Talk:Rolf Harris

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Opening sentence flawed

Someone reading the MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE would gain the impression that, at the end of his career, Rolf Harris degenerated into a dirty old man (cue stereo type). Only by reading past that and deep into other paragraphs does it start to become apparent that this conduct was going on through out his career. This needs to be clear.

Current news articles are blunt, opens with the sentence "convicted paedophile and disgraced entertainer Rolf Harris" and has "disgraced entertainer Rolf Harris". Both of these cite yet another alleged sexual assault from 1982 where Rolf Harris attended a kids camp as an entertainer . @Rodericksilly pointed to a BBC article pointing to the oldest event in 1968. That is a very long history of behaviour.

Hence my edit to reduce MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE to simply "Rolf Harris was a convicted paedophile and disgraced entertainer".

Cagneya (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You say "this conduct was going on through out his career"? But where is the evidence for that? His first convictions were for events in the 1980s? Also not sure why any article should be influenced by "current news articles" - isn't that just popular WP:RECENTISM? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It's clear by now that some people are never going to be happy unless the opening sentence says "he was chiefly notable for being a paedo" or something along those lines. Various discussions have rejected this, because it was his career as an entertainer that made the sex offence convictions notable, not the other way round. This is how a WP:LEAD is written, it is not a news article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm also not sure why folks assume that readers are reluctant, or even incapable of reading past the first sentence. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not just a random post on Twitter? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank goodness it's not just me feeling this way. I reverted the edits (from Cagneya this morning because it was clearly contrary to the current consensus; i'm glad that i am not alone in both seeing that consensus and upholding it. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Criminal summary in the infobox

In this edit [1] a user has reverted in the Criminal charges, Criminal penalty and Criminal status lines in the infobox person summary of Harris. I had removed these because Template:Infobox criminal says of that template:

This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. It is also appropriately used in Nolle prosequi cases of perpetrators dying during the commission of the act or shortly thereafter, common in a suicide attack or murder–suicide. Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal.

But, of course, we are not using that template, a point made by Khiikiat in their reversion. We are just using the same three lines that have been included into the generic infobox person. And as that editor says, why are those there if we can't use them? But equally, just because we have them does not mean we should use them. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says:

The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

I think these three lines are out of proportion here. Harris was well known prior to conviction, and although the conviction is key information, and part of his legacy, I think that using these three entries straight out of the criminal infobox runs counter to the advice in the criminal infobox. One third of the space in the infobox is consumed by these. Why do we have these? Perhaps for BLP1Es where crime is the primary subject of the page, but the criminal does not meet the infobox criminal threshold. But a single line summary would be better, or we could rely on the very full coverage in the lead and on the page. Is there a good reason this needs to be summarised in an infobox? Is there a more succinct summary of the key facts that we could use here? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I would agree to some kind of summary indication of convictions in the infobox, as these were serious charges after all, not just driving offences or breach of lockdown infringements. But that's why those parameters exist? As for the distinction between types of infobox used, I think it means very little to the reader. As one of Manchester's finest political commentators once said, "Heavy words are so lightly thrown"... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

p.s. "BLP1Es where crime is the primary subject of the page"... don't they use Infobox:criminal? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Not if they do not meet the definition quoted above. For instance someone who causes a notable case of death by dangerous driving. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)