 92.23.219.201 (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I would hope for something to have an expert on a claim that Savile's facial expression was described "smiling when he was found dead" and I want to be very specific about the particulars. There has to be an original source, if someone had to asserting that there was a certain expression upon his face immediately before he dued and that this expression remained (after he was basically dead). While one shudders to consider the possibly Savile was smiling when he died, and that he somehow retained some measure of the expression after passing, I do not find it beyond the realm of possibility that Savile was smiling preceding his death and immediately thereafter dying but physically retaining his last conscious expression. This would also put some doubt on the claim by Foster that he died in his sleep. If there's any truth to the "fingers crossed" claim, that he had to have been aware he was dying, and not asleep, unless that also was a spasm of the body after death. 92.23.219.201 (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The main source for the fingers crossed claim seems to be Dan Davies' book, which is also the main source of The Reckoning. News reports at the time said that Savile "passed away quietly in his sleep during the night." Probably best to leave out the fingers crossed without clearer sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The Reckoning

At the moment, I'm watching The Reckoning on iPlayer, with my jaw on the floor. Episode 2 shows Savile presenting a Christmas edition of Songs of Praise in Yorkshire, something that he never did as far as I can see. This occurs at the same time as he receives his OBE, so it is presumably meant to be around Christmas 1971. It also has a subplot about a girl who committed suicide after meeting Savile on Top of the Pops and the subsequent investigation, also not based on fact. It seems to be based on Claire McAlpine, who killed herself at the age of 15 and left behind a note making allegations against several disc jockeys. In episode 2, a young girl is shown being raped by Savile after an episode of TOTP, then killing herself. To be fair to Savile (difficult I know) there is no clear evidence that this event actually happened. At the start of the show there is a disclaimer saying "some names have been changed and some scenes created for dramatic purposes." Even so, some of the inaccuracies here are astonishing. While this is more on topic at The Reckoning, we do need to look at ways of pointing out that some of this is fictionalised. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

In this BBC article and interview with the writers, McKay and Pope, they clearly state that some parts and some characters have been fictionalised. That should be made clear - not necessarily on this page, but certainly at The Reckoning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

In Episode 3, Savile is shown with his newly published book Stranger Danger and the Animals of Primrose Wood, which is supposed to be "Educating children about strangers" (screenshot). This never happened and is almost satirical. Episode 4 shows Savile as angry that his appearance on the final edition of Top of the Pops in July 2006 is very short; "I'm barely on screen thirty fucking seconds", he says to the production team. In real life, Savile was in Lochaber for the Highland Games during the weekend when the final TOTP was made, so he appears only a few times in some pre-recorded inserts. In Episode 4, Savile is shown drinking brandy and has a half empty glass next to his dead body (screenshot) Savile was not known as a drinker, and had been in ill health and suffering from pneumonia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

If inconsistencies and errors like this are mentioned in articles about the TV series, they can be covered in the page about the series. I'm not sure of the point of mentioning them here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, just to clarify, there is a 1985 book by Irene Keller called Benjamin Rabbit and The Stranger Danger for which Savile wrote an introduction.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but what I don't understand is why you are setting out that information here? If these errors etc. are relevant to the Wikipedia page about the dramatisation, and if they're mentioned in published reviews, they can be mentioned over there. But you are just reporting your own original research, are you not? All this article needs to say is that the dramatisation is partly fictionalised - no need to go into the details. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

There is now a Telegraph source that mentions some of this.[5]. Definitely needs a mention at The Reckoning. Martinevans123 says that the Songs of Praise appearance was Christmas 1969 [6] not 1971 as is stated on screen, because Savile has just been sent a letter giving him an OBE. Thanks Martin.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've started a paragraph at The Reckoning (2023 TV series). Open to expansion, of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"Introduced by Jimmy Savile who for several years has been an honorary churchwarden of the Anglican Parish Church in the village of Craggvale..." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Martin. Like many BBC TV programmes from the 1960s, (Doctor Who etc) the original quad tape of this is probably now lost forever. There don't seem to be any clips from it anywhere, which at least spares the BBC's embarrassment if people saw it today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Knighthood

any reference to his knighthood and title of sir should be removed from the Wikipedia article.

The UK parliament cabinet office confirmed the title is a living one and ceases to exist when the holder dies. Therefore he is just Jimmy Savile.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/09/jimmy-savile-knighthood 85.255.234.79 (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The knighthood part is incorrect as hes deceased and if he was alive it would of been stripped... so the person editing this page needs to remove it! 2A02:C7C:8AA1:FA00:25FF:9DCD:D47A:F57E (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep, the ‘sir’ needs removing 82.36.220.141 (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There are Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) at the top of this page - please read and note. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No convictions, no proofs?

That's a very long read of allegations and speculation in-abstentia, but looks like no convictions, no proofs? Nothing but here-say and speculation, along with kangaroo courts and pitchfork lynchmobs. Right? Cut most of that out. Wikipedia is not the place for gutter-press gossip.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.186.105.0 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

So Operation Yewtree was just based on a few nasty rumours, yes? Have you also read Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal? That's all just "gutter press gossip" as well, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Things have moved on since Savile's death, this is his lasting legacy. Savile and Cyril Smith would easily have been arrested and charged under the rules that exist today, but pre-Yewtree there was little enthusiasm for pursuing cases of historical sexual abuse.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 @Ianmacm I do think it may be important to put (alleged) next to the 450 victim count in infobox; the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal page certainly is careful to say "450 alleged victims", not "450 victims", but the infobox just states the number 450 without a parenthetical. The sourcing certainly says "alleged" not "confirmed". lizthegrey (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I am surprised to see the criminal infobox in use here considering previous RfCs have decided not to describe him as a criminal, least not in the first sentence.LM2000 (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper also gets one? (but then, as far as we know, he never introduced Top of the Pops and never raised £40 million for charity.) I think lizthegrey makes a valid point. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD does not say that Savile was a criminal/sex offender due to the consensus that this would be an inaccurate summary of what happened given that the major controversy occurred after his death. I'm a bit surprised by the use of infobox criminal and would be happy to return it to infobox person. Not sure when this was done. As for the victim count, Giving Victims a Voice was criticised for assuming that all 450 allegations would have stood up in court, which is something that we will never know for sure. It isn't directly comparable to Jack the Ripper.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

(e/c) Perhaps the difference is that "Jack the Ripper" is a term used for an unknown person (or persons) who certainly committed crimes. Savile was a real person who is alleged to have committed crimes that were not addressed as such during his life. That is something different. (For clarity - I'm sure he did commit crimes - but what I or others think is not relevant.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, not directly comparable. Savile's identity is a little more certain. Perhaps the only point of comparison is that they were never tried and convicted. Cyril Smith also gets a criminal infobox... I suspect that for most Wikipedia readers, the type of infobox used is largely irrelevant. The Categories might have slightly more resonance? Both Savile and Smith get Category:Child sexual abuse in England. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It appears to have been first introduced here by @Pyraminxsolver as {{Infobox serial killer}} (that's how I found my way here, was reviewing their recent edits having just given an alert/first), I turned it down a bit to {{Infobox criminal}} per my edit description that serial killer is not true, let alone DUE. lizthegrey (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

i copied the template from another article to make it easier for my edit as i'm not familiar with inserting templates Pyraminxsolver (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

His Sir title should be removed!

Disgusting he’s even on Wikipedia 86.15.39.17 (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Remove "Sir" he is dead. If he were alive he would be relieved of this title, he was not worthy of in the first place. 74.73.67.245 (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct. Wikipedia should be ashamed. 81.101.204.98 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove all sir and any glowing act he did they where all deceitful and planned to help with his predatory ways — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8787:D501:E0DB:D6B3:ABB9:B224 (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and if no one objects, perhaps I'll bell the cat in a few days. Any comments against, anyone??

Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 06:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly. Read the FAQ at the top of the page. Wikipedia does not award knighthoods, and cannot strip people of them. Take it up with the British government. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023

Change Sir Jimmy Saville to Jimmy Saville. Yhe Knighthood is a Living Order and Jimmy Saville ceased to be a member on his death as confirmed by the Forfeiture Committee reported by many publications. 2A00:23C6:9886:5D01:F0A3:8D22:461E:102F (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done: see the FAQ and many talk page discussions about this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  I guess this fact makes my life a tad simpler. I recently made my first financial contribution to Wikipedia, won't be making that mistake in the future. I don't support entities that give the technical benefit of the doubt to multiple, serial pedophiles. Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  The article doesn't 'give the benefit of the doubt' over anything. Including the fact that Savile was knighted, and that the knighthood has not been/cannot be retroactively rescinded. And frankly, I am at a loss as to why people think that attempting to downplay the fact that he was knighted would be in any way a responsible thing to do. There are very good grounds to argue that due diligence was not carried out by those responsible for the knighthood, but that is their responsibility, not Wikipedia's. Take it up with the British government. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Any complaints about Savile's knighthood should be directed to Margaret Thatcher, who insisted on giving Savile a knighthood in 1990 despite repeated warnings from civil servants. It is not the job of Wikipedia to right great wrongs or censor the history books, since the current rules do not allow a person to be stripped of a knighthood after their death. We never seem to have this argument over at Cyril Smith, even though Thatcher and David Steel were just as unwise to allow him to have a knighthood despite clear warnings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2024

The introduction states that Savile started at Radio 1 in 1986. He started there in 1968. 2A00:23C8:7F88:EE01:8851:263B:EB06:3155 (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup. Not sure if it was a typo, or vandalism, but either way I've corrected it. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

“Allegations”

The article currently reads, “After his death, hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse made against him were investigated”; months back, I started a discussion at Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal#How should we keep this article close to neutral? concerning the use of terms such as "alleged". I felt it’s probably best to drop “alleged” from any article. Can anyone clarify if any consensus has been reached? 92.17.198.220 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Savile's reputation is in ruins, but the previous consensus is that he was never charged or convicted of any crimes because the major controversy occurred after his death. We can't write history backwards.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Allegations remain allegations until proven or disproven. That's how the English and Welsh legal system works, or fails to work, depending on your viewpoint. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Change to introduction?

Would it not be appropriate to add some reference to the sex offence allegations to the first sentence of this article? Jimmy Savile is (now) at least as well known for his alleged sex offences as for his media career.

Also worthy of note, is that Google (also possibly other search engines) tends to scrub the first few sentences of a Wikipedia article to prvide a brief description of a search term, which at present does not include any reference to the aforementioned allegations. Notwithstanding the need for proper non-bias (ie. not removing "Sir"; repeated use of the word alleged, etc.) surely adding "... and alleged serial sex-offender" or similar to the first sentence would be a good idea? BobSagetOoosh (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This question comes up a few times a year and should probably be included as an FAQ at the top of the page. Previous discussions (including an RfC) have decided that it does not belong in the first sentence.LM2000 (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is what matters here. Wikipedia has no control over how Google displays a Wikipedia article, and they usually show only a very short piece of text. The current wording is the result of many discussions. Savile's media career is what made him notable, and he got the full national treasure treatment during his lifetime. But it all fell to pieces within 18 months of his death. The lead is written to provide this explanation for anyone capable of reading a paragraph of text. Even in the age of the internet, people should be capable of doing this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

SIR?

Should Jimmy Savile still be referred to as Sir? 86.9.164.144 (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The article says: "As a knighthood expires when the holder dies, it cannot be posthumously revoked. The Cabinet Office stated in September 2021, with reference to his OBE and knighthood, that "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." But, if you do refer to him as Sir, I don't think he'll thank you for it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

the FaQ says we do. Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Rape in England

Savile died before he could be prosecuted and convicted of any crimes, so strictly speaking this Category cannot be used. But the circumstantial evidence seems to be more than sufficient enough to warrant its use, in my view. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the evidence is enough to invoke the Fred West factor here. Had Savile lived and been prosecuted under today's rules, he would have been convicted of rape. However, categories like "sex offender" have been removed per WP:CATV because he was never convicted during his lifetime.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

p.s. there has been a similar addition at Cyril Smith. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)