This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, anything not directly related to improving the Wikipedia article at the Reference desk.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Berkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
David Grey and Peter Watt (Jan 2013), Giving Victims a Voice(PDF), A joint MPS and NSPCC report
Additional comments
Extensive copy and pastes of large sections of Wikipedia without appropriate attribution or release under the appropriate license.
The article was tagged with {{Very long}} as "may be too long to read and navigate comfortably" by 92.5.56.242 in an edit which itself added text,[1] but without opening discussion here. Prosesize reports its readable prose size as 6,712 words, well below the 8,000 to 10,000 levels for "may need to be divided or trimmed", "probably should be" and "almost certainly should be" of WP:SIZERULE. It's clearly broken into sections, subsections and paragraphs, and largely in plain English appropriate to the sensitivity of the subject. It may have accumulated some trivia, but I don't think we should warn our readers that it will be too long to read. I'm inclined to remove the tag. Thoughts? NebY (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should significant dates be removed, as recently by anon IP 92 here and here? I have no problem with the image caption just saying "in 2006", but the other dates seem to be more important. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The precise date he was photographed at the Highland Games is superfluous, as is the particular day in June 2014 when Hunt reported on Lampard's investigation; others are not. This article is about the scandal, and the precise dates in October and November 2012 indicate the exceptional and significant speed with which it developed, a key part of the narrative. NebY (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 2006 in the image caption is OK. Savile was famous for many years and this photo shows him when he was quite old. Most of the sexual abuse relates to the 1960s and 70s.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rodericksilly has been putting in words like “allegedly” on “RECKONING” series page in regards to the accusations surrounding Savile, saying “Wikipedia neutrality on Savile - he is not categorized as a criminal on Wikipedia”.
Now I’m not dumb. There is enough stories and sources to show Savile was indeed the monster we now know him to be, but I do think the article could try to take a neutral stance or discuss how to treat Savile, especially in regards to his (almost certain and obvious) guilt. Perhaps we should try to resolve and reach something. I link Rodericksilly to the discussion. 92.17.199.182 (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I distinctly remember Martin and other users clearly stating on the Jimmy Savile page that he should not be included under categories such as 20th century English criminals, English rapists and Criminals from Yorkshire because he wasn't convicted of anything. It is all allegations made posthumously, therefore we don't assume guilt on here. Rodericksilly (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. But we must be the only ones who don't assume guilt, I guess. And more to protect the purity of Wikipedia Categories, it seems. Essentially the Categories are supposed to reflect what's in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a WP:CATV issue, and previous consensus is not to add Savile to categories like criminals and sex offenders, because this isn't what actually happened. Savile's reputation was intact at the time of his funeral at Leeds Cathedral in 2011, and he was still regarded as the eccentric Mister Wonderful, which was his self-created image. Many of Savile's accusers say that they are disappointed that his death meant that he never ended up in court, but that's the way it is.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Ianmacm's wording here is correct - "Savile's accusers", rather than "Savile's victims". To call them accusers is to state a fact, to call them victims is to assume Savile's guilt and their truth, which could not be tested in a court because he was dead. Rodericksilly (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is WP:BLP's standard, which, obviously, does not apply to someone who died years ago. We quite frequently describe deceased people in ways that imply or presume guilt; once someone has been dead for long enough that there's no longer a BLP-level risk of harm, the standard shifts to the same one we use for everything else (ie. what do the preponderance of the best available sources use, with perhaps some additional weight needed if the claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL.) Otherwise we would have to cover almost every historical figure's article with "alleged" this and that - especially murderous or genocidal dictators, heads of state, etc., who were often never convicted of any formal crimes. --Aquillion (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BDP applies; while WP:BLP may apply for some period after death, that's exceptional, would only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime and is comparatively brief. NebY (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Well I think those "living relatives and friends" might be a bit thin on the ground these days. I doubt that anyone on the planet would admit to being either. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, part of the rationale for WP:BLP is that we have to be cautious when dealing with living people, because there's more risk of harm to their reputation; for this reason, we would require truly overwhelming coverage to describe someone as guilty without a conviction (contrary to the above, it is not strictly forbidden; there is always a point where we must yield to sufficiently unanimous high-quality external coverage, even where the high standard of BLP applies.) Once someone has been dead for a while that no longer applies, and at that point our responsibility becomes solely to accurately summarize the sources. If the best available sources uniformly or near-uniformly describe a deceased person as unquestionably guilty of something, we are ultimately required to do so ourselves; it would be inappropriate to continue to imply doubt with words like "alleged" or "accused" when virtually no high-quality sources do, per WP:POVAvoid stating facts as opinions. If the sources broadly agree that something is a fact, we are required to report it as such, and not just as an allegation or accusation; BLP makes the bar for doing so for a living figure who has not been convicted very high, but that no longer applies here, and it seems hard to argue at this point that there is serious disagreement among the sources as to his guilt. --Aquillion (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. We follow reliable sources rather than court judgments. Reliable sources usually do accord with judgments but not always (for example, RSs may describe historic miscarriages of justice or even current ones, particularly in prsosecutorial and judicial systems that the RSs regard as corrupt), and where court judgments were impossible but our reliable sources report detailed investigations and come to definitive conclusions, we must follow our sources and not cavil.
There is one BLP consideration; many of those he abused are still alive. People vary; some don't like being called victims - they say it puts them in a box as passive and powerless again, with no agency. Being an accuser gives you a modicum of power over your abuser; being called his victim perpetuates his power over you. But it's arguable that using terms like "accusers" to cast doubt on the general mass of evidence that living people presented to Operation Yewtree and the like and insisting on calling Savile's abuse "alleged" would be akin to a breach of WP:BLP. NebY (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relating to the categories that comes back to primary notability. In this case, the article subject is now primarily known for his misdeeds (Bill Cosby or OJ). Relating to overall policy, the subject has been dead for more than a decade, I dont think we apply BLP here. Could always run an RFC if there are many who assert BLP still applies here (doubtful in my mind that RFC would say this is a BLP, we you never know). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the main Jimmy Savile biography article, it is written as “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”. This was why I thought to rewrite the scandal article as “…the media covered hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse made against Savile… Police concluded that he had sexually abused many people throughout his life…” particularly as Rodericksilly tried to add the word “allegedly” to “The Reckoning” article. Regardless, I think that the word “alleged” should not be used in regards to the accusations, especially as there are so many, that they are mostly likely are certainly true, if some elements are hard to verify (some sources indicate Kevin Cook (the scout boy) has said several times that Savile was not alone when he abused him, that there were one or two men. Regardless, it’s probably best to drop “alleged” from any article.92.17.199.182 (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, if what I heard of Cook’s various accounts is correct, I’m not saying that Kevin Cook lied about Savile abusing him. I’m just suggesting that some variation of it might be true, as he came out after Savile’s passing the number of men he claimed were there vary in number. No fault on his memory, as it was over 30 years ago. A prime example, talked about when the series was broadcast, was the reintretest in 15-year-old Claire McAlpine, who before she died, claimed to friends to have been sexually abused by two disc jockeys: though is unclear whether Savile was one of her abusers. 92.17.199.182 (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not base article text on ideas such as "... as there are so many, that they are mostly likely are certainly true...". Where unproven allegations have been widely published in reliable sources, we should simply say that there have been widely published allegations, and if necessary specify their origins. We should not state them as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS doesn't require criminal convictions for us to state things in Wikipedia's voice, or otherwise require proof in a court of law, and WP:NPOV doesn't require us to use the "alleged" terminology of a libel-cautious journalist. WP:PERPETRATOR doesn't apply here; it only says "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." To deny our sources and qualify Savile's mass abuse as "alleged" would breach WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." (Of course, it may well be that some small number of those that have come forward are fabulists or deceiving for personal gain; that possibility doesn't justify claiming in Wikipedia's voice that Savile is merely "alleged" to have committed abuse any more than George Santos's claims would justify Wikipedia calling the collapse of the Twin Towers "alleged".) Our article currently begins
It emerged in late 2012 that Jimmy Savile, a British media personality who had died the previous year, had sexually abused many people throughout his life, mostly children but some as old as 75, and mostly female.
So few people took seriously all 3 Savile brothers. Why this institutional laziness? That's one question needs to be asked, especially protection of support staff and whistle blowers. I stood alone against Savile and alongside an abused client for over a year. Johnnie didn't loose his job for about a year and after 3 other women came forward. I was given no moral support as a young new Psychotherapist, except from a distant College. I had nothing at the end of the day except flat in a slum like atmosphere, non supportive colleagues except 2 psychiatric nurses who also believed the client and almost constant criticism and competiveness from other colleagues while the Savile brothers pursued unheeded their abuse, their trips to the morgue. Once when working late I was threatened, and all alone in the building. Lucky a boyfriend picked me up after work. This was my first post in Psychiatry. Jimmie Savile and brothers lived in wealth and constant applause, while my lovely client was nearly destroyed, and I lived in poverty and terrible stress of responsibility and anxiety. I look back and wonder if my life could have been in danger. I was too younger and inexperienced to consider danger to myself. I was a total wreck before I left that place and its neglect of patients and the good decent hard working staff. Colleagues couldn't even understand why I was so distressed about the whole situation. Women were 2nd class citizens then in everyday. ChrisShirlartist (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2015, the BBC reported[3] on a 2014[4]-2015 NHS investigation into allegations of assaults by Savile's older brother at a south London hospital in 1978-1980, prior to his dismissal in 1980 and death in 1998. The BBC report uses the term "allegations" but ends with an apology by the chief executive which clearly accepts that patients were assaulted and abused by Johnny Savile. The BBC link to the NHS report is now dead, but an FOI request produced it.[5] The report doesn't seem to make many absolute findings of fact but I see eg "investigators for this report believed on the balance of probabilities, an assault by Johnny Savile, of the nature described by V2 did occur". NebY (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a paragraph; it may not be in the best place. @ChrisShirlartist: your post was extremely moving. I hope you understand that Wikipedia works by summarising what we call reliable sources and can't use personal testimony, otherwise it would become an impossible mixture. If you can point to other reports that we can use here, please do. NebY (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
