Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal/Archive 3

Lead photo in the article
Re this edit: the background story here is that Savile was originally wanted by the BBC to present the final episode of Top of the Pops live on Sunday 30 July 2006. However, he had already agreed to appear as the honorary chieftain at the Lochaber Highland Games on the same weekend, so he couldn't do it and his appearance in the final TOTP was cut back to a few prerecorded inserts. Hence Savile wearing the tartan tracksuit. I'm not sure if this adds great context to the caption, but it does show that at the time, Savile was still regarded as a national treasure, living saint etc. The faces in the background of the photo are now blurred out. Apparently nobody wants to be seen with him nowadays.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As two editors (and presumably the original caption writer) feel it is a useful detail, I do not have any strong feeling that it should be left out, even though I did revert once. I will say my reason was that as far as I can tell it's the only image of Savile on WP without another face visible (per his own article) so my inclination was that it was included just to illustrate who Savile was and that the extra content just distracted from the topic of the article. Nevertheless you both seem well versed on the topic so I will undo my own edit per the opinion of you and . Best ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  18:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not really true that Savile was ever regarded as a 'national treasure', let alone a 'living saint'. Certain establishment sources may have encouraged that perception, but it's not what anyone actually thought. He was regarded as odd, a freak and a creep, even when no one knew for sure what he got up to. In the 1980s, on ITV's noted puppet satire show Spitting Image, the Savile puppet was always required to read out letters beginning, 'Dear Jim -- you, sad, man...' Which was about as far as the scriptwriters, including Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, could legally go just then. Savile's revelation, to Dr Anthony Clare on BBC Radio 4's In The Psychiatrist's Chair in 1991, that he spent five days alone with his mother's body after her death, was pretty widely regarded as strange and sinister. Ask anyone who heard it. Indeed the whole interview was quite sinister. https://www.channel4.com/news/how-jimmy-savile-revealed-all-in-the-psychiatrists-chair It's not like nobody noticed that the man was a hazard-to-traffic. Practically everybody noticed, but he retained establishment cover, due, presumably, to careful grooming of the right contacts. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure how your comment here relates to the lead image. But the transcript of In the Psychiatrist's Chair is quite fascinating and probably deserves mention at the main article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Savile was a bit of a Marmite person during his lifetime. Some people loved him (Margaret Thatcher was a good example), while other people were less convinced (her Cabinet Secretary Robert Armstrong, Baron Armstrong of Ilminster being a good example). Nevertheless, Savile had managed to convince enough people that he was a national treasure and living saint to make it difficult for any national newspaper to publish allegations about sexual misconduct during his lifetime, even though the allegations were widely known in Fleet Street. The article Jimmy Savile has a 1992 quote from Anthony Clare "There is something chilling about this 20th-century 'saint'" which turned out to be very prescient words.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 21:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm still missing the link between the lead image and yeast extract sainthood. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Entertainment scandals
Would it be a good idea to have a definition of what Category:Entertainment scandals means? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It's sort of ok because Savile used his fame in the entertainment industry as a means of attracting some of the alleged victims.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The category covers a range of things, from: Milli Vanilli's fake singing scandal, the American 1950's quiz show scandals, Donald Trump making off-colour jokes on an Access Hollywood bus and a sexual abuse allegation in Woody Allen's personal life. This was admittedly a scandal for the BBC (see Dame Janet Smith Review), so I don't know why it wouldn't apply here.LM2000 (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, wouldn't it be a good idea to have a definition of what Category:Entertainment scandals actually means written down at that template page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's beyond the scope of this talk page and should be raised at Category talk:Entertainment scandals.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Category talk:Entertainment scandals. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Boris Johnson controversy
Normally this would be WP:NOTNEWS, but given the considerable media coverage and the resignation of Munira Mirza it is probably now notable enough for a mention. As she said: "This was not the usual cut and thrust of politics; it was an inappropriate and partisan reference to a horrendous case of child sex abuse". What do others think?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No objection. He could have apologised, as Mirza suggested. Seems he just can't say sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC) p.s Jack Doyle now also just resigned, but "is not linked to the resignation of Munira Mirza."
 * One of the two current sources The Spectator says this (emphasis added) "In a letter to the Prime Minister, Mirza writes: ‘I believe it was wrong for you to imply this week that Keir Starmer was personally responsible for allowing Jimmy Savile to escape justice. There was no fair or reasonable basis for that assertion. This was not the usual cut and thrust of politics; it was an inappropriate and partisan reference to a horrendous case of child sex abuse. You tried to clarify your position today but, despite my urging, you did not apologise for the misleading impression you gave.’"
 * So the implication was false... "There was no fair or reasonable basis for that assertion".
 * And he tried to clarify his position, suggesting he did not succeed. That's Mirza's opinion anyway.Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The current first sentence is irrelevant
The current first sentence of the article reads, "Jimmy Savile (1926–2011) was an English media personality who, during his lifetime, was well known in the United Kingdom for his eccentricities and was generally respected for his charitable work." This is almost completely irrelevant to the topic of the article. It is fitting for the article Jimmy Savile, but it is unfit for the "Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal" article, which is the article that preoccupies us in this page. Said sentence doesn't even mention sex abuse nor scandal. How is this first sentence considered useful at all for the current page? Per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is [...] use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." Therefore, the first sentence of the "Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal" should tell what the subject is, and the subject is about the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal not about who Jimmy Savile is. A first sentence exclusive on who Jimmy Savile is belongs in the article Jimmy Savile, not in this page. Thinker78 (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC about the first sentence in Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal
Is the current first sentence appropriate for this article (Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal not Jimmy Savile)? My edit got reverted (more information starts with the thread above, before this RFC subsection). Thinker78 (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Edited 00:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC) Edited again 20:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree; the current first sentence should focus on the sexual abuse since that is the topic here. I think this is the obviously correct answer, to the point I think you could just cancel the RFC and change it now, but perhaps there is history I don't know about.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Neil Shah-Quinn I'm gathering that you don't agree that the current first sentence is appropriate? I tried changing it but got reverted. Thinker78  (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thinker78 Ahh, I see–in that case, it makes sense to gather more input before making the change. Yes, I think the current first sentence doesn't fit the topic and should be changed in the way you describe. Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . I do think this will be a more impactful RfC if we consider a specific alternate option. I'd favor an opening paragraph something like Draft #1 below. In general, I'd prefer an opening focused on the scandal and not Savile's personality. The draft includes most status quo info, but adds that rumours had been around since the 70s and excludes mention of his knighting or eccentricities. I have no objection to these being mentioned later in the lead. Anyone should feel free to propose a new draft, or edit #1, but I do ask that major changes be discussed first. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add that MOS:FIRST is relevant here: The status quo has a first sentence that is not about the scandal, and I support any reasonable proposal that remedies that issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Drafts #2 (Scolaire) and #3 (Guarapiranga) look good to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Now drafts 3 (Scolaire) and 4 (Guarapiranga), because somebody decided to mess up the numbering. Scolaire (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . I can understand what the first sentence was attempting to do, I think - emphasizing how beloved he was to make it more clear why the scandal had such an impact - but it comes across as awkward and strange to spend two sentences praising him before even mentioning the topic of the article. I'm not a fan of putting donations and charitable work anywhere in the lead of even the main article for anyone who isn't primarily notable for it (anyone who has significant amounts of money is going to have impactful donations; just because coverage exists doesn't mean it's significant enough to be leadworthy.) But on this article, which isn't even about Savile's entire life but solely about the sex abuse scandal, it comes across as a bit absurd.  And the language is somewhat non-neutral, too - eccentricities is a bit eyebrow-raising, and generally respected for his charitable work isn't well-cited (the only mention is cited to an obituary, which is WP:PRIMARY in the context of describing the reaction at the time of his death.) I would avoid any use of the phrase generally respected anywhere in the article unless we can cite it to a high-quality secondary source - not to an obituary. EDIT: My thinking about this prompted me to write an essay, WP:OBITUARIES, about the risks of relying on obituaries as sources. --Aquillion (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . Starting this article with mentioning how beloved Savile was feels insulting. An article, that should focus on Savile's crimes, uses its first sentences to endear Savile to the readers. It feels like the article is saying "Before we talk about Saviles crimes you need to know that he was such a likable person. He even donated to charity. Anyway, there were reports abaut sexual abuse ... "
 * Draft 1 is a good start for the lead. It focuses on the issue and the previous rumours are also important to understand the scandal. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Draft two is even better. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Now Draft 3 because somebody decided to mess up the numbering. Scolaire (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * . Usually I'm in full agreement with 's approach, but I disagree with this edit.  The wording that was reverted was not perfect, but it was an improvement on the existing wording and the mention of earlier complaints about Savile could have been incorporated fairly easily.  The first sentence should be about the subject of the article - which is the scandal, not the individual.  I think that Draft #1 is a big improvement on the current wording and should be accepted.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that Draft #1 is ok and we can move on from there.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Not Support draft 1 - Draft 1 is pretty clumisly worded. I actually think the status quo was OK. If people couldn't make it to the third sentence to read about the sexual abuse, do they deserve to know? Anyway, if folks want to get the sexual abuse in the first sentence, that's fine too, but it should read something like "Jimmy Savile was a noted English media personality, charitable worker and sexual abuser." That wording is simple, concise and touches on all the points for which he was notable. NickCT (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * After more careful reading (see description below), the draft is appropriate for this article. NickCT (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @NickCT how was the status quo ok? The first sentence had almost nothing to do with the topic, which is the sexual abuse scandal. It was a first sentence for Jimmy Saville, not about the scandal, which was not even mentioned. Thinker78  (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @NickCT Can you revise your comment whether you still oppose draft 1? Thinker78  (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a fan of this wording. The key thing that people need to know is that Savile was lauded like a national treasure and living saint during his lifetime, but it all fell apart rapidly after his death. I always assume that not everyone reading about Savile is British, and they should not get the impression that he was a sex abuser along the lines of Harvey Weinstein who actually did end up in prison during his lifetime. The other thing that people need to know is that Savile was able to use a mixture of lies and legal threats to prevent all of this from coming out during his lifetime.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * - I think you're responding to the wording I proposed but I'm not sure b/c you didn't indent. Assuming you are, I understand the details you want to add and agree they are important. That said I don't think the level of detail your looking for is appropriate for the lead sentence. If you try to put all of that in the lede sentence it will be convoluted. It's best just to say "Person X was notable for A, B and C." Then, in the next sentences, go on to describe A, then B, then C. P.S. I wasn't raised in the UK and think I only read one or two headlines about this guy before coming to this discussion. NickCT (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ianmacm, you stated, "The key thing that people need to know is that Savile was lauded like a national treasure". No. Wikipedia is not for promotion. This page is about the sexual abuse scandal involving Saville, not about how great Saville was. Therefore, the key thing that people need to know from the article is about the sexual abuse scandal and the first sentence should be about that, not about how great Saville was. Thinker78  (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not about promoting Savile, because he did succeed in acquiring the image of a national treasure during his lifetime. Not everyone was convinced, and Anthony Clare said "There is something chilling about this 20th-century 'saint'". I've already said that the lead needs tweaking, but the main thing is to understand how Savile's reputation fell apart after his death.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand how hard is for dead people to defend themselves. But I insist, the main thing in this article is about the sexual abuse scandal from a neutral point of view. Thinker78  (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ... Indeed. He was worse. Far worse! Child sex trafficking is far worse a crime than sexual harassment (which is what).
 * ... Ah, so he's innocent bc he got away with it, I see...
 * — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Draft #1 does at least make clear that the major controversy occurred after his death. Savile was able to deflect allegations during his lifetime by lying and making legal threats, even though journalists had heard stories about him which they believed were true but would not be guaranteed to stand up in court in a libel action if Savile played the "national treasure and living saint" card.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Draft one is the lede you'd use if the article was about the sexual abuse. Not about the person. In lede sentences about people, you introduce who the person is and why they're notable. NickCT (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Change it. I don't like Draft 1 either, but the current version needs to be fixed. It needs to follow MOS:LEAD. The lead sentence needs to contain within it the most important information of the page. Yes, it should include that he was a well-known English media personality, but it also needs to include the sexual abuse scandal. Neither the current version nor Draft 1 includes both of those features. (Draft 1 is more like a lead sentence for a page specifically about the scandal.) The lead sentence should introduce readers to both of these things. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * - re "Draft 1 is more like a lead sentence for a page specifically about the scandal." - Yes! This. Obviously. NickCT (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm very confused by this. Is this not a page specifically about the scandal? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Woops! You're not confused. But I was! Somehow, when I replied to the RfC listing, I somehow got it into my addled head that this was Talk:Jimmy Savile, the talk page for the BLP. But it isn't. Sorry all, and especially sorry NickCT, because Draft 1 looks a lot better to me now, although I still think the lead sentence could be rewritten the way I suggested. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Double woops. You're right Firefangledfeathers. Don't know how I made the exact same mistake as Trypto. I take back everything I'd said in humiliation. NickCT (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support change to Draft #1 (per, , , et al). — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not appropriate. However, Draft 1 also takes a little time to get to the point. See Draft 3. --Scolaire (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * None of these - yes, per MOS:FIRST the focus should not be identifying ‘Jimmy Savile’, but neither should it be about identifying the ‘Jimmy Saville sexual abuse’ crimes. The full title is for a “scandal”.  The scandal, like the article content, includes and is largely about the decades of failures by BBC, CPS, Department of Health, and Hospital facilities.  Perhaps something more like “The Jimmy Saville sexual abuse scandal was a series of reports that began to surface in 2012 that the late media celebrity had sexually abused hundreds of people over decades with numerous failures to stop him at the BBC, CPS, Department of Health, and hospitals involved.”  Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Most of the drafts at the time of this writing indicate that the reports surfaced a year after Savile's death. When did revert my edit, they stated, "People had received complaints about Savile's behaviour as far back as the 1970s, but nothing was done about it at the time".  Thinker78  (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There was comment going back decades, including a 2000 Louis Theroux documentary, but concrete reports did not appear until nearly a year after his death. The struggle to have them broadcast at all is covered in the article. Scolaire (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedians were saying at the time of his death. Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not appropriate, the first sentence should identify the scandal somehow. Not sure what the best way would be, but it is about the scandal, not Savile. PrisonerB (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not appropriate; replace with modified Draft 3A The scandal is the article's subject and it's not appropriate to begin instead by talking about Savile himself and his previous good reputation, especially at such length. From a week of workshopping replacements, Draft 3A emerges. It delivers all the introductory essentials in one flowing sentence in accord with MOS:FIRST, then briefly describes Savile's previous reputation in an appropriate way, and overall is helpful to the readers. NebY (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC) In continuing discussion, editors have improved 3A; I prefer the modified version. No-one should rush to close this discussion while discussion continues and they certainly should not assume we're all updating our !votes here as discussion continues and as we express agreement within it. NebY (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not appropriate: replace with Draft 3A, preferably subject to a couple of minor tweaks (see comments below).  Essentially I agree with  - the opening sentence needs to refer to the scandal, not to Savile as an individual.   We need to make a change before the proposal goes stale.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)  PS: As currently worded, I support 3A as a great improvement on the current wording (it's maybe not perfect, but nothing ever is).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft 1
Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) 03:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Not perfect, but the original text is better. Overriding this article is the status of the man when he was alive. There would not have been a scandal of this scale had he not been such a character. Consider, why Mark Page, also a sex offending Radio 1 DJ, does not get the same attention as Savile. It is because of Savile's status in society at the time, that Page did not have. The JS scandal and his social status are inexorably linked. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Roger 8 Roger the status quo text did not follow Wikipedia guidelines for MOS:FIRST sentences. It is usually a good idea for this latter to be about the topic at hand, which is not the case with the status quo in this page. There is an article for Jimmy Savile, in which place the present first sentence in this article about the sexual abuse scandal would be appropriate. But for this article, the first sentence should inform the reader about the scandal not mainly about Savile. Thinker78  (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft 2
Even shuffling the first sentences with light copy-editing might be an improvement and provide a way forward. Something like this: That's dropped "following a 2007 police interview and 2008 allegations by The Sun" (which didn't fit very well after "ranging from prepubescent to adult" anyway and might do better in the start of the next paragraph) but goes some way towards introducing the scandal rather than Savile in the first sentence per MOS:FIRST, followed by a quick explanation of who Savile was and the opportunities he was exploiting. NebY (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft 2a

 * Another tweak
 * NebY's draft could be tweaked further along the following lines. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "his fundraising activities" looks a little narrow. Wasn't a significant part of his abuse done while "volunteering" or as a celebrity visitor that no-one dared turn away, though not directly fundraising or doing PR during those visits? NebY (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft 3
Per MOS:FIRST, "the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject [in this case the scandal, not the person] is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." Scolaire (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Much better than my feeble reshuffle. NebY (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't like the repetition of Jimmy Savile in the first sentence though (MOS:REDUNDANCY). Thinker78  (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We should be able to wordsmith that eg "The Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal broke out in late 2012. Savile, who died [the previous year / in 2011], was an English media personality who had been well known..." NebY (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have two issues with that: first, Savile should be linked early in the intro, but not in the bolded text; and second, the rewording makes the first sentence far too short. I am rewording the draft in a slightly different way. Scolaire (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd lazily taken the linking for granted. Fair point about the short sentence. NebY (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft 3a
Scolaire (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is my new favourite, delivering all the introductory essentials in one flowing sentence. Purely on style, I'd like to avoid the near-repetition "... throughout his life. In his lifetime ..." eg by skipping the second, leaving "... had sexually abused hundreds of people throughout his life. Savile had been well known ..." After all, he continued to be well known and even respected after his death, at first. NebY (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right! "During his lifetime" is utterly redundant. In my defence, I was only copying it from previous drafts/the current version. Scolaire (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a very fine defence and I plead it too. NebY (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This (incorporating 's suggestion) is fine, but can we change "broke out" to something less sensationalist, such as "developed"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Broke out" is no more sensationalist than "scandal". A scandal breaks out; it doesn't "appear", "materialise" or "commence". It can be said to "develop", as further details are revealed, but it has to break out first. Scolaire (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't suggested using "appear", "materialise" or "commence". This article covers the whole of the scandal period, which can be said to have started in 2012 (though there were earlier concerns), and continued until at least 2015.  The article does not just cover the point at which it emerged.  In 2012, he was not "found to have had sexually abused hundreds of people" - at that point, they were allegations, and the findings of the first report did not emerge until 2014.  It seems to me that the term "break out" is unnecessarily sensationalist and tabloid-y.  We are an encyclopedia.  The more I look at this, the more I think I must withdraw support from option 3a.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a shame. I find "broke" one of the most conventional terms used with "scandal" and not sensationalist. Of course, the term "scandal" itself is often and has often been somewhat sensationalist - I've just been looking at examples in the old OED - but I doubt we're about to change the article title. It might be that "broke" is more common and idiomatic than "broke out", but that's about all. Again, looking at the full range of meanings of "scandal", we want a term that suits the scandal becoming widespread public knowledge in 2012; in contrast to related uses of the term, eg "it's a scandal that he's got away with it so long". Likewise, we're not opening with the origins of the scandal, ie whenever he first committed his abuses.
 * As to "found", the process of public discovery and reaction was rapid; the formal findings of various reports before, in and after 2014 moved the processes on. Still, we can probably keep the strengths of this draft with tweaked phrasings eg "when it emerged that Savile .... had sexually abused". NebY (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that "the scandal broke.." is preferable to "the scandal broke out..". In any case, most of the wordings suggested are preferable to the current wording, and I think it's time to make a change and move on.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I came back thinking it might be time to request closure, then realised I'd never added a !vote myself and maybe it would make it easier for someone to close if we (re)declared views in the light of this workshopping.
 * , would you be content to change "broke out" to "broke"? NebY (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be quite content with that. A scandal breaks, in the same way that news breaks. Natural English was always my only concern. Scolaire (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you be content to remove the strike-through from your !vote then? Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, but "found to have had sexually abused..." is surely wrong?  Better: "...found to have sexually abused...".   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did think about that while I was writing it, but I decided that it was grammatically correct: he had sexually abused people, therefore he was found to have had sexually abused people. Just my pedantic mind. It's certainly not a deal breaker for me. Scolaire (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * On second (or third) thoughts, I prefer 's suggested wording: ".. when it emerged that Savile, an English media personality who died the previous year, had sexually abused hundreds of people throughout his life....". This gives: "The Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal broke in late 2012, when it emerged that Savile, an English media personality who had died the previous year, sexually abused hundreds of people throughout his life. Savile had been well known in the United Kingdom for his eccentricities eccentric image and was generally respected for his charitable work."
 * Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Now amended per .  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)  And per  and  below. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "who HAD died the previous year" would be the more correct tense. -- Alarics (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, so long as there is no objection to the repetition of "had". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is fine. Personally I'd rather not repeat "had" and would be happy to lose the first one (1. we've got "previous" so we don't need "had" to aid comprehension 2. more cheekily, on the the idiomatic grounds that the "had" in "who'd died" is silent), but this is fine. NebY (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Would it not be easier to lose the second "had" ? Trying that in the tweaked version above.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's good too; Comprehension doesn't need a second "had", not after "had" and "previous" and before "throughout his life". NebY (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to note that the now says "was well known in the United Kingdom for his eccentric image", which I prefer.  Scolaire (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy with that.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Saying 'known for his image' seemed tautolgous for a moment, but it's right. NebY (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's time to go to WP:ANRFC then. Scolaire (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft 4
— Guarapiranga ☎ 00:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This doesn't make clear that it happened after his death, which is a key requirement.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't? — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The highly public scandal began in 2012, and the public did not have to wait for formal conclusions in 2014 to be convinced and scandalised, or for various actions to be taken. Not Scotland Yard - the Metropolitan Police (we have a wide readership). It's not clear to me from the article which of the BBC or hospitals we should lead with; if any comparison's possible, I find the abuse of exceptionally vulnerable children in hospitals most horrifying but I don't know which was more numerous. NebY (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore draft 4, which would need major changes to be acceptable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to make changes, Ghmyrtle. What changes does it need? — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft 5
Markbassett (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Savile should be linked early in the intro, but not in the bolded text. I suggest "reports that began to surface in 2012 that the late media celebrity had sexually abused..." Scolaire (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft 3a implemented
I took the bold step of implementing in the article draft 3a after almost a month of discussion in the rfc, with a slight addition of his knighthood to accommodate previous info. It was the draft most thoroughly discussed and edited in collaboration. Also it has the most votes (including mine), just after draft 1. But all the votes for draft 1 were made before draft 3a was written. Besides, the article can be edited normally for any further refinements that any editor chooses to make. I suggest adding this article to your watchlists because the status quo had some flaws and Neutral point of view issues. Thanks to all for your contributions! Thinker78 (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The discussion was continuing constructively today, less than 30 days after you opened the RFC, two grounds for keeping it open. We have collaboratively developed what those still active in the discussion believe to be an improvement on 3A, while retaining the same structure and approach. At this point we have the options of reverting your early removal of the RFC tag and reverting your edit, or replacing the earlier version of 3A you added (to which you chose to add his knighthood without discussion) with the above successor to 3A that was being finalised today, indeed probably stable, and which had consensus of active participants when you intervened. The first option, reverting, seems something of a backward step, so I'll do the latter. If you do really wish to go back to 3A or to add his knighthood, please discuss it here and gain consensus. NebY (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You have been a pain in the ass from the outset: formatting suggestions into boxes without consultation; re-numbering drafts without tidying up after you, so that participants appeared to endorse different drafts than they actually did, and generally treating this RfC as your own personal fiefdom. It should not have been closed by the nominator, and it should not have had the RfC header removed before the 30 days were up. We're into AN/I territory here. Obviously, I'm happy to see my draft implemented (though the knighthood most definitely should not have been added), but the discussion should be left open in case, , , , , , , , , or  want to raise objections or make any further points.  Scolaire (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't really have a problem with the bold changes made. Most of the suggestions were improvements on the previous version, and tweaking can always continue as normal.  There was a rump second paragraph left as a result of the change, which I've now tried to integrate into the subsequent paragraphs.  Further improvements to the text are always welcome.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. I hadn't looked back here in quite some time, but I've looked at the new lead paragraph as of the timestamp of my comment now, and I think that it is a good improvement over the version from the start of the RfC. I'm satisfied with it. I agree with the criticisms about inappropriately closing the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I suggest calling for an independent RFC close for what it may offer and for forms sake. I think the edit more directly brings forward the article topic, though the close “generally respected” seems vague and still falls short in conveying the failures of authority failures as part of the scandal.  I may also edit the body somewhat to expand on the Sun allegations and lawsuit of 2008. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, even the body doesn't say whether those legal proceedings against the Sun were dropped, settled or proceeded to court with what result, or whether an apology was published; we do rather leave the reader dangling. (It's a common problem across Wikipedia that we report starts without outcomes.) NebY (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Regarding the concerns, I read guidance about RFC and consensus before taking this step. I think it was reasonable for me to implement the changes after the discussion was gone for almost two weeks and it was approaching a month. Yes, there was some discussion later on but the guy who for some reason decided to go uncivil (Scolaire (talk)) said it may be a time for closure (15:50, 7 September 2022), which I read and encouraged me to implement the change, so I don't see what Scolaire's outrage is about, of all people.

Also I read comments advising to replace with draft 3a. "replace with Draft 3A. The scandal is the article's subject and it's not appropriate to begin instead by talking about Savile himself and his previous good reputation, especially at such length. From a week of workshopping replacements, Draft 3A emerges. It delivers all the introductory essentials in one flowing sentence in accord with MOS:FIRST, then briefly describes Savile's previous reputation in an appropriate way, and overall is helpful to the readers. NebY 09:49, 6 September"

"replace with Draft 3A, preferably subject to a couple of minor tweaks (see comments below). Essentially I agree with NebY - the opening sentence needs to refer to the scandal, not to Savile as an individual. We need to make a change before the proposal goes stale. Ghmyrtle 10:05, 6 September"

Ok, user:NebY, I followed your advice, I replaced with Draft 3A.

Per WP:RFCCLOSE, "As an RfC is the solicitation of comment in a discussion, ending an RfC consists of ending that solicitation." Also, " If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance."

I think the consensus was clear for draft 3a, and further refinements could follow normal editing processes and further discussion in the talk page, without it being part of the rfc, which I didn't enclosed in a template so anyone could continue discussing. Per WP:RFCEND, "There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time. But editors should not wait for that: if one of the reasons listed above applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course." The reason being was "The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the template."

Per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, "The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise—with the understanding that the page is gradually improving—than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately. " Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You quote "as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course." Discussion was continuing. You ignored that and you ignored the draft under discussion. You took an earlier version and unilaterally inserted text into it which did not have anyone else's support, let alone consensus. You closed the discussion on a superficial reading of !votes without regard to the ongoing discussion. Your edit summary "changed lead paragraph according to consensus in thorough talk page discussion for a month" was not true; it was not according to consensus and discussion had not proceed for a month. Several editors have expressed concern; it might be helpful to you in your future engagement with Wikipedia editors if you took the concerns on board. (It is somwhat ironic that you avoid doing so, at such length, over an article which is very much about concerns not being taken on board and the consequences of that.) NebY (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , I did not say "it may be a time for closure", I said "Maybe it's time to go to WP:ANRFC". That's what you should have done. Per your own quote, "The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). The community's response didn't become obvious very quickly: there were eight proposed versions over the course of two weeks discussion (actually nine, including the last one which you didn't boxify), and my version had been agreed by only two participants. I'd like to think that it would have been recommended by an uninvolved closer, but there should have been an uninvolved closer. On reflection, I can see that what looks like high-handedness to me is just being BOLD to you, and I apologise for my incivility. Scolaire (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scolaire The key term is "e.g.", which means "for example (from the latin exempli gratia). There were at least four people who supported draft 3a, including me, if I remember correctly (I did a breakdown in a spreadsheet, btw). As I mentioned earlier, there were more votes for draft 1, but mostly when it was the only option and I went with draft 3a because it was the most thoroughly discussed and the second most voted. Thank you for your apology, I accept it.
 * Apology I also apologize for my boldness in implementing the edit in the article. Even though I based my decision on Wikipedia guidance and thoroughly examined everyone's comments, even making a spreadsheet, I could have waited because there was a second round of discussion. Although I have to mention that I have seen discussions closed even while ongoing because administrators decided they had run their course, even just days or the same day they started. But I have to admit my enthusiasm made short work of me.  Thinker78  (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Edited 16:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Operation Yewtree section
This section appears to contain an excessive amount of content, given that there is also Operation Yewtree on it. Some of the content in the section, including that about Ray Teret states on the Teret article was specifically not related to Yewtree. Looks like a mess and needs cleanup. I'll tag it and someone who is more of an expert on this subject can fix it, I was just stopping by. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)