Talk:Huw Edwards

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Huw Edwards article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Huw Edwards. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Huw Edwards at the Reference desk.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment 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 supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). BBC Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Wales Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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: July 9 to 15, 2023

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]

Yes, I was thinking about this and it should probably be in the opening paragraph, but not the opening sentence. For example, Rolf Harris has a similar consensus after discussion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 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]

I'm pretty sure that this is similar to Rolf Harris and will pass WP:10YT easily.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:20, 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. WaggersTALK 08:23, 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]

Please read and understand WP:NPA. Your attitude isn't helping your case. --Ef80 (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone beyond that - DeLurve is blocked indef blocked yesterday. WaggersTALK 10:16, 6 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. WaggersTALK 10:17, 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]

Agreed. The first paragraph - in fact the whole lead - is looking pretty much spot on now, I think. WaggersTALK 09:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't noticed it had been added a few days ago. I think the paragraph works and is reasonable. DeCausa (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that we now say something twice in the lead. Once in the first paragraph and then again in the last sentence. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:25, 12 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.

I think that would deal with any duplication. DeCausa (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Do we know for sure that the evidence was found during that investigation? Deb (talk) 12:23, 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]

Another thought: the conviction really overshadows the Sun allegations now. I wonder if they are even lead-worthy now? DeCausa (talk) 12:42, 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]

I think this page should be locked for a while because I think there will be edits which will cross the line.81.152.247.155 (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

50-50 on this. The previous semi-protection expired on 1 September, but if there are any more silly edits it should be protected again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:20, 6 September 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. WaggersTALK 09:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's next due to appear in court on 16 September, when he will be sentenced. So prepare to batten down the hatches a week on Monday? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 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. WaggersTALK 13:42, 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]

Hands were tied, lol. Poor Huw, it's no fun being a famous news anchor. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is all a bit WP:FORUMy, let's keep discussion to the article itself, not to what might or might not happen. WaggersTALK 08:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Carol Vorderman be mentioned? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT problems. Clearly some BBC staff are annoyed that Edwards was not sacked (unlike Jermaine Jenas who did nothing illegal). --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May deserve a mention at Carol Vorderman? And she's also Welsh! Clearly some TV-licence-payers are also annoyed.... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC has said that Edwards has not returned the £200,000 salary that it wanted him to give back.[4][5] Not sure if this is notable enough for the article in this form.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Tim Davie, appearing at the House of Lords communications and digital committee, also admitted that if Edwards fails to return the hundreds of thousands of pounds, securing its return through legal means would be difficult." He speculates on BBC taking a "more muscular" approach to suspended staff pay in future. So maybe a rocking suspension bridge using pugil sticks will help the Saturday evening viewing figures? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting this discussion here before we get the inevitable mug shot added given its been released by the police a few moments ago after his sentencing. Personally I do not think it is needed because I feel that it would not add much to the article as a Crown Copyright fair use image given we already have plenty of CC and freely licenced pictures of him on the page. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree. Most people will already know what he looks like. His appearance in the mugshot is not radically different. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree. I don't see that the mug shot adds anything to an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although, yes, he's not smiling in that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some good news for Edwards today: UK police mugshots are copyrighted and so are not added to a Wikipedia article without a good reason that meets WP:NFCC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it cuts off the top of his head! Why would we want to use it? DeCausa (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - not all versions do. DeCausa (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to add it. Cut off head, or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and no £200,000 fine. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last month we had a discussion around whether the article should use the legal phrase "making indecent images of children" - which in common, non-legal understanding implies Edwards would have created the original images himself - or a more easily understood phrasing that indicates the actual nature of his offense - soliciting, receiving and keeping copies of the images. The discussion can be found at Talk:Huw_Edwards/Archive_2#Clarification_of_the_"making"_crime and the consensus was that we should use plain English, not the legal phrase. The discussion includes a number of verifiable sources that either discuss this matter, or use a phrase other than "making" when mentioning what Edwards was charged with.

I notice there's currently a bit of an edit war going on between @Martinevans123 and @Defacto about this very issue. As far as I'm aware, the consensus hasn't changed - and very likely isn't going to change - that we should use plain English, rather than the legal name of the offence, in the lead. WaggersTALK 12:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, was unaware. No objections. But explanations of what applies in this case are easily found. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't worried about the legal phrase being used, I didn't change it one way or the other, I was only concerned about whether the parenthesised re-interpretation of it was reliably sourced. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]