Talk:Huw Edwards/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

COI tags on BBC sources

DeFacto has put conflict of interest tags on the BBC News sources in the section about the 2023 suspension. Per WP:RSPBBC BBC News is normally considered to be a reliable source and there doesn't seem to be a huge problem here. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The tags should be removed. Here's another RS with a story about how BBC News has worked on this which ilustrates why the tagging is nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That 'story', from a rival news outlet that 'also' has a clear COI in this matter, should clearly be discarded too. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

How does the Guardian have a COI here? Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite, I'll AGF and take that as a serious question. The Guardian is a rival news outlet to both BBC News and The Sun. It has a vested interest in discrediting them both, but may choose to back one, BBC News perhaps, in attacking the other. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I find it a bit odd that you single out The Guardian for criticism in this particular instance, as that could be applied to using any newspaper/news organisation as a source on anything in a Wikipedia article on a newspaper. GnocchiFan (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@GnocchiFan, I've only mentioned The Guardian because it has been cited in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

So on that basis every news source has a COI. Which is slightly ridiculous, when you think about it. Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite, it is not ridiculous, it is obvious, and needs to be taken into account when the action of a news outlet is being discussed by other news outlets. WP:COISOURCE and WP:BIASED recognise that. A solution may be to contrast content from a cross-section of sources, carefully attributing who is saying what. That way readers will have a chance of cutting through the various editorialisations and loaded language we've seen so far presented as matter of fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

A cross-section of sources that you believe all have a COI? Or are you just talking about sources you aren't keen on? Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite, neither - a cross-section of sources offering the various different interpretations of the same story. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not about the reliability of BBC News as a source, this is about whether, in this instance, they have a conflict of interests in the subject matter they are being used as a source for.

To me it is clear that as:

1. one of their employees is the subject of the article
2. their handling of an alleged complaint relating to one of their employees is part of the story
3. their reporting of the details of the initial allegations made in The Sun varies significantly from that given in other sources (who also have a COI here)

there is a clear case per WP:COISOURCE to be considered here. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. If there is a specific issue with a particular BBC report then bring it here and it can be discussed. But I don't see evidence that it has affected BBC reporting at all (indeed, listening to BBC radio reports at the time they broadcast very regular disclaimers about how the story and the reporting of it were being handled by different arms of the BBC). Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Disagree as well. There is zero evidence that BBC News has not reported this in any way that stops them being an RS on it. If anything, per the Guardian article, the commentary has been how they've treated it like any other story. The soaraway Sun on the other hand... DeCausa (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, it is not a question of whether it is an RS, or not. It is whether they have a COI in this story, and it would seem that they have several. And I'd take anything The Guardian says on this with a pinch of salt, as they too have a COI as a rival of The Sun particularly. They might be supporting BBC News as an ally against The Sun. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

By the same questionable reasoning, the Sun has a CoI when reporting on the BBC. And any news media source has a CoI when reporting on any other. Taken to its 'logical' conclusion, it would be difficult to find uninvolved sources at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. But if we cannot resist to include the drama, we can contrast what the competing news outlets are saying, taking care to attribute each appropriately. That way readers will see how the journalists craft a story, carefully choosing words, to lead readers to take away the meaning they want them to hear. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

No, this is a question of whether BBC News is RS for this story. The only relevance of COI is if it compromises the RS status, otherwise, who cares. I've given an RS showing that the BBC has reported the story neutrally. Where are the RS that say otherwise? They're not there. Unless you can provide them this is just you're own WP:OR that there is an issue with BBC News reporting. DeCausa (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not OR, it's the literal definition of a COI - the organisation has conflicting or incompatible interests. But as the other news outlets also have one of the COIs, that leaves us with no choice (other than to omit this story) but to provide an attributed cross-section of the available conflicting takes on the story. Or are we just going to stick with one version - the one from our preferred 'RS'? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

But only you say this. There's no RS complaining about BBC News coverage. Where is the hue and cry about BBC News lack of independence? Seriously, you need to drop this dead end. DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you not think the BBC has a conflict between defending its public image, reporting all it knows about the story, its duty of care to its employees, and possibly other things too? If not, why hasn't it divulged all that it knows and when it became aware of it? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Chinese wall is a very basic concept. There is never an automatic COI. The RS is very clear that BBC News has reported this independently. Frankly, you're just pushing a personal POV which is becoming disruptive. Either put up some RS support evidencing this supposed BBC News bias or drop this. Do you have RS support for any claim that BBC News reporting has been biased? Yes or no. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

How it tries to manage it is irrelevant - it still has it. Other news outlets have their own agendas too, and may choose to support an ally who is also attacking a rival. This sounds like a tangled web of tactical and selective 'reporting'. Per WP:BIASED, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, so why should we assume that any of the news outlet RSes we use are not biased, especially when reporting on the actions of their rivals? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Where exactly is all this 'ally' stuff coming from? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that it has several different competing interests involved with this story, its journalistic neutrality, its liability to its employee, its status relative to that of its news outlet rivals, etc. How can we say that none of those were being prioritised ahead of accurate and neutral reporting? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

By that logic, to be honest I'm not sure where we're going to find any COI-free sources to describe this topic. Popcornfud (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Popcornfud, do you agree with that logic though? If not, how would you modify it? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's one of those situations where we have to shrug and report what reliable sources say. What other course of action is there to take? We know so-called "reliable sources" are never 100% reliable anyway, and always have their own biases and interests. Should we avoid using Guardian reports on Rupert Murdoch media, as Murdoch is a rival to the Guardian? Etc. Popcornfud (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BIASED we need to consider "the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". However, if we choose to use sources with a COI, robust in-text attribution needs to be used to make it clear to users whose opinions are being stated. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Are BBC News reporters also likely to be the HR department for the BBC when it comes to deciding what should or shouldn't be done with Huw Edwards? No.

Is there anything in the stories that you can evidence as examples of clear bias that goes against the reporting by several other sources that can be explained by Edwards being a BBC employee? No.

At present there is nothing to show that the inclusion of BBC News sources is a COI breach, the reporting itself is factual in nature (not editorial) and typically backed by links to other sources.

So far the only source that was COI is one I removed, which was inclusion of comments by Adam Boulton who is employed as a media commentator by NewsUK (who also own The Sun). Apache287 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

We have other articles that have the same issue, i.e. News International phone hacking scandal, and we've dealt with them perfectly well. I don't think it's an issue at all - or at least certainly not a COI one. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite, how is it dealt with there then? Are the opinions weighted by prevalence in the sources, or what? And is there any case there of the public record being misrepresented in the article because an 'RS' has editorialised it that way? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

All we know so far is that a) The BBC suspended Edwards and b) the police said that none of it was illegal. There is a gap because we have no detailed comments from the BBC or Edwards on why this brouhaha occurred. Until there is some more detail, it is flailing around to accuse media sources of bias and conflict of interest.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

should parts of this article be in the past tense?

should parts of the article refering to his reporting at the bbc be in the past tense? it seems that he won't return beyond reasonable doubt Schlimple (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that they should be in the past tense for now. I know people are saying that he was only suspended and that he might come back – okay, then we can change the tense if he does come back to work at the BBC, however (un)likely that may be. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Edwards hasn't been sacked or resigned from the BBC, so it is jumping the gun to say that he will never return. But I see the point that he isn't doing anything at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh totally. I mean, I think it's unlikely that he will return, but it would be firm WP:CRYSTAL territory to say that. But I don't think using the past tense does that. As you say, he isn't doing anything at the moment. GnocchiFan (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I would vote to keep it present-tense for now. Officially he still is a BBC presenter, he's just suspended. That doesn't mean he's not a BBC presenter. was implies a degree of finality that is not yet certain or earned. Popcornfud (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

We only really use past tense for people who have died. If someone has changed role, we'd still use present tense but refer to them as a "former newsreader" / "former presenter" etc. But as others have said, Edwards has not been sacked or resigned so his role remains current until he or the BBC announce otherwise. WaggersTALK 15:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

(See MOS:BLPTENSE for the guidance on this) WaggersTALK 15:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Until we reliably hear that he will no longer be doing those things how can we put them in the past tense? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This is to get things the wrong way around. On Wikipedia, we can only state that which we can verify with reliable sources. Currently, the lead has "He presents BBC News at Ten" (present tense). Given that Edwards isn't presenting New at Ten then it is going to be impossibly unlikely that a reliable source would say that Edwards is presenting News at Ten in September 2023 (but those who doubt could try and find such a source if they want). In fact reliable sources like the Guardian have reported that senior BBC journalists doubt that he will ever return to his former role (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/sep/02/no-one-expects-him-back-what-now-for-bbc-huw-edwards) - although in accordance with WP:V - the onus for verifiability rests with those who want to add information not take it out. In sum, it's verifiably the case that Edwards "presented BBC News at Ten" it's not verifiable (or even true) that Edwards "presents BBC News at Ten". Greenshed (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Guardian article was published after most of the discussion above. At the time of the discussion there was nothing from any source indicating whether or not he was likely to return to work and we were right to be cautious about making changes.

Now that we do have a published source stating it's unlikely he'll return we can absolutely use that. The wording needs to be done carefully though - he is still employed by the BBC as their main news anchor (present tense), albeit suspended. My preference would be for the lead to say "he began presenting BBC News at Ten in (whatever year it was) but is currently suspended from the role" or something along those lines. Just tell it as it is but assume nothing. WaggersTALK 08:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian source quotes unnamed people in the BBC newsroom saying that they don't think he will come back. It's true, but it is just office gossip. If I were going down to the betting shop and placing a bet on this, I would also say that it is unlikely that he will present News at Ten again. But we need confirmation from the BBC or Edwards, and neither has made any comment on this since July.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

With respect, we don't need to know anything to remove a statement that cannot be verified (see WP:V). Specifically, the erroneous claim in the lead that "He presents BBC News at Ten" should not be in the article. Greenshed (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead as it stands "Until his suspension in July 2023, he was the lead presenter of BBC News at Ten, the flagship evening news programme of the BBC." is easy to verify and does the job nicely. The Career section no longer says he is the presenter, just when he started presenting. I think the article's fine as it (now) is. WaggersTALK 10:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

(Kudos to @Ianmacm for making those changes) WaggersTALK 10:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a story in i (newspaper) today which says that Edwards is set to leave the BBC.[1]. "A senior newsroom insider said: "The review is in and unfortunately there isn’t a path back for Huw. There is no expectation he will return." This isn't much further forward on previous stories quoting newsroom staff saying that he is unlikely to return, but it does provide some new information.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I will add the information that, when the BBC's apology for the original handling of the complaint was made last week, we did have a BBC newsreader (Nicky Schiller) that, on one occasion, referred to Mr Edwards as "the former BBC newsreader", although I do not know if this was intentional or was a slip of the tongue etc. Of course I cannot post a link to video of the news channel that shows this to order to provide verification to readers here, as these things get broadcast/on I-Player for two hours and then disappear from the public domain and I am not aware of anyone keeping a copy and posting it online anywhere. However, you have my eye-witness assurance as to what I heard (may or may not have said "BBC" but did say "former" and "newsreader" - wish I had written it down contemporaneously - and of course it came from BBC News that ought to know and be reliable as to whether one of its own journalists is former or not).

I now also wonder how many years we are going to wait of Edwards absence before Wikipedia says former newsreader? Potentially, if the BBC never ever issues any details as to what happens with the complaint and Edwards remains suspended indefinitely, do we have to await an 'official' confirmation as the only verification before we change no matter how long he remains off air and never returns? It is now 8 months - at some point, eventually, it will become more untenable to say he is going to return, if he doesn't come back in the meantime but are we waiting for what seems like a slim chance of this happening whilst at the moment being biased towards the status quo and not neutral point of view at all because we only have him as a newsreader as the start point, if this was possibly appointed as a newsreader but not yet announced and awaiting official verification we wouldn't be talking about removing him from being called one here, instead we would be refusing to put him as a newsreader until it was verified that this is what he is or is going to be. The only reason he is still claimed to be a newsreader despite not doing any newsreading for months and months is because of historical reason that makes us biased in maintaining this status quo position and arguably already after it is becoming increasingly untenable. aspaa (talk) 17:38, 04 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to wait for an official statement from the BBC, or from Edwards himself, don't we? Yes, it might take months more, or even years. Perhaps we need to put "newsreader (currently suspended)" or something like that? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It is clear that Edwards is now in a weird limbo. He isn't exactly fired by the BBC and he isn't exactly employed either. He is apparently still suspended on full pay, and this may be a very long period of gardening leave. Much as it seems logical to say "former newsreader" in the article as none of the newsroom staff expect him to return, he still hasn't officially left the BBC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there really any reason to be so desperate to add "former" to our articles? This came up recently at BLPN in relation to another article and I don't quite understand it. I'm fairly sure it's a standard applied fairly inconsistency. I mean sure with cases like Michael Caine and Michael J. Fox where someone has formally announced a retirement or something we can report it. But otherwise it seems unnecessary. E.g. Phillip Schofield doesn't say former but we do mention he himself saying his career is over and frankly that seems fine to me. Edit: For clarity I'm only referring to general careers like newsreader, presenter, actor etc. In the case of of specific jobs etc, we do have to handle it somehow. In other words, I do agree saying someone presents something which they haven't done for months and may never do again is more problematic. Although even in these cases, I think in most cases in the article on the person, "former" still isn't necessary. Instead we should handle these the same way we normally handle such things like Tony Blair and say they served in the role from X to Y or some variant of that. Of course deciding when someone is no longer in that role can be complicated in cases like since if there has not been any specific announcement finding sources on it may be difficult. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

Huw Edwards is listed as The Bach Choir's VP here but he was removed from this post in May 2024 (as evidenced by his removal from their website), so the article should read:

'On 5 July 2019, Edwards was awarded a fellowship of the Royal Welsh College of Music & Drama.[57] He was a vice-president of The Bach Choir from 2022-2024'. Joebachchoir (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The website is likely to fluctuate a fair bit and it s primary source. Are there any media statements or press articles we can cite regarding his removal? I'm struggling to find one WaggersTALK 12:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It was changed in this edit but it is primary sourcing/original research which isn't ideal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

A more reliable source may be their annual return to the Charity Commission if there's no third party reporting we can use. Their latest return, submitted in May 2024, still lists Edwards as a VP, but that's for the year ending 31 July 2023 - https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/258287/accounts-and-annual-returns. WaggersTALK 12:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I've cut the mention altogether, it's fairly trivial anyway.--Launchballer 13:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Marriage

There are several reports in tabloid sources that Edwards and his wife have separated and are living apart, but I couldn't find anything in WP:RS to support this. Ef80 (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

What makes The Independent and The Times not reliable?--Launchballer 13:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing at all, I just didn't find the refs there after a short search. Both are paywalled of course, so not ideal. --Ef80 (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing Archive.ph can't handle.[2][3]--Launchballer 13:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that it is hearsay and is traced back to The Sun. The Independent says "A source told The Sun: “They separated quite a long time ago but have not announced it publicly." If you look at all of the sources, they are simply repeating this piece of hearsay from The Sun. There is no direct confirmation from Edwards or Flind that they have separated, so I removed it from the infobox per WP:BLP.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's the right move. It all stems from the address given in court documents being different from their usual address, but they could have just moved house in that time. Until there's an official announcement or something in a genuinely reliable source, we have to tread carefully. WaggersTALK 14:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

ungrammatical and unclear sentence

The first sentence under "Sexual Misconduct" contains "since they were 17." It's unclear whether "17" refers to the number of images or the age of the teenager. 2602:306:BC65:4779:20B6:93EF:E57A:3958 (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I've made it clearer in this edit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarification of the "making" crime

I added to the lede the bolded part: In July 2024, he pleaded guilty to three counts of making indecent images of children, admitting to having received indecent images of children on WhatsApp. - and it was removed by Ianmacm for being personal commentary. I disagree that it is personal commentary, for example BBC News reports: He admitted having 41 indecent images of children, which had been sent to him by another man on WhatsApp, Westminster Magistrates' Court heard. The reason I made the addition is to avoid confusion by readers who are not familiar with the law. It is not obvious that the "making" offense includes simply receiving such images. Readers may be misled to believe that Edwards went around photographing children indecently. starship.paint (RUN) 11:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

IMO the wording you propose doesn't add clarity. The additional wording "admitting to having received indecent images" doesn't actually explain the previous clause of "making indecent images" — it sounds supplementary, rather than explanatory. In other words, it isn't obvious that "making" the images and receiving them is the same thing.

We go into more explanation about what is meant by the legal wording "making" here in the article body, which I think is fine. Popcornfud (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

As we know most readers don't read past the lead, and as the lead summarises the main, it is not "fine" just to rely on the explanation in the main. However there may be a better wording that could be employed. The making offence was not "receiving" the images. It occurred when he clicked on and viewed the images, because clicking on them made a new copy.

This comes up whenever the making offence is reported in UK cases. The lead correctly links to the Protection of Children Act page when using the word "making" which flags to a reader that the language is not the plain reading of the word, but it is also very clear that the word is misunderstood often, and people are often misled. There was a curious bit of news reporting on the BBC where they said he pleaded guilty to making the images, but that no one was suggesting he made the images himself. The detail is often lost in the wash. But I support the intent of starship.paint's edit, because our duty here is to inform. It is not personal commentary, because there are media reports (the more careful ones) which have been clearer. However we should probably tweak it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I also agree we should clarify what "making" means and there seems to be a clear consensus here to do that, we just need to get the wording right. The Sky News article says "According to the CPS, the term "making" can include opening, accessing, downloading and storing the content, or receiving an image via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group." I wonder if we can find and use a direct quote from the CPS along those lines instead of trying to find our own wording. WaggersTALK 12:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly the CPS's press release on this only talks about "accessing" the images, as does the New York Times. Perhaps we should simply switch "making" to "accessing" in the same way for clarity, at least in the lead. WaggersTALK 12:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been bold and done that :) WaggersTALK 12:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable reflection of the sourced content in the article body. Popcornfud (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. BBC Wales also used "accessing" in their lunchtime bulletin today. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the edit did not reflect what the source actually said. It was Edwards' defence team who argued that he did not actually "make" the images as he was sent them on WhatsApp by someone else. The latter part is true, but he was charged with making indecent images of children because that is what the law says. Also, since Edwards had received the images over a considerable period of time, he had lost the opportunity to claim that it was all a one-off innocent mistake, which he might have been able to claim if he had blocked and deleted immediately. I also reverted this edit, because it could be seen as implying that it was the fault of the man in Merthyr Tydfil for sending the images, not Edwards' for receiving them. We may never know how Edwards ended up in contact with a man who sent him serious child porn over a two year period, but Edwards had no choice but to plead guilty.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Multiple sources use "accessing" instead of "making" as discussed above. Some (most?) of those that use "making" in their headline go on to clarify that "making" doesn't mean "making" in the generally understood use of the term. Our aim here is to to make the information easy to understand, not to use precise legalistic language. WaggersTALK 13:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Do we need to switch out the reference(s) we've used to ones that lead with "accepting"? WaggersTALK 13:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to explain in the article that "making" can include receiving and accessing. However, when it comes to describing the charges that Edwards faced in court, the article should say "three counts of making indecent images" because that is what was on the charge sheet and that is how the law in this area works.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC).

You reverted a 3:1 nascent consensus there. Also you are wrong. What is on the charge sheet is not what should necessarily be in the lead of an international English language encyclopaedia. The reader need not be versed in English law; there is no requirement for such competence when reading about British legal cases. We need to tell the reader what Edwards did wrong, in summary form in the lead, and in detail in the main. That summary form is not required to follow and thus explain a curious legal term that does not exist in other countries. This is a common issue when the making offence comes up, and our articles usually settle on wording that describes, in plain English, the offence. E.g. "downloading" (although in this case, "accessing" is better). Would you be willing to self revert "accessing" back in please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to start an edit war, but I've changed it back to "accessing". Let's make sure there's consensus here for making any further changes to that sentence before doing so, please. WaggersTALK 14:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I've already said that he was charged with three counts of making indecent images of children. The general idea on Wikipedia is that you are supposed to stick to what the sourcing says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The sourcing directly quotes the CPS as saying: making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include opening an email attachment containing such an image, downloading one from a website, or receiving one via social media, even if unsolicited and even if part of a group. The sourcing also says regarding "making" that A court must also decide whether an offence falls into the category of possession, distribution or production. According to the Sentencing Council, creating the original image counts as production - the more serious of the three categories. It adds that "making an image by simple downloading should be treated as possession for the purposes of sentencing". This is a BLP and we are duty-bound to represent the subject accurately. Unfortunately "making" can be misunderstood as "production", the most serious offense. I am not wholly opposed to "making" in the lede, as long as his specific offense is clarified to be accessing or possessing in the lede. starship.paint (RUN) 02:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that Edwards created the images himself, as the prosecution never claimed this. The term "making" includes downloading and accessing, which Edwards did and was insufficiently careful over a considerable period of time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The term "making" indeed includes accessing under British law. But that's not the point. The point is that "making" is commonly understood to be "produce" or "create". You seriously can't expect the average reader to equate "making" to accessing. starship.paint (RUN) 15:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the result of R v Bowden which leads to a use of the word "making" an indecent image which might not be same as the use of the word "make" in an average dictionary. Many convictions for "making indecent images" in English law involve sharing and downloading the material rather than actually creating it. This is what happened with Huw Edwards.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Mate, I understand that. Again, do you expect our readers from all over the world to know this? When you do not explain this in the lede, misunderstandings come about. R v Bowden has been viewed around 8,500 times from 2015 to 2014, that's an average of 3 views per day. starship.paint (RUN) 15:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)