Jump to content

Talk:Rolf Harris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ianmacm (talk | contribs) at 15:25, 8 November 2023 (→‎"Harris, aged 84": re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"convicted child sex offender" in first sentence

For the current editing concerning that specific wording in the opening sentence please refer to MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE which states that "The first sentence should usually state:" ... "5 The main reason the person is notable". Even after the subjects passing in which some parts of the media heaped praise on them a google search indicates that the vast majority of articles displayed refer to his child sex crimes for which he was convicted. Given that is one of the main reasons for his notability and that this article spends significant portions on that topic it should be in the opening sentence. AlanStalk 13:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianmacm and @Stuart Young, I have started discussion here. AlanStalk 13:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Harris had not already been famous/notable, his sex crimes would have attracted little or no media interest. WWGB (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE says at all. It has nothing to say about chronology. AlanStalk 13:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glitter and Harris were notable as entertainers. The opening paragraphs make clear that their careers were wrecked by the sex offence convictions. See also WP:GOOGLE.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're not discussing Glitter. Please contain your discussions to Harris. Harris is a notable child sex abuser. A very large proportion of this article outside of the lead is dedicated to Harris's child sex crimes. Now we can have a debate about whether the content later on in the opening paragraph should be moved if you like but MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE is unambiguous in its meaning. The opening sentence should state the main reasons for a persons notability. AlanStalk 14:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does. He is notable as an entertainer who was later found to be guilty of sex offences. Without the entertainer part the other is irrelevant. First paragraph of the lead is perfectly fine as is. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 17:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you have no WP policy based argument for your position given you base your argument on chronology? AlanStalk 02:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume that you didn't intend that to be as sarky as it comes across to me; yes, in line with others here, i do have a policy-based argument (as well as a common sense one). It is this: He is notable as an entertainer who was later found to be guilty of sex offences. Without the entertainer part the other is irrelevant. Read Mitch Ames's comment below if that is not clear: His notability is based on his being an entertainer; that's why we have an article on him, so that's what the lead sentence should indicate. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 17:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE ... The opening sentence should state the main reasons for a persons notability — Actually BIOFIRSTSENTENCE says "main reason [singular]", not "reasons [plural]". The single reason for his notability was being an entertainer. Had he been an entertainer but not a sex offender he would have been - and was - notable. Had he been a sex offender but not an entertainer, he would not have been notable. Thus BIOFIRSTSENTENCE does not require "sex offender" in the first sentence. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the points made by Mitch Ames. The lede para is fine. It shows the high regard he was held in as an entertainer for many years and how that ended when the sex offences came to light much later. The point about a Google search fails to consider that much of his fame as an entertainer was before the WWW so Google search results are always skewed by the volume of material on the WWW in each year (according to the United Nations, the WWW is growing at 3000% per year [1]) so more recent events are always going to dominate. Kerry (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Referring to subject as "convicted child sex offender" in the opening sentence of the lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was not to add "convicted child sex offender" in the opening sentence of the lede. WWGB (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we refer to the subject as a "convicted child sex offender" in the opening sentence of the lede?
This has been discussed in the past however there is intermittent editing on this question, so it's obviously not settled and can do with broader community input. TarnishedPathtalk 23:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. The lead as is, with the conviction mentioned in a sober manner in the first paragraph but not in the first sentence, affords the appropriate weight to all parts of the biography. Additionally, nothing has changed about the facts since the last two times (at least) this has been discussed so I see no reason to believe consensus will have changed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Current placement is sufficient. WWGB (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. According to MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE "The first sentence should usually state ... The main reason [singular] the person is notable". The reason for Harris' notability was his being an entertainer. Had he been an entertainer but not a sex offender he would have been - and was - notable. Had he been a sex offender but not an entertainer, he would not have been notable. The article rightly mentions the sex offences in the first paragraph, but they do not belong in the first sentence. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The current placement of this information is just fine. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: This is the latest round of "we have to say he's a sex offender in the opening sentence." All of the previously discussed reasons for not doing this (including the recent thread above) still apply.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No It is fine and policy-compliant as it is.LM2000 (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes A Google search for "Rolf Harris" and "entertainer" yields 99 results, whereas a Google search for "Rolf Harris" and "child sex offender" yields 81 results. The results are close enough to say that he is as notable for being a child sex offender as he was for being an entertainer, especially considering the vast majority of recent WP:RS focuses on his crimes. Therefore we ought to give equal precedence to both in the lede and include the phrase "convicted child sex offender" in the first sentence of the lede. TarnishedPathtalk 10:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please refer to Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein and R. Kelly for individuals who were extremely notable and famous for their endeavours before they were convicted of sex offences. All have the fact that they are sex offenders listed in the opening sentence of the lede. Harris's offending should put him towards Epstein's level of notoriety, in those countries where he is notable, so there is no reason why he should be treated any differently. TarnishedPathtalk 10:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF. The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page; this is because there is nothing stopping anyone from editing or creating any article. Nemov (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please give consideration to other arguments I've given, as it is not the sole argument I've given. TarnishedPathtalk 23:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See WP:GOOGLE. "There are x results in a Google search" doesn't prove very much. Also WP:OTHERCONTENT doesn't prove very much either.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can however click the links and confirm that a lot of the results are WP:RS. TarnishedPathtalk 10:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And that still doesn't prove anything. Even if all reliable, general purpose, encyclopaedia biographies of Harris' whole life include his conviction for sex offences in first sentence of prose we would not be bound to follow. We should of course consider doing so, but a random assortment of sources written for other purposes doesn't indicate any need to consider deviating from our policies. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf They do indicate what he is most notable for and when the amount of sources for both things converge we ought to consider giving equal weight to both. TarnishedPathtalk 12:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The numbers indicate nothing other than those terms appear somewhere in the source, you need to consider the placement in the source, and the purpose of the source (a news article about his conviction will obviously feature the conviction very prominently, but that tells us nothing useful about where the conviction should be placed in the context of an encyclopaedic biography of his whole life). We have considered giving equal weight to both, multiple times, and we are doing so again here, however the conclusion of that consideration, based on the sources available and our policies, is that mention of the sex offences belongs in the first paragraph but not the first sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes based on the sources and our policies, with the policies saying that the first sentence should state the main reason why the subject is notable. Now if the sources indicate that the main reason he is notable, at this present point in time, is jointly for his crimes and his entertainment, then we ought to give consideration to including both in the opening sentence. TarnishedPathtalk 23:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    at this present point in time, [the main reason for notability] is jointly for his crimes and his entertainment you have not presented any evidence that this is true, and my look at sources shows it isn't. Mitch Ames explains it well. Your count of google results shows only an approximate number of sources which use those specific terms (and at least some of the sources will be in both sets) and take no account of the purpose of the article, the reliability of the sources, any bias the source has, WP:RECENCY issues, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Per above, it is sufficient that it is mentioned in the first paragraph. It does not need to be mentioned in the first sentence. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No no need to change its in order of record in the lead. First para establishes originally notable for being an Entertainer, next sentence conviction. Second para deals with Entertainer career, third para is conviction, jailing and death. Its sums up his life in a logical order of events. Gnangarra 08:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - it is well covered in the lead paragraph, and then the third paragraph in the lead. No need to shoehorn it into the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, for the same reasons as i used above (He is notable as an entertainer who was later found to be guilty of sex offences. Without the entertainer part the other is irrelevant) the last time this question was opened by the same user two months ago; nothing's changed since then. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 13:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: The subject is notable for his 6-decades-long artistic career, not for his conviction. WP:WEIGHT. The current sentence at the end of the lede is sufficient. Grorp (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jim'll Fix It in filmography?

This is missing from the filmography section. Harris made a few appearances on his pervy mate's show. 209.93.85.21 (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to IMDb, Harris appeared in at least one episode on 29 May 1976.[2] There would need to be better sourcing, and Wikipedia is not IMDb so it doesn't list everything that a person ever did unless there is some sort of notability.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability applies to article creation, not article content. If reliably sourced and not contrary to any other policy, it could be included. Kerry (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did manage to find a video on YouTube where Rolf Harris appears on Jim'll Fix It in 1993. Jim fixes it for a grandfather to play a didgeridoo with Harris. But there is a need for secondary sourcing to make it worth mentioning. It's obvious that some people would only want to mention it because of the "He's a paedo" angle that it creates.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Factual errors in the lede

A couple of factual errors in the lede:

"He was convicted in England in 2014 of the sexual assault of four underage girls"

Only some of the victims were underage. It is unclear how many, as it's hard to work out whether the Cambridge assault took place in 1975 as the victim alleged (aged 14), or three years later when the prosecution proved he was in Cambridge (when she would have been ~17)

"In July 2014, Harris, aged 84, was sentenced to five years and nine months in prison after being convicted on twelve counts of indecent assault on four female victims, who were between the ages of 13 and 19 at the time that the offences took place, during the 1970s and 1980s."

This is a mess. It appears that info relating to the youngest 'victim' has been semi-removed from this sentence following the overturning of that conviction, in terms of the ages of the victims and the dates of the assaults; but not removed from the count of assaults or the number of victims.

If she's being removed it needs to say

"eleven counts of indecent assault on three female victims, who were between the ages of 13 and 19 at the time that the offences took place, during the 1970s and 1980s."

If she's being kept in it needs to say

"twelve counts of indecent assault on four female victims, who were between the ages of 8 and 19 at the time that the offences took place, during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s." 2A00:23C6:AE98:C701:74F3:C599:F0B2:BF52 (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's unclear that all of the victims were under 16 at the time that the offences took place. "Underage" is vague, although these were still serious sexual offences. The conviction involving an eight year old girl in Portsmouth was subsequently overturned due to the poor evidence supporting it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Harris, aged 84"

Why is Harris' age at the time of his conviction included in the lede? 209.93.85.21 (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting this, because Harris was very old at the time that he was sent to prison. Had it not been for Operation Yewtree, or if Harris had died in his seventies, he would never have faced trial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rolf_Harris&oldid=1184136900"