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. United Kingdom Start‑class Mid‑importance 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. England Start‑class Mid‑importance 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. BBC Start‑class Top‑importance 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. British crime (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Yorkshire Start‑class Low‑importance 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Buckinghamshire (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Berkshire Start‑class Low‑importance 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Surrey Start‑class Low‑importance 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

• Regardless of the details of its dictionary meaning, to most people the word "paedophile" (USA: "pedophile") means "man who sexually interferes with boys": here in England down the years paedophilia accusations have been ad nauseam in the newspapers and television news. I feel that care should be taken in using this word, unless any of the provable allegations mention boys rather than girls. And among newspapers, do not trust cheap lying rags such as the Daily Sport and Sunday Sport. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We had a variation of this debate at Talk:Jimmy_Savile#Very_serious_allegations_of_paedophilia. The Oxford English Dictionary describes a paedophile as An adult who is sexually attracted to children. This is how it is used in everyday speech, words like "hebephilia" or "ephebophilia" are not in everyday use.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the idea that "paedophile" implies sexual feelings towards boys, rather than girls. That has never been my (UK) understanding - the implication relates to any children, not necessarily boys. But, it is a psychiatric condition - not necessarily acted upon - and should not be confused, here or anywhere, with illegal acts of sexual abuse. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ghmyrtle. It is a delicate area and we should be careful to use words like this one correctly, according to their medical and legal definitions, not the way the man in the pub or a red-top newspaper uses them. --John (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Pete's sake, unless that I were in fact mistaken, I thought that the Daily Sport had folded some years ago! And no, the interpretation is incorrect, or at least no longer so, unfortunately. Neither the Church of England nor the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the usual suspects in those carry-ons, are very strong in most of these parts. Do forgive and pardon me for saying so, Sir, but you must either be a proud son of Saint Patrick, or had up sticks and emigrated many, many years ago, or both! (It was not Stockport, was it?) -- KC9TV 13:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Sport can remain well and truly folded as far as I am concerned, unless it has a large Holland's Pie and chips on it. But it's not the only tabloid. It's rather unclear, however, exactly what you are objecting to here. That peadophilia is a psychiatric disorder? Or to whom is your apparently racist/anti-Catholic bigotry directed? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I suspect that there might be some language differences (that one of us is not in, or from, England), but let me put it this way, and simply – the Daily Sport was CLOSED DOWN some years ago, all-right? A recently-closed-down tabloid is often considered unreliable as a source. -- KC9TV 02:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it closed certainly, and became an on-line newpaper. But I think we can probably agree that it's not really a reliable source for anything, and especially not for correct medical terminology usage. After listening yesterday to Professor Richard Wortley, on Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show, it seems that, amongst the relevant health care professions, the term "paedophile" is not seen as being particularly useful. The preferred descriptor is rather "men/women who abuse children." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should avoid using the word "paedophile" in the case of Jimmy Savile, as that's a scientific term meaning a sexual interest in children who have not yet entered into puberty, i.e. those under the age of 11-13. The legal age of consent has nothing to do with this, and it also varies from country to country, and has varied greatly in history. In Spain it's currently only 13, while in Tunisia it's 20 - and in the UK it was 12 before 1875 and 13 from 1875 to 1885, when it was raised to the current age of 16. Although not commonly used terms, Jimmy Savile's alleged activities seem to indicate that he was a "ephebophile" or possibly a "hebephile", i.e. someone who was obsessed with young teenagers. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so it should educate its readers, not repeat inaccurate terms used by ignorant journalists.Thomas Blomberg (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wortley's view is that any medical term, although it may be a short-hand way to describe sexual preferences in an abstract or mental way, does nothing to address the wide range of actual behaviours, or indeed non-behaviours, that may arise as a result. The terms "ephebophile" (or hebephile) and "child abuser" are not synonyms and should not be used as such. But that's just one professional's view, I guess. But very largely agree with what you say here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of his victims were prepubescent, like one victim was aged 8 and a couple others were aged 9 but most were adolescent, meaning he has engaged in pedophilia but probably would not be diagnosed as a pedophile. Given allegations of necrophilia, rape and other sexual assaults some other description may be preferred instead of paedophilia. Perhaps the best description would be sexual abuser? Sexual deviant and sexual predator are other options.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with the article? So far as I can tell, the article doesn't use any particular terms to describe him. That's as it should be - we should not use uncertain or unjustified terminology, and certainly not terminology derived from unproven allegations. Why are people discussing this as though there is an issue to be resolved? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks very well balanced to me. Maybe the use of Category:Pedophilia is still slightly contentious for some, for a variety of reasons. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not in that category.......  ?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope that remains the case. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone. I'm coming here by way of interaction with Thomas Blomberg, and, seeing as I deal with the topics of pedophilia and child sexual abuse a great deal, I decided to comment here about this. Recently, there was this discussion at a user's talk page and this discussion at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard about categorizing people as pedophiles when we cannot know that they are pedophiles unless they have been diagnosed as such and when the term is being used incorrectly to refer to sexual attraction to people who are clearly pubescent or post-pubescent; the list noted at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard was deleted for those very reasons, but primarily due to mostly being a WP:BLP violation. For reasons stated in that discussion, where I also commented, I agree with Thomas Blomberg and others about not categorizing Jimmy Savile as a pedophile. While he may have had prepubescent victims, a person who has sexually abused a prepubescent child is not automatically a pedophile; although child sexual abuse and pedophilia often go hand in hand, researchers generally distinguish between the two; read this section of the Pedophilia article for more on that. I am also taking this time to note that, as shown in the Hebephilia article, hebephilia is still being debated as to whether or not it is a mental disorder (meaning the primary or exclusive sexual attraction to pubescents, not merely some level of sexual attraction to them) and ephebophilia is not considered a mental disorder by experts in these fields because it involves sexual attraction (though a primary or exclusive one) to people who are either almost finished with puberty or have finished with puberty (of course meaning that they have mostly or fully attained an adult body). Not to mention...ephebophilia extends up to age 19...and people who are 18 or 19 are considered adults in most parts of the world. Although pubescents are also biological adults, whether or not hebephilia is a mental disorder is being debated because so many early pubescents, especially boys, still look prepubescent or not mature enough physically. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what about Category:Pedophilia, on the basis that "some were children at the time"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about pæderast? That refers to actions, not psychology. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That only relates to homosexual actions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious conclusion is that the sexual abuse claims are true, but shouldn't this article take a more neutral stance and explicitly mention that there has been no official report published on this matter until one has been published? This seems to be an open and shut case, but nonetheless Wikipedia's tone shouldn't be based on public opinion. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The joint Met Police / NSPCC report has now been published. I'm reading through it now. It's interesting that substantial chunks of the Background section seem to be copied verbatim, or almost verbatim, from this and other linked WP articles. The article will need to be updated to take into account reports on its publication. I've added the report itself as an external link, and a brief summary, as reported by the BBC, to the opening paragraphs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This also happened with the Leveson Report.[1]. Cribbing from Wikipedia is a guilty secret of many people.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[2]So there is a lot of information that needs to go into the article, thank you Ghmyrtle for your work on this article, I think you will make the right decisions on what needs to be included. From first reading of the reports in the Guardian of the Met / NSPCC report, several things leap out at me that I feel are important for the article - there is at present no mention of Gt Ormond St hospital where "the child Savile abused died, but someone who witnessed what happened came forward." Savile threatened the police with legal action if they pursued charges against him "Savile appears to have issued a veiled threat to two Surrey police officers when interviewed under caution in 2009.

A police log of the interview records Savile saying: "I have no kinky carryings on. But because I take everything seriously I’ve alerted my legal team that they may be doing business and if we do, you ladies [the two female officers] will finish up at the Old Bailey as well because we will be wanting you there as witnesses. But nobody ever seems to want to go that far."

and it is reported that Sussex police discouraged a victim from pressing charges due to Savile's fame and power "The CPS report details the case of one of Savile's victims who said she was told by a Sussex police officer in 2008 that no-one would believe she had been abused because Savile was a "big celebrity" and would make "mincement" out of her at a "big court in London".

An important quote: "Detective Superintendent David Gray, who led the inquiry, said: "He has spent every minute of every working day thinking about this. Whenever an opportunity came along he took it. He picked on vulnerable victims and he was clever enough to choose people who he knew would not speak out."

Summary of the report from Sandra Laville at Scotland Yard reads in part:"Savile raped 34 people, including 28 children. He used every opportunity and every institution he had access to because of his fame to target young people. The report reveals Savile abused children at the BBC between 1959 and 2006 – his last offence there took place at Top of the Pops in 2006 when he sexually assaulted a teenage girl on the show.

Fifty-seven of the allegations took place in 14 hospitals and a hospice in the UK. At Great Ormond Street hospital the child Savile abused died, but someone who witnessed what happened came forward.

He assaulted 16 victims at Leeds general infirmary, 1 at Great Ormond Street, and he assaulted someone who was visiting a dying child at the Sue Ryder Wheatfield hospice in Leeds.

He also assaulted children and young girls 33 times in TV and radio studios and there were 14 assaults in schools. Savile was invited into the schools – which have not been named – by children who wanted to appear on Jim'll Fix It, police said."Smeat75 (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) What chunks of text has been copied from wikipedia? Can you paste them here? Wikipedia has copyright for text - it can't be reused without attribution. I have searched the report and there is no mention of wikipedia so attribution has not been given.--MrADHD | T@1k? 15:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Para 5.2 of the report reads:

During the Second World War Savile was conscripted to work in the coal mines. He later began a career in dance halls, first playing records and then moving on to manage them, including the Mecca Ballroom in Manchester. He began working as a DJ at Radio Luxembourg in 1958 and on Tyne Tees Television in 1960. In 1964 he presented the first edition of Top of the Pops and from 1968 worked on BBC Radio 1. Between 1975 and 1994 he presented Jim'll Fix It. As well as his television and radio work he supported charities and hospitals, in particular Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Aylesbury, Leeds General Infirmary and Broadmoor Hospital in Berkshire.

Compare that with the (current) second paragraph of our article on Jimmy Savile which reads:

Savile was conscripted to work in the coal mines as a Bevin Boy during the Second World War. He began a career playing records in, and later managing, dance halls. His media career started as a disc jockey at Radio Luxembourg in 1958 and on Tyne Tees Television in 1960, and he developed a reputation for eccentricity and his flamboyant character. At the BBC, he presented the first edition of Top of the Pops in 1964 and broadcast on BBC Radio 1 from 1968. Between 1975 and 1994 he presented Jim'll Fix It, a popular television programme in which he arranged for the wishes of viewers, mainly children, to come true. During his lifetime, he was noted for fundraising and supporting charities and hospitals, in particular Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Aylesbury, Leeds General Infirmary and Broadmoor Hospital in Berkshire....

That's just the first example of close paraphrasing that I've come across - there may be others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the example above is close paraphrasing. This is sort of legal. Exact copy and pasting would be a clear cut case. One only holds the copyright to the wording not the ideas there in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it further there is enough copy and paste to bring it to their attention when compared to this report [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm... suppose the bits seeming to be plagiarised, from Wikipedia had been placed in Wikipedia by the authors of the report or their agent/s. The document and the circumstances of its production and publicity are such a farrago that it is not irrational to see this as a possibility, subject to examined evidence to the contrary. Consider and compare the conduct of the authorities over Plebgate. Qexigator (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

".. examined evidence to the contrary.. "?! There are one or two highly respected and attentive editors (and I am certainly not one of them) who would certainly have noticed if this has happened in any systematic way. And, short of suggesting that these well-established Wikipedia editors have in some way found themselves into the employ of the NSPCC and or (even more bizarrely) the MPS, this simply has not happened. But I'm sure they will speak for themselves, should they feel obliged. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure admin resources would be capable of sussing out such malpractice, and that admin resources have not been abused here or in any other case. But we need to be alert to the fact that external bodies or their agents (including those we would like to think trustworthy) may get up to such a thing if they thought they could get away with it. It is only a short way from the plagiarism which has been detected, and disreputable behaviour in the media and public life is becoming all too frequent. My point however is: technically, where would copyright be? Qexigator (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's your point. I see. That's probably a question which a couple of highly paid barristers could discuss at great length. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to check whether Levitt Report has yet been mentioned, and recognised as a more reliable source of information than Yewtree or commercialised and otherwise tendentious reporting in press and elsewhere. It shows a far greater (but imperfect) respect for evidence as distinct from populist bombast based on tabulating uninvestigated and unverified allegations. Remember the DPP and CPS also are in the political arena with backs to cover. Even this report would have been treated with the critical caution required if Savile were now living. If this gets the proper critical scrutiny it deserves, it wiil be shown to contain superfluous and prejudicial remarks and comments which no prosecuting authority should have been allowed to publish before trial, and would be at least debatable in a civil claim. For:

1_ DPP Statement on Savile cases 11 January 2013 see[4]

2_ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of Alison Levitt Report see[5]

3_Full version of Alison Levitt Report, signed on page 116 of 128 "Alison Levitt QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions, January 2013", published by DPP, CPS,see[6].

Qexigator (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course media reports summarising the Levitt report should be covered in the article - without necessarily commenting on how reliable it is compared with other sources of information. There seems to be a distinct shortage of editors revising this article at the moment, which I find surprising. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is the well-known problem that if Wikipedia must rely for sources on press, broadcasting etc which in turn rely on faulty reports (even if the report is relying on Wikipedia!) Wikipedia may be able to do nothing better than repeat matter in ways unsuited to a reputable encyclpaedia. May I propose that this article should now include at least a passing reference to the Levitt Report, which could be expanded in due course when the issues have become clarified in the public domain (beyond the few better informed blogs which of course are not acceptable as sources)? May I leave that to editors already active here who would know how best to do that? Qexigator (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a very short couple of sentences on the Levitt report. Feel free to expand it further. Ghmy rtle (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nothing to add at this stage, but it's a question of time to see whether sooner, later or never, more of the facts about the scandal behind the scandal emerge (cp. "Plebgate" to name but one).Qexigator (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have now added an update in section Operation Yewtree. Qexigator (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How intelligent is it to assume that editors here are so dumb that they need IP 80.. to tell them all that? Maybe ACPO, NSPCC and some of the people at BBC, Guardian and Daily Mail. Qexigator (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason for editors not having mentioned in the article Love is an Uphill Thing, the rags-to-riches autobiography of Jimmy Savile (Coronet Books, 1976/1978) [7], "Jimmy Savile's autobiography shock as pages reveal orgies, naked groupies and furious parents" [8]? --Qexigator (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors might see any mention as using tabloid sensationalism to retrospecitively fuel the flames of the scandal after the event. The book was written, published and mostly ignored, long before news of any "scandal" broke in 2012, and was not really any part of it. But then, second-hand copies of this book are quite pricey these days... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, neither the self-serving Savile cult while he was alive nor the anti-cult after his death is in the least edifying, but this article narrates the current story in some detail as if the scandal is Savile rather than the scandal that this man had been allowed and encouraged to be promoted as a celeb and raiser of money for charities when he had already published such a book about himself. I had never heard of it before today, but had and has no one read it at the BBC, among the police, the CPS, the DPP, Newscorp et al.? It makes one wonder. I do not propose to join in editing the article beyond the once[9] but those who are may wish to consider this.Qexigator (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if any of claims that Saville makes in that book, about his own sexual "prowess", are exagerations. And how one would ever go about testing such a theory. And does publication by the Daily Record make these cliams any more or less reliable? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) This article was written as the public scandal developed. When all the facts are known - they are not known at the moment, and there are still inquiry reports to be published - we can take an overview, and restructure and rewrite the article as necessary. But, like it or not, what Savile wrote in his autobiography was not seen as particularly scandalous at the time it was published. Perhaps it should have been, with hindsight, but it wasn't, and we can't rewrite history. The scandal that is the subject of this article was nothing at all to do with what he wrote in his autobiography - it was to do with what emerged after the ITV documentary in 2012. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but... the paper's article about the book was published in the course of and in connection with the developing scandal which erupted due to suppression of a TV programme followed by later broadcast. If those making the programme knew nothing about the book, how come? If the book has not been taken into account by those who as police and official prosecutors skilled in looking for and examining evidence after its existence had been published in print in Scotland and available on internet everywhere, how come? Of course, editors here must rely on published sources, but failure to mention the fact about the newspaper report with the references linked above, with no comment, would indicate an eclectic use of the information in the public domain. Again, how come? Qexigator (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't know what the police and others have taken into account, and one "shock, horror" report in an obviously tabloid and non-reliable source, about a book published 38 years previously, doesn't mean it has to be reported here. This has been discussed before. I'm not necessarily opposed to any mention of the autobiography in the article, but I'm certainly against any attempt to present what he wrote as "shocking" or "scandalous", etc. The world has moved on a lot since 1974. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Incidentally, the scandal did not "[erupt] due to suppression of a TV programme followed by later broadcast". It erupted because of the ITV documentary. The first news reports that the Newsnight report had been withdrawn, early in 2012, did not create any scandal at all at the time - it was only later that the full story behind that became public, and part of the scandal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pps... (I think Coronet Books publishes internationally, not just in Scotland?) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link G, showing it was discussed as long ago as October, but neither that nor your comment above really answers my last How come? Look again-- I have not proposed (your words) presenting what he wrote as "shocking" or "scandalous". Nor can I make out what "The world has moved on a lot since 1974" means here. I was around at that time, there were certainly then other scandals, perhaps the most notorious was Profumo, but also such things as endemic corruption in the Met. .."the world has moved on": is that in mitigation of Savile's alleged misconduct or of any supposed misconduct of the BBC and others in and around the time of his alleged misconduct or after his death? Then the notability of all this could be reduced to vanishing point. Are you not aware that the scandal which erupted was in large measure "due to" a chain of events which resulted later in the TV broadcast? __that pps from M: "...evidence after its[the book's] existence had been published in print in Scotland - in the newspaper. Anyhow, it is for you and others editing here to decide what and when. We all know that much has yet to unfold. Qexigator (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest that they were your words. The basic answer to your "How come?" question is, as I've said, because a sensationalist item in an unreliable tabloid newspaper, about a book published 38 years previously, is not of sufficient note to be mentioned here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken.Qexigator (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if you see an eBay copy, for less than £40, do let me know. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Less than £20 at amazon. Qexigator (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

tempted... but not beyond endurance, thanks, Good to see such polite disdain from the quality broadsheets: [10] (published last October). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In view of above, would editors consider putting the following or a version of it into the article. It seems to be WP compliant:

In his autobiography first published in 1974 and republished later in paperback, Savile wrote about his earlier conduct of the kind referred to in the recent reports. In October 2012, as the scandal was breaking, the book received some attention in the press but no prominence in the official reports. <ref ...Love is an Uphill Thing, the rags-to-riches autobiography of Jimmy Savile (Coronet Books, 1976/1978) [11], "Jimmy Savile's autobiography shock as pages reveal orgies, naked groupies and furious parents" [12][13]

Qexigator (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that what he wrote in the book was "of the kind referred to in the recent reports". The scandal in the "recent reports" is over his illegal activities - rape, under-age sex, etc. - not about whether or not what he defined as "young girls" (who may have been, say, 17 or 18) spent the night with him. Most people may find that conduct immoral and reprehensible, but it wasn't and isn't illegal. Also, I don't agree with referring to the lack of prominence of his conduct in official reports. It's OR, in my view, to think that the book not being mentioned is significant in any way. The official police reports are about illegal activity - the BBC and other organisations may have views on the morality of what happened on their premises, but those reports are not yet published. I haven't seen any evidence that Savile admitted any illegal activity in the book - the quotes in the newspaper report certainly don't show that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. The sordid paperback, and its recent coverage, might qualify at the Jimmy Savile article, but not really here, for the reasons succinctly outlined by Ghm above. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G and M: Point settled. As may have been said before, there remains a concern that the way this story is being told is giving undue prominence to some aspects about the deceased man to shield others from responsibility. I am still wondering what is meant by "The world has moved on a lot since 1974". Does it mean anything more than everyone then alive will be nearly 40 years older if still living, and there are now a lot of younger people about who missed the golden years of Top of the Pops? But enough said about reasons for leaving out or not putting in. Perhaps this section is now ready for collapse! (I mean it). Qexigator (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... as I was frequently reminded, as an undergraduate, all the best survey data are best "broken down by age and sex." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The world has moved on a lot since 1974" in the sense, surely, that an autobiography could be published in 1974 that was regarded at the time as (I take it) merely "racy" rather than "sordid" but which in today's climate shows attitudes towards young women and towards sex that would now be thought unacceptable for public consumption. The absurd Daily Record piece ("astonishing revelations", "we tracked down the only copy in Pitlochry", etc.) makes me laugh -- obviously written by a know-nothing youngster, as is so much nowadays. The book has of course been in the British Library all along for anyone to read, and is also still in several local libraries according to WorldCat. All it comes down to really is that promiscuous and predatory sex had become fashionable in the 1970s and it has now gone out of fashion again. -- Alarics (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He thought he was a flower to be looked at ... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the Daily Record piece as having been written by a canny journalist of some seniority who knew perfectly well what the score was back then and how to write it up now.: good journalism unlike the Sun's recent effort. It is the Telegraph piece that is so absurd. Fashion changes as M.'s referenced article describes (I remember it well, so would Michael Frayn) but if Savile or others had been exposed then he would have been greatly damaged, and he protected himself well. Carnaby Street was genteel compared with the antics of the present Speaker's wife. Qexigator (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you will see, James likes his "wee fry up": [14] That's a breakfast with some seniority. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article now includes this -"On 11 January 2013, Giving Victims a Voice...a report into allegations of sexual abuse made against Jimmy Savile under Operation Yewtree was published under the logo of the Crown Prosecution Service.[60] The document was given wide publicity throughout the media. Journalist Charles Moore wrote in The Daily Telegraph that he had read the whole report and it did not reveal the extent of abuse as the BBC website had stated in the lead headline "Jimmy Savile scandal: Report reveals extent of abuse". He remarked that there was no evidence in the report which a court would recognise. Instead it assumed that because uncorroborated allegations had been made, the offences were committed, and, treating allegations as facts, it declared that 214 incidents had now been "formally recorded" as crimes. Moore commented that by doing so the report undermined justice." Charles Moore does not have any legal expertise that I am aware of, how does he know that there was no evidence in the report a court would recognise? Why is Charles Moore qualified to declare that 214 incidents have been "formally recorded as crimes" only because allegations have been recorded as facts? Why is the opinion of this one journalist of the many hundreds of journalists who commented on the report given such prominence in the article, unless to represent the view of whoever put it in the article that there is really nothing to all these allegations, a tiny minority view. Wikipedia policy is that views of a tiny minority should not be represented in articles."Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all."[[15]] I think Charles Moore's commentary should be removed but I do not like to make such changes without first discussing it on the talk page.Smeat75 (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1_Moore is sufficiently notable as a commentator to have an article about him, and as a former editor of the Telegraph is not ignorant of the law affecting news reporting and comment. 2_It is important to have attention drawn to misleading presentation from a source such as the BBC, especially in this case where the BBC's own conduct is in question. 3_In this country the right to speak of justice is not confined to lawyers. 4_There is a link to Moore's article, which anyone can see has the headline "Treating every allegation against Jimmy Savile as a 'fact’ undermines justice. The self-righteous Operation Yewtree report does not get us much nearer the truth." That is not a minority view, but a matter of fact and reason, not to say common sense. 5_If there has been any report rebutting Moore's remarks, let it be cited. 6_Nothing is implied that Moore condones any wrongdoing that Savile actually committed. Qexigator (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't need to be a lawyer to comment on justice but you do need to have some legal expertise to pronounce on what "a court would recognise". The mere opinion of an ex-editor of the Daily Telegraph is not sufficiently important for the prominence it receives here. The article on the report[[16]] quotes "Jonathan Brown, writing in The Independent viewed that the report "revealed a man who used his celebrity status and outwardly well-intended works to gain access to and ultimately rape and sexually exploit hundreds of vulnerable young star-struck victims..." What makes the Moore quote more worthy of inclusion here than the Brown one? I think this article does not need opinion pieces from journalists in it, only quotes from police, official reports and investigations. If that Moore quote remains, it must be balanced by others, such as the Brown one.Smeat75 (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Moore stands here as just one example of several commentators who have questioned the validity of the NSPCC/MPS report and the way it, in their view, presents as fact what are merely uninvestigated allegations. This is important as a counter to the mainstream media's initial presentation. We need to include it as a significant point of view. -- Alarics (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's topic is essentially a running scandal arising within the news/broadcasting arena, concerned with what was and was not done at various times by various parties and responsible bodies in connection with Savile's actual or alleged wrongdoings, including BBC, police and prosecutors, and including the Yewtree and Levitt reports and the follow-up from them yet to come. Comment about that, including the likes of Moore in DT and Brown in Indie, are very much to the point here. Brown should be included not Moore excluded, and others could be added. Qexigator (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]