This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Chastelaine (talk·contribs) / sortkey This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
Why is his criminal behaviour only mentioned in the last sentence of the third paragraph? It is all he is going to be known for in the future. 82.16.135.131 (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The day after news has broken is usually a bad time to decide on the relative importance of a piece of information. It is covered in the lead, so nothing is hidden. Wait a while and when the dust settles, you can use secondary sources to assess the relative merits and importance of each piece of information and revisit this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rolf Harris went to prison for sexual assaulting girls over a long period. Huw Edwards clicked on child abuse images that had been sent to him on WhatsApp. The making offence occurred when he clicked on them (because the making offence refers to making a copy where one did not exist, for instance by downloading). Now I make no excuses here: he chose to click on them, and there was also the context of the relationship in which they were shared. There was an offence, but I do not see how this is comparable with Harris. They are very different cases. I'll add that yes, I think the information that the offences occurred will certainly pass the 10YT. The question is not whether it should be in the article: it should. Neither is the question whether it should be in the lead: it should. The question is only whether this becomes the first thing that there will ever be to say about Edwards. On that, I suggest we wait. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep it's very important not to make comparisons. However I agree there probably should be something in the first paragraph. We're trying to answer the question "Who is Huw Edwards?" in one or two sentences. If I was asked that question, my answer would be something like "He's a former news presenter who's been found guilty of accessing child pornography. He was the BBC's main news presenter for many years, presenting several flagship programmes, until allegations about sexual misconduct came to light".
I disagree with the IP, the sexual offence is not all he's going to be known for. He's primarily notable because of his broadcasting career so it's right that that comes first. It's all about getting the balance right. WaggersTALK08:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it nauseating that people don’t think “disgraced” should be in the opening sentence. What the f is wrong with you people? EDWARDS is a nonce, a paedophile, a criminal. DrLurve (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaking Wikipedia policy for personal opinions? When people disagree with your edit/s and you want to change the lede in an article then you need to discuss it here. You've been reverted a number of times.
Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and what they say. Not our personal opinions.
If you want to add 'disgraced'then calmly discuss that here, along with WP:RS to back up why you think it should be added. Please remain civil. Knitsey (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that people remove ‘disgraced’ from the description of a convicted paedophile tells me everything I need to know about them. But I do see your point. DrLurve (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that (inevitably) there has been some disagreement over some of the content on this page, and we're also dealing with some unconstructive edits, but on the whole I think this article is looking surprisingly good. The prose is generally clean, nicely balanced, well sourced and altogether straightforward to read. Nice job to all those who have contributed. Popcornfud (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment tbh. There are better ways to make sure EDWARDS faces justice than editing the piece here. The truth will out. DrLurve (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling EDWARDS “Disgraced” is hardly unconstructive. I see downplaying the crimes of a paeadophile / sexual offender worrying. All other significant criminals have their offence mentioned in the opening sentences of their Wikipedia piece. Let’s just say such editing behaviour interests me. Why downplay sexual offences? DrLurve (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is casting aspersions, which is something that you have also done in various edit summaries relating to this. Huw Edwards is the latest in a long line of articles where someone has said that the article must point out that he is a paedo/nonce/disgraced in the opening sentence. That is not how the lead section is written. Edwards has a Wikipedia article because of his notability as a broadcaster, and his career was wrecked by the child porn convictions in 2024.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)07:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making this comment @Popcornfud. Even where there has been disagreement, for the most part it has been handled sensitively and sensibly. When Wikipedia works as it should like this it's a lovely experience to be part of it. WaggersTALK10:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. In the opening, only the third paragraph refers to his perversion. And even then most is about accusations that were decided not to be illegal. Only in the very last sentence is it mentioned that he is convicted for child pornography crimes. 82.16.135.131 (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the thread Talk:Huw_Edwards#Report above. Personally I think this should be in the opening paragraph somewhere, but there needs to be a consensus. According to legal experts, Edwards is likely to receive a suspended sentence for this in September rather than actually going to prison. Nevertheless, his career is wrecked and the saga has led to bad publicity for the BBC.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am not opposed on principle to mentioning this in the first paragraph, I think the IPs comment ably demonstrates why it would be a bad idea to do so now. At this time we still don't know about the outcome, or what comments will be made about this. We are very much in the midst of events, and that always lends them an importance that may not be lasting. It seems to me that this will always be very notable, but perhaps not the first thing we should say about a veteran broadcaster. We should wait to see what secondary sources (and news reporting is not a secondary source) say about him, and then follow those. What we should not do is pander to anyone who thinks that perversion is an editorial criterion for consideration in a BLP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a danger there of overcompensating in the face of bombast. The end of the first paragraph ("...from 2003 to 2023") does, to me, read oddly. It hangs heavily, as though no one wants to mention what happened. It cries out for a continuation along the lines of "...when he resigned because...". I think it may be over-scrupulous to resist the overwhelming mainstream opinion that it's finished him and in a way that will define him. DeCausa (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about "until his resignation in 2023"? That makes it clear there is a resignation, and the natural flow therefore would expect that to be expanded in a following paragraph, which it is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But he didn't resign in 2023. He left the BBC "on medical advice" in April 2024. One of the notable features of this saga is the Mexican standoff that occurred between Edwards and the BBC after the July 2023 allegations in The Sun. The BBC didn't want to sack him and Edwards didn't want to resign. So the stalemate continued for around ten months with Edwards suspended on full pay, which is now controversial and the BBC wants over £200,000 of his salary back.[1]--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC are on record as saying he would have been dismissed if he had been employed when he was charged. He was arrested last Autumn and he did in fact resign[2] (whether or not it was on medical advice, it was still a resignation) prior to being charged. I would suggest that that all translates into a sentence at the end of the first paragraph saying "He resigned from the BBC in 2024 during a police investigation into child pornography offences for which he was subsequently convicted". DeCausa (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph has got perhaps some unnecessary detail. What about:
In July 2023, Edwards was suspended by the BBC following allegations of sexual misconduct made in The Sun. A police investigation found no evidence of criminal misconduct concerning those allegations. However, other evidence obtained during the investigation led to Edwards being prosecuted for accessing indecent images of children. He pleaded guilty at his trial in July 2023 and will be sentenced in September.
Not quite, because the police said that the arrest and prosecution of Alex Williams was a separate matter. It appears that it had nothing directly to do with the July 2023 allegations in The Sun.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could say "other unrelated evidence" and "during a separate investigation" but I wasn't quite sure if the latter was right. It was the Met rather than S. Wales police so I guess it must have been technically a separate investigation. DeCausa (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was described as an "entirely unrelated investigation".[3] This makes sense, because the police had said in July 2023 that Edwards had done nothing illegal. This BBC News article says "8 November 2023: Edwards is arrested after a phone seized during an unrelated investigation reveals his participation in the WhatsApp exchanges with Williams".--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've only had one bit of vandalism since the expiry, which was immediately reverted by ClueBot. I don't think there's justification for further protection at this time but we'll keep an eye on it. WaggersTALK09:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, it will probably be a suspended sentence. The BBC source says quite plainly: "He was charged last month and could now face a jail sentence." But then they would, wouldn't they. Perhaps he'll get community service. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good thought. Although we can set an expiry time when we protect a page, we can't set a start time - i.e. we can't schedule it in advance. Worth reading WP:NO-PREEMPT - we only protect in response to disruption, not as a pre-emptive measure. In that respect, protection is the opposite of blocking, which should only ever be preventative and never punitive. WaggersTALK13:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder if the BBC will get back the 10 months of salary? About £397,916 by my reckoning (or the cost of my licence fee for the next 2,469 years). Gosh you could almost pay for a real TV channel with that, couldn't you. But all WP:CRYSTAL at the moment of course. So we can't even mention it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit: It's theoretically possible that Edwards could go to prison, but Alex Williams received a 12 month suspended sentence for having the same material and Edwards probably will too, as it is a first offence with a guilty plea. The prisons are also so full at the moment that even when a judge wanted to send this person to prison, his hands were tied by the current sentencing guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)14:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
