Talk:Jimmy Savile#His Sir title should be removed!

I have removed this text, and supporting sources, from the lead section: "{{tq|The BBC shelved a 2011 Newsnight investigation into Savile's abuse, and the Dame Janet Smith Review revealed that a culture of silence and poor safeguarding enabled his crimes, many of which were carried out on BBC premises.}}" I do not believe it belongs in the lead section, particularly in the first paragraph, for the following reasons:

1. It was not a significant event in Savile's life.
2. Unlike at Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, it is not necessarily a significant item in the entire article.
3. It introduces three sources into the lead which, following WP:LEADCITE, do not need to be there.

As a courtesy, I have moved two of those three sources to the relevant statement in the main body (one is already used), although it is not clear that they are needed there or are necessarily better than the existing two sources. I am of course happy to discuss the matter here and if a new consensus is reached to restore the passage to somewhere in the lead section, I will happily go along with that. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed, there are WP:TOPIC problems with overburdening the lead section with material about the sexual abuse controversy. This article is a biography of Savile, and the article Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal goes into more detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Video [https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/14303314/jimmy-savile-scots-lair-fire-glencoe/ here]. The building was derelict anyway. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:Those poor Sun reporters, being sent to Glencoe in that weather. Let's hope they got a good deal on the petrol. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Under "Health and death," the article says "He had been in hospital with pneumonia, and his death was not suspicious." I think it's weird to just outright say that his death wasn't suspicious. I guess you could say that they found that his death wasn't suspicious? But surely you can't just SAY that it wasn't suspicious outright, no matter what sources you have. And if that's the case, then how about this: I say his death WAS suspicious. Now cite me as a source and change the article to say that some people do and don't find his death suspicious Tschwitzer (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:The BBC source says: "{{tq|Police said they were called to his home in Leeds, but that there was nothing suspicious about his death.}}" Martinevans123 (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::The problem here is WP:REDFLAG. No reliable source has ever suggested that Savile's death was due to anything other than ill health and old age.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::Okay, so say that the police said there was nothing suspicious about his death, that would be accurate. What isn't accurate is to say 100% that there was nothing suspicious about his death, as if this knowledge was handed down by God himself Tschwitzer (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No objections. {{small|(Note: we don't usually involve God himself.)}} Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Tschwitzer, as far as we know, you are not regarded a WP:RS source. If you have any source that is, stating that Savile's death was suspicious, by all means present it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Jimmy Savile|answered=yes}}

Please remove from Jimmy Saville his titles or references to “Sir” or Knighthood, OBE, CBE or other. These were all rescinded when his historic and widespread child abuse was released. To leave them is an affront to his numerous 400 known victims. 2A00:23C5:BD97:EE00:0:0:0:1003 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{notdone}}: Please see the article text in Jimmy_Savile#Honours_and_awards, the talk page header, and various previous discussions about this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:We don't generally arrange article content because it might be "an affront" to anyone's victims. That might be considered to fall under WP:RGW. We should just report the facts. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)