Talk:Jimmy Savile: A British Horror Story

List of people

As already said in one of the edit summaries, I'm not sure if a laundry list of everyone who appears in the the documentary is necessary or desirable. This edit may well be true but it is WP:OR. How about some prose instead of just trainspotting everyone who is in the documentary?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Does Capaldi appear in the credits? But I tend to agree, without some explanatory context, it's a bit pointless. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm still in the process of finding the time to watch the whole thing, which is around three hours long. But I'm pretty sure that without reliable sourcing, the Capaldi reference should go.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But here's an interesting factoid linking Capaldi to Savile: [1]. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it Capaldi here? (Part 1 near the end). No, he isn't in the credits.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

No, it's that well-known Leeds Capaldi impersonator! I wonder what year that was. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• This review of the documentary is in the Radio Times this week. Possibly useful as a source, because the article needs more prose and not just an exhaustive trainspotter list of the people who appear in it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"Archive footage"

Is it usual for an article to list every notable person who appears, however briefly, in the archive footage? I don't really see how this improves the article. If people want to know about the archive footage, they can simply look at the film credits. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as I've already said, this is laundry listing and doesn't add much to the article. This edit is correct, because Savile is shown introducing the Rolling Stones live on stage at Wembley stadium at the start of the first episode. This shows that Savile met all of the famous pop stars of the 1960s at some point (The Beatles etc). But per WP:PROSE, this isn't achieving much without a proper explanation of the context involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It was not a "laundry list of everyone who appeared" by significant figures who interacted or worked with Savile as shown in the documentary. In particular it was shown how Savile used these connections and the widespread affection for him amongst these figures (and by proxy the wider public) top cover his crimes. The "laundry list" helped make that clear, though now it's left to the more abstract "British establishment, including politicians and members of the British royal family." I've seen other such lists on wikipedia pages without much controversy.

Anyway whatever, it's not a fight I particularly care about, as you and IanMacM seem to have taken a particular interest in this page. I'd write up a clearer overview that specifies the close connections he had with specific members of the British Royal Family and the conservative party in particular, but anything I do is likely to get changed and reverted, as you both seem to have strong opinions on the information you want removed from this page. Duckwalk71 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Martinevans123 on this issue. It's OK to list the people who are interviewed on camera for the documentary, but listing all of the people who appear in the archive footage isn't necessary unless some context can found to explain why their appearance in the footage is notable. We know, for example, that Prince Charles seems to have been quite a chum of Savile, but simply saying that he appears in the archive footage doesn't explain very much.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I repeat it was not ALL the people who appeared in the documentary, and if that's the level of perception here that's why me spending any more time on this is a waste of time.

Also the phrasing at the end of the lede "when numerous complaints were raised about his behaviour." is IMO garbage and sounds like minimisation. Complaints were raised about his behavior all through his career and they were ignored, the scandal broke when his crimes were fully exposed to the public, specifically in the ITV documentary, but my attempts to do adjust it to which I believe accurately reflects the narrative of the documentary were hastily changed. Duckwalk71 (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The "level of perception" was (and largely still is) based on a list of people, without any explanation of why they are in that list. If you think a textual summary of the programme is "a waste of time", fair enough, someone else might have a go. You claim Complaints were raised about his behavior all through his career and they were ignored. Yes, they were ignored, but I'm not sure there were very many of them. If you think that phrasing could be improved, I think you should go ahead and improve it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I previously tried, by phrasing was "that occurred after his death in 2011 when his crimes were finally widely acknowledged." but ianmacm didn't like it and immediately changed it to the current wording.

The waste of time is if my work simply get deleted, as has happened more than once now by editors who are keeping a very close eye and are more concerned with cutting stuff out that actually putting stuff in.

"Yes, they were ignored, but I'm not sure there were very many of them."

Serious question, have you even watched the documentary? Duckwalk71 (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

How many do you think there were? I was unable to find a quote in the documentary that clearly stated this. And in any case, I don't see it in Dame Janet Smith Review, which might be where any official number might be found? Just to remind you, Wikipedia works by consensus, so what looks useful to one editor many not look useful to others. If you are not prepared to have your edits amended, or even removed, to achieve consensus, then Wikipedia may well prove to be a "waste of time" for you. Editors are encouraged to "keep a close eye" on articles: that's what watchlists are for. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

So you're good with the current wording? Duckwalk71 (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I would welcome a textual summary of the programme. Without any explanation/ context the list is a bit meaningless. I might try and change it sure, if I thought I could improve it. But I would not necessarily revert. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)