Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal: Difference between revisions
→Title: feeling bold.... |
→Tabloids: new section |
||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
:I don't think it belongs in this article, why not post this at http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Peel?[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 05:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC) |
:I don't think it belongs in this article, why not post this at http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Peel?[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 05:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
::{{Done}} --[[Special:Contributions/86.40.110.74|86.40.110.74]] ([[User talk:86.40.110.74|talk]]) 05:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC) |
::{{Done}} --[[Special:Contributions/86.40.110.74|86.40.110.74]] ([[User talk:86.40.110.74|talk]]) 05:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Tabloids == |
|||
Sources such as ''The Sun'', ''Daily Mail'', ''Daily Mirror'' etc. are not considered as reliable sources for Wikipedia. Please do not add material that is sourced to them as it will be removed. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 08:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:52, 13 October 2012
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Title
Wouldn't Jimmy Savile child abuse allegations be a better title? Yes, it is a scandal, but the word is a little loaded.--ukexpat (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, moved page. My opinion is that this has blown into a big investigation and undoubtedly reports will continue to surface. I think it quite rightly deserves an article and I think details of the investigation would bloat out the main article and result in OVERDUE. The Thereoux dopcumentary definitely needs mentioning where he said about him being "the most feared man in girl's school in Britain" and denying it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Can I just point out, although I personally have no problem at all with the way it is worded, strictly speaking it is not a police "investigation" - in fact, the police have specifically denied it is (yet) an investigation or inquiry. It's not at all clear WHAT it is and one would assume/suspect an investigation will be launched but, as of 11th October, 2012, it is still not officially recognized as such. Sorry, don't want to be picky, as I said, I have no problem with the way it is worded, just depends on how cautious you wish to be about factual and current reporting. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.51.21 (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, but I find it hard to believe that it won't become so. And the fact his own family trashed his grave stone says an awful lot.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The gravestone was removed and destroyed to avoid the graveyard as a whole becoming a target for vandalism. You shouldn't assume it's because the family knew of his activities - they may have done, but you shouldn't assume it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not assuming anything. I read something along the lines of "disgraced family remove £10,000 head stone which took a week to make in just hours and placed in a skip to respect victims". It may well be that it was to avoid vandalism and violence directed at it, but the way the article was worded is as if his family were disgraced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Daily Mail" or "The Sun"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Daily Mail!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Daily Mail" or "The Sun"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not assuming anything. I read something along the lines of "disgraced family remove £10,000 head stone which took a week to make in just hours and placed in a skip to respect victims". It may well be that it was to avoid vandalism and violence directed at it, but the way the article was worded is as if his family were disgraced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The gravestone was removed and destroyed to avoid the graveyard as a whole becoming a target for vandalism. You shouldn't assume it's because the family knew of his activities - they may have done, but you shouldn't assume it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- In thinking about renaming the article, we should bear in mind that the "story" is not just about the allegations against Savile personally. There are increasing concerns about a wider cover-up - as one (quite small) example, the fuss over the supposed dropping of the Newsnight item - also, more importantly, the supposed "hushing-up" of hospital staff. If there is a word for something that is not quite yet a "scandal" (though probably soon will be), but goes beyond "allegations", I'm not sure what it is - but we should use it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Take your pick from the following synonyms: aspersion, backbiting, backstabbing, belittlement, calumny, crime, defamation, depreciation, detraction, dirty linen, discredit, disgrace, dishonor, disparagement, disrepute, dynamite, eavesdropping, gossip, hearsay, idle rumor, ignominy, infamy, mud, obloquy, opprobrium, reproach, rumor, scorcher, shame, sin, skeleton in closet, slander, tale, talk, turpitude, wrongdoing.
- OK I don't know what the point of that (unsigned) list of synonyms is but The Guardian is referring to this issue as a whole as "the Jimmy Savile scandal"http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/12/jimmy-savile-bbc-hospital-court?newsfeed=true, the Telegraph calls it the "Jimmy Savile sex scandal"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9605294/Jimmy-Savile-sex-scandal-40-victims-come-forward-to-speak-of-abuse.html, and the Independent calls it "the Jimmy Savile child abuse scandal"http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/stoke-mandeville-hospital-still-has-questions-to-answer-over-the-jimmy-savile-child-abuse-scandal-8209619.html?origin=internalSearch
- These are the main UK "respectable" broadsheet newspapers except for the Times which is behind a paywall. The BBC News website refers to "Jimmy Savile scandal."http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19931003 In my opinion it is rather ridiculous that a few editors object to using the word "scandal" in the article title, a scandal is plainly what it is, all the authoritative sources are now referring to this matter as a scandal, in fact *not* to admit that this is a scandal is now pushing a point of view in my opinion, the title should be changed to "Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal" which is the neutral way to refer to it and which covers the child abuse, the "patient abuse" at the hospitals, allegations of rape of females over the age of consent, and possible collusion or negligence by authorities at the institutions where the abuse took place.Smeat75 (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Take your pick from the following synonyms: aspersion, backbiting, backstabbing, belittlement, calumny, crime, defamation, depreciation, detraction, dirty linen, discredit, disgrace, dishonor, disparagement, disrepute, dynamite, eavesdropping, gossip, hearsay, idle rumor, ignominy, infamy, mud, obloquy, opprobrium, reproach, rumor, scorcher, shame, sin, skeleton in closet, slander, tale, talk, turpitude, wrongdoing.
- The cancellation of the Newsnight item on Savile is an important topic, it should be definitely be covered.It is a big issue with regard to the reputation of the BBC.
- On the question of this article's title, personally I do not see why the article should not be called "Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal", if this story is not a scandal I do not know what is, I know some editors feel the word is too "loaded" or "tabloid -ish", but unless they can come up with something better I think it should be used anyway. Also it is no longer a question only of "child" abuse as the grisly reports of Savile's molesting paralysed patients and ones recovering from brain surgery or cancer at the hospitals where he volunteered indicate.
- I know wikipedia is not a newspaper, but I think this article can provide a useful summary of a fast moving and very important story with many profound implications for a wide range of British institutions. It might be a good idea to have a lead, then a section for the BBC, then one for National Health Service institutions, (Broadmoor, Stoke Mandeville, Leeds General Infirmary), then one for children's care homes (Duncroft special-needs school,Haut de la Garenne Jersey). Most or all of these institutions are going to run investigations and inquiries into what happened. I know we cannot reference every newspaper report, every allegation, but I think there should be an effort made to give readers some idea of the broad outlines of this story, which every day I become more convinced is of historic importance, as it develops.Smeat75 (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah I think "child" is a bit of stretch, yes he is said to have fondled girls as young as nine, but his sexual interest from what I've seen really does appear to have been adolescents, a lot of girls are fully developed by 14. I don't think he's the paedo in the sense of playing with 4 year old boys, his sexual preference was clearly very young females and probably got a buzz out of taking their virginity which really isn't uncommon at all. But the way his career was set up to maximise his exposure to them is indeed uncommon and pretty creepy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the above points, and have moved the page to Jimmy Savile child sexual abuse scandal, per WP:BRD. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah I think "child" is a bit of stretch, yes he is said to have fondled girls as young as nine, but his sexual interest from what I've seen really does appear to have been adolescents, a lot of girls are fully developed by 14. I don't think he's the paedo in the sense of playing with 4 year old boys, his sexual preference was clearly very young females and probably got a buzz out of taking their virginity which really isn't uncommon at all. But the way his career was set up to maximise his exposure to them is indeed uncommon and pretty creepy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Auction
People are now complaining about the items that they bought at the auction.[1] Might be worth a mention in the article (BTW, the Corniche was quoted as going for £130,000 at the time).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that seems about the most peripheral and trivial claim so far. I'm sure the guy's disappointed that he won't make any money out of it, but it really is not suitable for this (or any) article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The lawyers said that "none of us [the buyers] had a leg to stand on". Still, had the Newsnight or ITV1 documentary been broadcast earlier this year, the auction would probably never have occurred.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- It was a speculative investment and he paid what he thought it was worth based on the information available at the time. Subsequent information that has come to light has caused it's value to fall (most probably). Happens all the time with any kind of speculation - shares or whatever. Unfortunately, his chances of hiring it out for children's parties are probably slim now! --2.102.108.80 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Its new owner, from Poole in Dorset, said he bought the vehicle over the telephone "on a whim", but now his plans to hire it out for weddings and children's parties are ruined. Well - Halloween is coming... if he needs the money badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.74 (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Current first sentence of the article
Opening of the article currently reads: "In October 2012, British entertainer and philanthropist Jimmy Savile, who had died a year earlier, became the subject of a national child sexual abuse scandal, with over 120 allegations of inappropriate behaviour with young girls over four decades of his career."
This is already out of date - Guardian today : "The Metropolitan police has revealed that the number of sex abuse allegations against Jimmy Savile has increased significantly in the past three days, with Scotland Yard now pursuing 340 lines of inquiry involving 40 potential victims. Scotland Yard said on Friday that it had officially recorded 12 formal criminal allegations of sexual offences and that it expects that figure to grow."http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/12/jimmy-savile-met-inquiry
And it is not accurate to say that the allegations are all of "inappropriate behaviour with young girls", we do not know that for sure, there has been at least one man to complain that he was molested as a child. Also some of these allegations may be of rape with females over the age of consent, or of hospital patients who were molested against their will. I am not sure how to fix this, I will have to think about it, I will try to work on the article over the next few days, if anyone else wants to have a go, that is fine with me.Smeat75 (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
How do "lines of enquiry" constitute "allegations of inappropriate behaviour"? Some lines of enquiry might relate to one, same allegation. The story itself said 12 criminal allegations have been recorded, not treble figure amounts. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Wiki Project Yorkshire?
There is a tag from Wiki Project Yorkshire on this page, is that necessary? I don't see that this has anything any more to do with Yorkshire than many other places in Britain. I have left a message on their talk page asking them if they really want that here and asking them to remove it if they do not.Smeat75 (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I added it here as we have the parent page tagged. A bit pointless keeping an eye on the parent page without the sub-pages that go to make up the whole. Keith D (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Added the UK project as this does seem to be a nationwide scandal and the government are now involved. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.74 (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
John Peel
There are now media reports alleging that John Peel had an affair with a 15-year-old girl, reports that seems to involve a terminated pregnancy, unprotected sex shortly after boasting on-air of suffering from a venereal disease and a postcard from the late 1990s which does nothing at all to clear his name. Source The BBC has now been forced into a major rethink on its decision to name a new wing of Broadcasting House after Peel. Source How does Wikipedia deal with this latest development? --86.40.110.74 (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it belongs in this article, why not post this at http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Peel?Smeat75 (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Done --86.40.110.74 (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Tabloids
Sources such as The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror etc. are not considered as reliable sources for Wikipedia. Please do not add material that is sourced to them as it will be removed. --John (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)