Talk:Jimmy Savile

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


 * Savile's reputation is in ruins, but the previous consensus is that he was never charged or convicted of any crimes because the major controversy occurred after his death. We can't write history backwards.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Allegations remain allegations until proven or disproven. That's how the English and Welsh legal system works, or fails to work, depending on your viewpoint. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

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


 * The article says: "As a knighthood expires when the holder dies, it cannot be posthumously revoked. The Cabinet Office stated in September 2021, with reference to his OBE and knighthood, that "The Forfeiture Committee can confirm that had James Wilson Vincent Savile been convicted of the crimes of which he is accused, forfeiture proceedings would have commenced." But, if you do refer to him as Sir, I don't think he'll thank you for it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * the FaQ says we do. Babysharkboss2 was here!!  Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor! 15:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Rape in England
Savile died before he could be prosecuted and convicted of any crimes, so strictly speaking this Category cannot be used. But the circumstantial evidence seems to be more than sufficient enough to warrant its use, in my view. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the evidence is enough to invoke the Fred West factor here. Had Savile lived and been prosecuted under today's rules, he would have been convicted of rape. However, categories like "sex offender" have been removed per WP:CATV because he was never convicted during his lifetime.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * p.s. there has been a similar addition at Cyril Smith. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)