Talk:Rolf Harris/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sensitivity and calm

G'day all - this is just a quick note to ask for sensitivity and calmness in the approach to this page - there have been a bunch of hidden revisions, and I can see page protection also in the last few weeks and months - please be careful with sources you link to - it's not at all clear to me at this point how we might best deal with recent developments, but I'm sure we'll get there if we're take it nice and slow :-) Privatemusings (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

To add, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons requires that any material about living people be supported by reliable sources. Repeating rumours is seriously unhelpful, and may lead to your account being blocked from editing. Nick-D (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's just hope no one Googles 'Rolf Harris' - this Wikipedia page is currently number 2 ! - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I won't add anything to the article (yet), but it is now widely reported in Australia, that is by reliable sources, that The Sun has named him. [1] Mark Hurd (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The real issue is how notable an arrest is in its own right. The main purpose of arresting a person in the UK is to ensure that the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are met. It does not necessarily mean that the person is guilty, or that they will subsequently be charged. This leads to a WP:BLPCRIME issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Tell me why the page does not need to be updated. Rolf Harris has been named in the UK sex inquiry, as the sun rightfully shows The Allegations prove that he was quizzed and named over it. The page needs to be updated to show what happened.Springyboy (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the naming of Harris in prominent British media - the Mail now as well - is something of a gamechanger. But, we need to use better sources when we are able to. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW The headline is still there but that story "does not exist or is no longer available". Mark Hurd (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree with this being an issue of notability, I think it should be mentioned because none of the provisos at WP:BLPCRIME, or where that leads, are active: He's clearly not "relatively unknown", and we're not considering a separate article, either for the alleged criminal or the crime. Mark Hurd (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

As things stand, neither the Sun nor - usually - the Mail are considered reliable sources. If, say, the BBC, Guardian, Independent, etc., report something, we should include a brief update here and at articles more specifically linked to the inquiry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Rolf Harris questioned in Yewtree sex offence probe, BBC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.246.33 (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Ask and ye shall receive. As someone who was keeping the non-reliably sourced info out previously, cant really argue with the current reporting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Given the sensitivity of this, I think we need to wait a bit longer. The ABC News article states that he hasn't been identified by the police, and that they have been unable to "independently verify" the allegations. It is effectively saying that he was named in the media, but nto that he was necessarily charged. The BBC coverage is better, but I'm finding the wording a bit ambiguous, only because it seems to be reporting that he was named by the Sun. It is also possible that they are making an independent claim, which would be good, but we need to distinguish between reports saying "Harris was questioned and charged" as opposed to reports saying "Harris was named as being questioned and charged". If the BBC is making an independent claim then I see value in running with it, but not if it is trying to report on the Sun's claims. - Bilby (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything ambiguous in the BBC's wording. They say that he was "questioned by police over historical allegations of sexual offences... was interviewed under caution... " They go on to say that his name was not reported prior to the Sun today, but the wording makes quite clear that they are now reporting it independently of the Sun, based on what they and other media have known for months. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the BBC is very explicit, and appears to be based on its own sources. As such, this now belongs in the article, though as others have noted WP:BLPCRIME applies (as, of course, does WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV). Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw the BBC one as viable, but thought it needed to be raised. If it is clear that it is independent then I'm happy to go with consensus - my worry was largely the ABC, and the risk of people reporting "the Sun said", which I saw as a genuine risk. - Bilby (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

was just about to make the point that Ghmyrtle just made. The horse has not only bolted, but the team of people assigned to clean out the stable have completed their allotted tasks and are currently making their way to the local for a refreshing beverage. The first line of the BBC report is "Rolf Harris has been questioned by police over historical allegations of sexual offences." It doesn't get any less ambiguous. Thepm (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The main issue previously was that the Australian news sources were (that I and others could see) ultimately sourced to a tweet (that was subsequently deleted) and a non-reliable editorial/newsblog. The Sun & BBC are obviously (given his notability) unlikely to use that as a source for an article. Especially given the current climate in the wake of the recent media backlash. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that this was the main issue in the past. My concern was that the Sun isn't regarded as a reliable source, so reliable sources reporting that "The Sun said ..." are correct, but aren't, on their own, saying that what the Sun said was accurate. So when I looked at what was added and saw the ABC report saying "The Sun said, but we can't confirm..." I felt it was worth reverting and bringing here. It is clear than the BBC report is independent of the Sun, though, and appears to be using the Sun's coverage to justify their own, in which case I have no problems with the decision to include the content. That said, I'd rather be overly cautious than not cautious enough. :) - Bilby (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely - if it was a less reputable news source than the BBC (or equivalent) I'd be arguing against including this material. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Its interesting that discussions on listing clergy convicted of abuse that there have some editors relucant to include that information on the basis that "its the worst label anyone can place on another person" but Harris is only questioned and the entry seems to have consensus. I'm not sure I agree with the entry being there, regardless of the fact that everyone knows about the investigation. In the absence of a clear accusation by police that can be defended i'm uncomfortable with the Yewtree entry. FlatOut 07:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Allegations not linked to Savile and denied

Should we mention that, despite being part of the same investigation, they are not linked to Savile, and that he denies the charges as reported here? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Defiantly - and it's really important that this is noted, so I've just dropped it in. Other editors should feel free to change what I've written though. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that Operation Yewtree is not wholly related to Savile - it covers allegations relating to other persons as well as those relating to, or directly linked to, Savile. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: I've changed the wording. It's true that Harris is understood to strongly deny the allegations, but also true that he has made no public comment. So, both those statements need to be referenced, as I've now done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The sentence "The allegations against him are not directly related to those made against Jimmy Savile" needs revising in my opinion. In fact, The allegations against Harris are not related to those made against Savile. This is an important distinction. The connection is the police operation, not the allegations. FlatOut 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This is of course an evolving story. His convictions - no longer allegations, as he is guilty - are not linked to Savile. However, further allegations which are linked to Savile have been reported in the Daily Telegraph and other newspapers. In any revision, it might be prudent to take care at the moment not to imply an absence of any link to Savile (to state very clearly that his current convictions are not linked to Savile is of course fine).Alrewas (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick note

this is one of those odd occasions when the info. that rolf harris had been arrested was in the public domain for many months, but for various reasons not reported. I popped in a while ago having read peter fitzsimons opinion piece in the herald, and of course derryn hinch's tweet - I wouldn't mind if someone could grab those links from the deleted revisions? - to my mind they're part of the background to current developments, and I think they may be of interest (I referred, I believe, initially to the concept of the wiki as a palimpsest as user:wittylama calls it - be good to unscrub those particular references if at all possible :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have unhidden all of the talk page edits, other than those from nasty vandalism-only accounts. Worth noting that some of those comments used http://www.auroranews.co.uk as a source, and it has gone offline, and I cant find archives to determine the quality of that source. The other sources used were not brilliant, but now they can be seen and discussed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw it at the time. It wouldn't qualify as a reliable source ever. However they were basically just reporting someone else tweeting about it. I think the original tweet is still archived somewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Arrested but not charged

Do we have a page which explains the 'arrested but not charged' stage in the UK (criminal charge is useless). I'm guessing that this differs wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, esp. in regards to which stage a record will exist, and whether a charge is required before he the May court date. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably best we have. See section titled 'Detention after Arrest'. Essentially you can be arrested without charge, but you have to be charged very quick or be released. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Accused, never charged

Thinking ahead... what happens if there are never any charges? Does the entry regarding arrest stay along with all that brings in terms of damaged reputation, or will the yewtree section be deleted? My view is that if there are no charges brought the process leading to that decision is irrelevant and the section should be deleted. FlatOut 13:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

This is in the news today, and it makes for depressing reading. It shows that some people have not understood the difference between being arrested and being charged. The Wikipedia article has little choice but to report the media coverage about Operation Yewtree.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

My question is, what if charges are never laid or if the police call off the investigation? Should the Yewtree entry remain if charges are never laid? FlatOut 07:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This is in the realms of WP:CRYSTAL at the moment. If the police decided that no charges would be brought, as happened with Wilfred De'ath, the article should state simply that he was not charged.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Call off the investigation?? You must be joking. The Australian police are now investigating his Australian crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.34.234 (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong on two counts: there are no "Australian crimes", and it is the British police visiting Australia who are asking questions. WWGB (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

He's just been arrested over more crimes. It's all coming out now, and no doubt, more to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.37.48 (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper coverage

There is some interesting newspaper coverage today:

• Independent
• Guardian
• Sun

All of the articles point out that the interview under caution in November 2012 had been an open secret in Fleet Street and on social media websites for months. The Sun says that London law firm Harbottle & Lewis threatened it and other newspapers with legal action citing the Leveson Report, and argues that this created an inconsistency with the arrest of other celebrities in Operation Yewtree which have been openly reported.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think the key difference there is that the other celebrities were mostly arrested/charged fairly quickly. In this case there was a long gap between a formal interview under caution and an actual arrest. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

British police travel to Australia

British police travel half-way around world to interview Australian woman about Harris. Wikipedia editor says not significant enough for this article. Opinions? WWGB (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Its on the record that he has been questioned, arrested, and that there are allegations of sexual abuse. Someone being interviewed doesn't add any more to the article unless charges are laid as a result. cheers FlatOut 11:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Marginal either way, I feel. It's clearly been reported in multiple sources, but they don't add anything very significant. Do those wanting material included ever consider the possibility that the chances of it being retained would be greatly enhanced if they could be bothered to format their citations properly? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If your comment is directed at me, I am very familiar with citation format. WWGB (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No it wasn't (except insofar as I don't understand why all the "Read more.." stuff was included) - it was aimed at others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

the "read more" was likely just some auto text that came along when someone copied and pasted content from the source and got included by accident because the paster didnt realize that the source page pushed more than what they had selected.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The interview was not of another complainant but of someone who claims to be a witness. FlatOut 12:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really important enough for inclusion, and has WP:NOTNEWSPAPER issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

PAW

There have been some edits and the article was tagged with PAW template by Rmuney. I have created this section for discussion so as to avoid edit warring. Current consensus is that the PAWS project does not apply in the absence of charges and/or conviction. It is hard to know if PAW applies as the project has no scope. Be careful of defamatory edits. FlatOut 02:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Some specific allegations against Rolf Harris have been aired in the reliable media in the past few days. WP:BLPCRIME applies, and unless he is charged, the article should steer clear of mentioning or discussing them. The PAW template is clearly inappropriate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:BLPCRIME is that it applies to previously non-notable people who are accused of crimes, not to previously notable people. If that is not correct, the guidance needs to be clarified. But I agree that we should be very cautious about including any such allegations here, and certainly avoid categorising him in relation to any allegations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

To be specific (which we might as well be now), two women have given interviews to the media in which they named Harris. Since he has not been charged or convicted, it is hard to tell what the outcome of these allegations might be. Since these were apparently paid interviews with an Australian magazine and a TV station, concerns have been expressed that they might have prejudiced the outcome of a trial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No policy against including it unfortunately, BLPCRIME doesnt apply due to his current and past notability. If reliable sources have discussed it... However I think this is a case where editorial judgement should be exercised. We dont need every salacious detail. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The article states that he is alleged to have been involved in sexual abuse, that hasn't changed. The alleged, prejudicial, and untested detail of those allegations is not covered by BLP:CRIME but is not significant enough for WP:BLP. FlatOut 13:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

August 2013 re-arrest

Just for the record, reliable sources such as www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23581847 simply refer to "sexual offences". No mention is made of children. I advise extreme caution on this issue. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Current sources now give more details. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME still applies here, but there is now more detail on what the charges are.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Status of charges inconsistent

Now that Ghmyrtle has referenced the lead sentence that Harris has been charged, when the article says he is to be charged one of these statements is not correct. Note that the lead is supposed to summarise whats in the body of the article Flat Out let's discuss it 12:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The CPS said he was to be charged; the police then charged him. Both are correct, but I've removed the apparent inconsistency. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The radio is specifically saying he has never commented on the charges. Are we sure the source that says he did is true? --94.174.216.104 (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The article does not say that he has commented on the charges. It says he "previously denied any wrongdoing" - source here -which is not the same thing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Choppy

The article is pretty choppy. Harris seems to have pursued careers in art, music and broadcasting - often all three simultaneously - and there is a fair degree of overlap and duplication. Two different sections refer to Rolf Harris discography as their main article. Thoughts on re-arranging the tangle? --Pete (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I would wait until his trial is well out of the way first, as we can only really determine how much space it should take up when it's all over. In terms of his professional career, I would do it chronologically by decade, as it spans all sorts of media. His Animal Hospital work comes later, but it happened concurrently with his return to the charts, and appearances at Glastonbury and in front of the Queen. <foznt color="#7F007F">Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. Anything else is just going to be a tangle. Perhaps a few decades could be run together. 70s and 80s, perhaps. Large chunks of his career seem to be "more of the same". --Pete (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Choppy" is a suitable term for the article. I have revised a lot of the content to make it more orderly, including the merging of single sentence "paragraphs". It is still a work-in-progress though.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This is still a problem. The article is heavily viewed at the moment. It needs a comprehensive rewrite. Or, if no-one is willing to do that, at least a good copy-edit, merging of paragraphs, etc.. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Trial

In its report of Harris' trial in the "Trial" section Wikipedia is behaving like a newspaper, not an encylopaedia, at prurient "Daily Mail" level, too. Why can it not wait until the trial is over and judgment and sentence have been delivered? The first sentence is enough in this section in the meantime. I fully expect someone to come back with arguments justifying the reporting of this trial in Wikipedia before the case is determined and I look forward to reading them. -- P123ct1 (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 - I agree with you completely. I've removed the recentism and undue content. HiLo48 (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Can't the page be semi-protected until the trial is over? That at least would bring to an stop the endless anon edits of widely varying quality.Nickm57 (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, when I said more or less the same thing on the Max Clifford Talk page during his trial, I was mown down with editors' comments criticizing my attitude and justifying the exact thing I am criticizing here! In fact, I posted my comment here as much to see what response it would get, although I do believe Wikipedia must behave responsibly in these circumstances, and I am glad some people can see sense! -- P123ct1 (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Tone

Instead of continuing with the very lengthy first topic on this Talk page, I will just include this brief section on tone, as I have attempted to neutralize an article that appeared to be compensating for Harris in light of the sexual abuse accusations against him. I am continuing to work on the page and will look at the "Trial" section next, as I wish to contribute to an article that neither promotes nor condemns him.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The tagging added in this edit was removed because overall there do not seem to be huge problems with the tone or the sourcing in the article. Tagging should be a last resort for articles in urgent need of a cleanup, not a call for routine editing fixes. Wikipedia is a work in progress.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Arithmetically challenged contributor / editors?

"arrested and charged with twelve counts of... and four of... ... ... found guilty of all twelve charges"

12 + 4 = 12 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.78.33 (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The other four counts were for making indecent images of children. The verdict for these is not yet given in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Australian

It is interesting/odd that he has gone from being accurately described as being Australia, to "Australian born, British based" when the allegations came out. Wikipedia isn't an outlet for certain nationalities to try and distance themselves from a "celebrity" when their reputations are tarnished. 92.8.17.41 (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What do the supporting sources actually say? Do you have any new ones? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously he was born in Australia, but also obviously he has spent most of his career in the UK. His trial was in the UK. Most of the offences were in the UK. He will (likely) be imprisoned in the UK. I see nothing wrong with "Australian born, British based". HiLo48 (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This one has run and run. I raised it before the criminal allegations came to light, that as a person born in Australia to British-born parents, he would have both Australian and British citizenship, unless he explicitly surrendered one citizenship - of course, this may have happened, but it would seem unlikely. Having dual nationality would also explain why there was no mention of Australian diplomatic involvement after he was arrested, as a dual citizen can't receive diplomatic assistance from one if his countries when arrested in the other. I'm not going to pursue it any further, because it seems people will keep changing this whatever is discussed on the talk page, but just throwing these thoughts out there.Eggybacon (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Honours being rescinded

There's an OTRS ticket (2014070110020268) which is in essence an emailed edit request on behalf of the University of East London. They are suggesting the following modification:

Harris has received two honorary doctorates from the University of East London in 2007 and Liverpool Hope University in 2010.[106]. University of East London has rescinded his honorary as of 30 June 2014.

I'm not going to make this change, as I think we would normally wait for the formal announcement. Also, I'm not sure how we should handle this, as most of his honours will probably be rescinded in due course. Perhaps we should add an introductory sentence to the section along the lines of:

Prior to the trial, Harris received a number of awards and honours. Following his conviction, many of these were rescinded.

PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the University of East London should publish a formal statement on its website which can be linked, or reported by other sources. There is still some WP:CRYSTAL with the remaining honours, although it is likely that they will be rescinded at some point.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like he has been stripped of his position in the ARIA Hall of Fame, his BAFTA fellowship, his school is removing his art from their walls, and several other institutes look like they are viewing options.[2] [3]. The University of East London seem to be removing mention of him from their website. Martin451 20:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Guardian ref [4] for stripping of his UEL honour. Martin451 18:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely we're now at the stage where rather than reading "many of these honours" etc, it should read "all of these honours bar" - insert the names of any exceptions. There can't be many - so far as I can see the entry itself doesn't list any except ones like "best=selling" which are records of achievement, rather than honours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.40.28 (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have reference for "all except ..."? Without a reference, it's WP:OR/WP:SYN. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Broken links

{{edit protected}} There are 2 broken links in the external links section that should be removed please. (if there are broken links in the references they're meant to be tagged and ideally fixed but if they're in the external links section Wikipedia:External links#Longevity of links they're not meant to be tagged: fixed or removed. in this case it's likely those webpages have been shutdown rather than relocated, because of the convictions.) thx Tom B (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a generous archive of rolfharris.com on the Wayback Machine, going back to November 1999. The wobble board page is archived here. Gone but not forgotten.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Abbott comment

"Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said he was "gutted and dismayed" after veteran entertainer Rolf Harris was convicted on 12 counts of indecently assaulting girls, calling it a tragic case." [5]. Should this be added? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Does this increase the reader's understanding of the subject? There's nothing particularly remarkable about the PM's reaction, which is probably true of most residents of Australia and the United Kingdom. Sounds like an obligatory media release to me. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I must admit I'm not sure how it qualifies as "tragic". But it would tie the article more firmly to Harris's nationality (to the delight of some, I guess). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A tragedy for the women in the action and Harris in the process and result. And for his wider family and beyond that his many fans from childhood. There is nothing positive for anyone in the totality of the situation, except possibly for the legal system.

But having said that, I don't see how Abbott's statement adds much to the article. As noted by Dwpaul, it's typical of a great number of people. Harris is identified as Australian in the article, and likewise his influence and connections are noted. The Australian PM doesn't trump the Queen, who would likely express her disappointment in more genteel language. --Pete (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly tragic for those people, yes. But "a tragic case" sounded to me too much like it was a tragedy for Harris. I'm sure any comment by the Queen, on a criminal case of this kind, would be wholly unexpected and unprecedented. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A tragedy for Harris is still a tragedy. I'd read the word "case" as either applying to the entirety of the crime, victims included, or as a description of Harris as "a tragic case". Both true. If the intent is to link Harris to his Australian nationality, we already do that in the article. Likewise that he is known amongst the rich and powerful. I can't say that I care much either way. Abbott's statement sounds like it is carefully phrased to avoid offence, so it's not really adding anything. If he was leading a national fervour of outrage or support, maybe, but hell, this reaction is exactly what one would expect from a politician. --Pete (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

New allegations

Some WP:NOTAFORUM issues in this thread; please try to stay on topic for improving the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Rolf Harris could potentially face new charges following his conviction for 12 indecent assaults on young women and girls after a series of other alleged victims contacted police and charities, prosecutors have said." [6]. Should this be mentioned? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Crystalballery. Wait till it happens. If it happens. --Pete (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Well, according to BBC News, it's a fact that 13 new women have now made allegations. But I tend to agree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Well, Mum, I guess your old saw of "The Devil finds work for idle hands" has been proven false. RH doesn't seem to have had an idle moment since he began. --Pete (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Haha. But I think it's more complex. Like Savile, he's done his fair share for charity. Unlike Savile, the man is obviously very talented - in both music-making and the visual arts. He even, very ironically, put his name to a campaign to protect children - which may well have had benefited some at the time. Perhaps that is part of Abbott's "tragedy" (see above). Personally I would not object if mention was made of the new allegations. The judge is already considering a long prison sentence, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC) In fact what the judge, Mr Justice Sweeney, said was that a jail term was "uppermost in the court's mind": [7] His unconditional bail means Harris is not considered as being dangerous or likely to abscond. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Double haha. I wonder if our Rolf was the inspiration for the brother of Barry Humphries' alter ego Sir Les Patterson. Father Gerard Patterson is a Catholic priest who wears a "correctional ankle bracelet", is a "vagina decliner", and is said to have "touched every one he ever met" (not necessarily in a good way). The parallels are spookily eerie and eerily spooky. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC) "Crystalballery". I like it. Can I use it? Dwpaul Talk 19:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) @Menfolk. "Haha"? Abuse of women and children should not be a laughing matter.Alrewas (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite needed?

Please respect WP:NOTAFORUM.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Will we ever see this for Rolf?

I think much of this is going to have to be rewritten in the past tense. His career is over, and he won't be living at Bray for awhile after Friday, if at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VennerRoad (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You have, I think, a keen grasp of the obvious. However, most of the article is already written in the past tense, and the few things that aren't will be amended over time. He is still a beloved icon to many, and it is not appropriate to apply revisionist techniques to reduce his past accomplishments to an epitaph. Dwpaul ^Talk

Please respect WP:NOTAFORUM.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree. Unfortunately most people don't, including our masters. He is already being purged in typical Stalinist fashion. For the record I don't believe any of the garbage that was spouted in that trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VennerRoad (talk • contribs) 16:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I have been hesitant to express my opinion, but others on the internet have shared it - yes, I think he has been stitched up and I don't personally believe he's been any more inappropriate than Michael Jackson. Nevertheless, if broadsheet newspapers print that he is charged and jailed, it must go into the article in a factual manner, citing those papers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Some fans of Harris refuse to accept his guilt - this happens in many cases where a celebrity is accused/convicted of a crime. The more fans a celebrity has, the more support he will receive from people who stick to the position of 'he's a great man, hence he must be innocent'. What Harris did is similar to what millions of people believe Michael Jackson did, the difference being that Jackson wasn't convicted. Saying that Harris is no worse than Jackson was doesn't make Harris sound innocent. Jim Michael (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Like the hatted section above, this section also has some WP:NOTAFORUM issues. Let's stay on topic for improving the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Anybody concerned about suggestions of impropriety on the part of prosecution witnesses made on here, can address those concerns to the Abuse Team at Slater and Gordon Lawyers, London.Alrewas (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 July 2014

• fix markup:
  • | alma_mater = [[Edith Cowan University]]<br>[[University of Western Australia]]
  • | alma_mater = [[Edith Cowan University]]<br/>[[University of Western Australia]]
• scalable ref cols (to aid whitespace, in line with so many refs - per accepted style in template doc):
  • {{Reflist|2}}
  • {{Reflist|30em}}

Widefox; talk 18:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The first change is unnecessary - Wikipedia serves HTML 5, where both <br> and <br /> are acceptable (under XHTML, only <br /> was permissible); the second change is contentious: more than one editor is occasionally being reverted for making exactly that change. That is not to say I don't agree with it, but I would only alter it if the article were not full-prot and I was making some other desirable change at the same time. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

2. OK, I hadn't checked. 1. agree. The issue is actually with Syntax highlighter which needs XML for performance reasons. As both are valid, there's utility in <br />. Widefox; talk 08:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Alma mater

My interest would be more in removing the term "alma mater" entirely. It's a term that's never used when discussing Australians, and I don't think it's used much for British folk either. Just a normal case of the inevitable American systemic bias in Wikipedia. Also, given that Edith Cowan University has only existed since 1991, I'm wondering when Harris was a student there. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Harris ... later gaining a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Western Australia and a Diploma of Education from Claremont Teachers' College (now Edith Cowan University)." So, if anything, his second "Alma Mata" should be given as Claremont Teachers College? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Thanks. He certainly won't have a piece of paper saying he gained his Dip Ed at Edith Cowan. It will obviously say "Claremont Teachers' College". And I still don't like alma mater for an Australian. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"(plural = almae matres or alma maters)"? But I'm not sure Edith would want to know Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove categories

Delete two categories: Category:ARIA Award winners, Category:ARIA Hall of Fame inductees.

1. Harris' ARIA Hall of Fame award was withdrawn by ARIA CEO, Dan Rosen on 1 July, see here.
2. This article already has After being found guilty, the Australian Recording Industry Association removed him from the ARIA Hall of Fame but uses a different reference.
3. The ARIA website no longer lists Harris as a Hall of Fame inductee, here.
4. The site only leaves his 1994 nomination for Best Comedy Release for Rolf Rules OK, here.
5. The first category is contingent upon the latter category only, Harris never won any separate ARIA Awards.

In summary, the article already has sufficient information to remove the second category. With the aditional information supplied above both categories can be removed.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 July 2014

It has been announced that Rolf Harris will not stand trial over the allegations of downloading indecent images of children, so I would like to include the reference from the BBC News website concerning this. Samuel J Walker (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

 Doing... Adding this to the article. Dwpaul ^Talk 11:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Alas, can't do as the article is still protected allowing only admins to edit. But they are requested to see the link above, and the last section of that BBC article, "Images". Dwpaul ^Talk 11:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've asked User:GrahamColm to reconsider the level of protection. If not, it can be raised at WP:RFRPL. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: As he has not edited for almost three days, I'll raise it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Now sentenced

Sentence to five years and nine months: [8] Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

For updating the lede etc:

• Rolf Harris jailed for five years nine months for indecently assaulting girls
• Rolf Harris viewed websites of indecent images of children: "The Crown Prosecution Service will, in the wake of the other convictions, no longer proceed with the indecent images charges, prosecution QC Sasha Wass told the court on Friday."

Downwoody (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Abuse victim 2005 letter to the Queen

Is this item notable: [9]? The painting was the subject of a television programme at the time. A BBC spokesperson is now reported as saying: "The BBC does not have this painting in its collection." There is now quite a lot of material in the media about his art work, including this about eBay. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Trial section

Now that sentence has been handed down the obvious priority should be expanding the Trial section of the article. Downwoody (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

How much more detail is required? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely a breakdown of the charges, the verdicts and the sentences? Bromley86 (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

We may need to qualify how long he will spend in jail

The ABC is telling me that "The 84-year-old will not spend the entire sentence behind bars, with Justice Sweeney announcing half the sentence will be non-custodial." See here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Harris has been sentenced to 5 years 9 months in prison. After half that sentence (2 years 8.5 months) Harris will be entitled to a parole hearing for early release. A parole committee will meet and discuss his case, and decide whether he is suitable for release, or whether he should stay in prison. That decision is based upon the behaviour of Harris in prison, whether he has remorse, the recommendation of the sentencing judge, his health, his likely hood to re-offend etc. Since the judge has recommended early parole, it is likely he will receive it, but not definite. His sentence of 5 years 9 months should stay in the article unless/until parole has been given. Also, if he is given parole, and goes out an re-offends, the remainder of the sentence can be reimposed.Martin451 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's the situation here. What you have written is somewhat normal in a lot of sentencing situations, and it depends on a lot of "ifs". But what I quoted from Justice Sweeney was explicit. He said "The 84-year-old will not spend the entire sentence behind bars..." and "...half the sentence will be non-custodial". No "ifs" there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that Justice Sweeney actually said Unless released earlier, you will serve half that sentence when you will be released on licence for the remainder of the sentence. Should you breach the terms of that licence, including by the commission of further offences, you will be liable to recall. MilborneOne (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What exactly did this guy do?

What exactly did this guy do? I keep reading "indecent assault", and I have looked up that definition on Wikipedia and it doesn't even have to mean contact with another person. Are we talking about Rolf Harris grabbing somebody's behind, or feeling their chest while they are fully clothed? Is that what we are talking about? That's completely unacceptable today, but it was marginal back in the 1960's. I'm just wondering what it is this guy got convicted of. Did he get convicted of 1960's conduct in a 2014 courtroom? I have no idea because all I ever read is "indecent assault". What exactly was he accused of doing? It must have been spoken of in detail in the courtroom. Thanks in advance to anybody who knows.Betathetapi545 (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, IANAL. The applicable legislation for indecent assault in the UK at the time would have been the Sexual Offences Act 1956.[10] It is interesting that quite a few people have said that what Harris did may not have been seen as extremely serious in those days, but as far as the Wikipedia article is concerned, it can only report what the courts and reliable sources have said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This article in The Guardian by Suzanne Moore looks at the "it was a different era back then" argument and rejects it. Possibly worth adding to the External links section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

He did nothing in just about 28 years .. except achieve higher and higher honours from the Queen and her viceregent in Australia. It's jealousy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyHighSelfregard (talk • contribs) 10:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The controversy over Jimmy Savile is the underlying cause of Operation Yewtree. If he is watching today, how he must be amazed by the chain of events that he has set off. Unlike Savile, who has no serious supporters today, some people have said that Rolf Harris has been found guilty of politically incorrect behaviour that would have been commonplace in the 1960s and 1970s. It is not quite that simple, as the charge sheet shows. There is some scope for the article to reflect this argument, which has been addressed by Suzanne Moore.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is the sentencing remarks by Mr. Justice Sweeney. The assaults the Judge describes are far more graphic than any description that appeared in the public media, the assaults were not just grabbing a bottom or touching a leg, they were far worse. It would appear that the jury was so appalled at Mr. Harris' abuse of Binti's friend they decided to convict him on all counts, including other some less convincing accusations, so to obtain a maximum possible custodial sentence.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sentencing-remarks-mr-j-sweeney-r-v-harris1.pdf

--Diamonddavej (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

But to answer the question, he's done nothing wrong that can be proven. However we on Wikipedia are obliged to note down such events in the most neutral of standpoints. *JoeTri10_ 13:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"He's done nothing wrong that can be proven." In that case, why do we have courts with juries? Weird comment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

All the courts have are here says and maybes. Aside from the relationship he had with the daughter of his friend (which was mutual), everything else can not specifically proven. If anyone cares to notice, this case is extremely similar to the Jackson case, if not the exactly the same. It's sick. *JoeTri10_ 22:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean "hearsay" rather than "here says". And anyway, your opinion counts for nothing, as does mine. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I never said my opinion mattered? so you can stop trying to be the Wikipedia police. *JoeTri10_ 23:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that WP:NOTAFORUM says that it's not appropriate at all to state your opinion on the court case here. All we are here to do is reflect what reliable sources say. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The hotlink police still at it I see. I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove here but your spamming up the page now and I'm being 'obliged' to answer; something I wish to do no more. Stop, Thank You *JoeTri10_ 00:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, but none of them actually answer my question, so I will restate it more bluntly: Were these "indecent assaults" all (or mostly) done through clothing?, i.e. such as grabbing some female's bottom or chest. Or did he get his hands (or some other part of his body) under the females' clothing? I still don't know. It sounds like what he did was all outside/through the female's clothing. That's still wrong, but it would make a difference to me to try to understand the sentence. But at the moment, all I know is "indecent assault". To me, "indecent assault" is a giant blur - could mean a lot of things. Does anybody know what this guy was actually accused of??? Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Diamonddavej rightly points out that the mainstream media coverage is thin on detail. The judge's sentencing remarks help to explain why this was not the storm in a teacup that some people have been claiming: "On Count 1 you indecently assaulted ‘A’ in 1969 (when she was aged 8 and you were aged 39). You did so when you made an appearance at the Leigh Park Community Centre in Havant, and she approached you for your autograph. Others were present. Taking advantage of your celebrity status, you twice put your hand up her skirt between her legs and touched her vagina over her clothing." A full transcript of the trial would be helpful, but this would have some issues with WP:PRIMARY.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Reading further into that link from Diamonddavej clearly answers Betathetapi545's question. No, it was NOT "all (or mostly) done through clothing". HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

He did not 'have a mutual relationship' with his daughter's friend, as Joetri10 claims. Harris fingered her and licked her genitalia on several occasions without her consent when she was underage. This was not merely a case of 'wandering hands'. Jim Michael (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This whole Rolf Harris thing is completely psycho. Get at least ONE THING straight guys: The prosecution never "PROVED" (in the scientific sense anyway) a single damned thing. Convincing a pack of 12 punters drawn from an electoral roll a person is guilty, does not necessarily mean he actually IS guilty. In fact there is talk of changing the law in the UK to remove child sex offence trials from the normal jury system, because of the near-impossibility of impaneling an unbiased jury. Basically we mostly have a number of women telling an almost identical story: "In full view of a large crowd, Mr Harris groped me in one way or another, and I was so traumatized that I never said anything for decades." That was basically it. Naturally there was a "chilling similarity" between the stories - and tell me, what other story could you realistically come up with if you were making it up? Asked to explain why her diary contained several positive references to Mr Harris over the subsequent years, one witness claimed she deliberately did that so nobody would suspect her traumatized state! This is basically the quality of real evidence presented. Everything else simply proved that he is a dirty old man in his 80s who can't remember things that happened over 30 years ago.

As for the Judge's "Summing up", how does he know any of that actually happened? Because the press and 12 punters selected at random couldn't wait to nail a Pedophile?

So, what happens if his appeal is successful and all the charges are quashed? Ultramince (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The prosecution did prove Harris' guilt in a legal sense. The jury found him guilty, and that's what our article says. If he is found not guilty on appeal, we will report that too. I think the wording of our article is pretty good. It reports what the court did. And it will report what any appeal court does. I also strongly recommend you read WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:BLP, and think especially about how the latter applies to your comments on the witnesses and jury members. They are very close to unacceptable, and I could, I suspect, delete your comments right now on that basis. HiLo48 (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No Child Porn was Found on Mr Harris' Computer

Of the many thousands of adult pornographic images discovered on Mr Harris' Computer following a police forensic examination, 33 images were initially suspected to involve models under the age of 18, one photo in particular appeared to involve a child under 13 years. However, the identity papers of the models in question was obtained from a Ukrainian website by Mr Harris' defence team, all models were over the age of 18. Furthermore, the websites Mr Harris visited, according to the Internet Watch Foundation, are not known for putting up illegal pictures. Therefore Mr Harris was not in possession of child porn.

"The defence argued that the charges should be thrown out after the identity cards were provided by the website companies, and prosecutors eventually decided not to pursue the counts."

Mirror News paper article (ignore the biased headline)

--Diamonddavej (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This is similar to 18 U.S.C. § 2251- Sexual Exploitation of Children (Production of child pornography), which requires the producers of pornographic material to keep records showing that the participants are over 18. The charges against Harris under the Protection of Children Act 1978 were dropped. It would have been difficult for the prosecution to show that the participants were under 18 at the time. This is mentioned in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Legal history

I changed the sub-heading Legal History as it just didnt read or look right in a biography, User:Ghmyrtle didnt like the change and reverted it. Perhaps we can agree on something better, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies - it was an accidental misclick. I support your change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. MilborneOne (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Except isn't "Arrest and prosecution" slightly out of date? Surely "Conviction" would be more to the point. DeCausa (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

OK I took it that the trial and conviction to be part of the "prosecution". MilborneOne (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"Arrest, prosecution and conviction"...  ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with that. MilborneOne (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I was just thinking of "Conviction" (for concision) - arrest and prosecution are just how you get there, but, now, being convicted of a criminal offence is the main point. DeCausa (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ages of victims as given in article

The lead says " Harris was charged with six counts of indecent assault relating to a girl aged between 15 and 16 from 1980 to 1981, and three counts of indecent assault relating to a girl aged 14 in 1986." The judge's remarks at sentencing linked above "[11] by Diamonddavej include "On Count 1 you indecently assaulted ‘A’ in 1969 (when she was aged 8 and you were aged 39). You did so when you made an appearance at the Leigh Park Community Centre in Havant, and she approached you for your autograph. Others were present. Taking advantage of your celebrity status, you twice put your hand up her skirt between her legs". On Count One, this charge, he was found guilty and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment (page 5 of document). He was convicted of indecent assault on an eight year old, why doesn't the article say so? I think it ought to.Smeat75 (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph currently in the lead is an edited-down version of the facts as they were published at the time. I agree that we need to reword it to give greater prominence to the wording in the judge's summing-up - ".. that in the period from 1969 to 1986 you were also a sex offender ‐ committing 12 offences of indecent assault on 4 victims who were variously aged between 8 and 19 at the time." Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This BBC article sets out all the counts he was convicted of, including the 8 year old. A secondary source is preferable to a primary generally. Also, there still is greater emphasis of what he was charged of rather than what he wss convicted of, both in the lead and the corresponding section. I suggest we needn't keep the recitation of what he was charged of (i.e. the detail) and just go straight to what he wss convicted of. DCausa (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the 8-year-old in Portsmouth was not on the original charge sheet in August 2013, and came forward later when Harris was mentioned in connection with Yewtree.[12]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I've tweaked the lead a little, but the section in the main text could do with checking and updating as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the 8 year old victim, the prosecution searched local news papers and other records but could find any evidence that Mr. Harris visited Leigh Park Community Centre, Havant; "The disgraced star, however, said he had been filming a TV series in the Australian outback at the time and the court heard that no evidence could be found that Mr Harris had been at the community centre."[13]. Is this worth mentioning? --Diamonddavej (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This was one of the less clear-cut allegations. It was not pinned down to a specific date, only 1968-9 when the girl was 7 or 8. According to this news story, the woman, now in her 50s, had previously made the allegation to a support group and came forward after Harris had been named in the media in connection with the other allegations. Unlike the Star Games allegation from 1978, it proved to be impossible at the trial to find a date for the Havant incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

But why does this matter? He was convicted of it (count 1). Unless there is coverage in the media that casts doubt on the conviction under that count (coverage after the verdict that is) and referring to that coverage isn't WP:UNDUE, on what basis could it go in the article? DeCausa (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My personal opinion, in the spirit of WP:IAR, is that the Havant allegation was not shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt. This is not relevant to the article, but it may be at a future date.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

OK - I was more thinking of Diamonddavej's question, for which my answer would be "definitely not". DeCausa (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Harris was a major star in 1968-9, so it is surprising that the prosecution was unable to produce any newspaper cuttings showing that he had visited Hampshire at that time. Although this does not necessarily mean that the Havant allegation is false, it does lead to a gap in the ability to prove it--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The section discussing his trial should perhaps include both the accusations from the prosecution and in balance a description of what the defence said. I have attempted this in relation to victim A. --Diamonddavej (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is not a place to rehash the trial or produce a trial by wikipedia, pending any appeal we dont need to "balance" a legal judgement just report what the findings of the court were. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The appeal, which may come from the Attorney General, over the length of the sentence, must be considered within 28 days, for possible referral to the Court of Appeal. But what bearing does this have on article content? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

None whatsoever at the moment, although it is one of the more interesting aspects of the trial. What may be worth mentioning in the article is the Star Games allegation from 1978. The accuser's memory was sketchy on this, and she believed that it was an episode of celebrity It's a Knockout in 1975.[14] In fact, it was an episode of ITV's copycat series Star Games in 1978. Harris denied visiting Cambridge at that time, and it was a video from the archives which showed that he was wrong. This, along with the 1997 letter, may have given the jury the overall impression that Harris was an unreliable or untruthful witness.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've taken out User:Diamonddavej's addition, referred to above, of the defence team's defence on victim A. As MilborneOne says, this is not the place to rehash the trial. NPOV isn't about balance between the prosecution and defence cases where there hss been a guilty verdict. The singling out of the defence argument in these circumstances is in fact a NPOV problem because it gives the impression that the verdict wss incorrect. That's fine if there is media commentary to that effect. But where that is not the case, as here, it is WP:UNDUE. NPOV is always about reflecting the balance in the sources not about having a balance between "two sides". DeCausa (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

So there was nothing wrong with what was added, provided it was matched with an equal amount relating to the prosecution case? Or are you saying that, because the verdict was guilty (on all counts), more of the prosecution case should be presented? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan King (for it is he) springs to mind here. King has vehemently denied that he met some of the accusers on the dates in question, and the It's a Knockout allegation, which turned out to be wrong by a margin of three years, shows how the memory can play tricks as time progresses. I'm surprised that the media has not questioned why the jury found the Havant allegation to be true beyond reasonable doubt, despite no contemporary records being found for it. This may come later, but at the moment Harris is Paedo of the Week and a new found national hate figure.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If and when they do, it should go in the article. But until that time comes, we shouldn'tbe doing their job for them by highlighting the defence arguments which we think cast doubt on the verdict. Also, there is a BLP issue in highlighting defence points which which could cast doubt on the truthfulness of witnesses. This is ok to do when the media, pre-verdict, are reporting "both sides" neutrally. We must reflect that. But now, this is overtaken by the verdict. The jury and, and crucially for us, the RS have come down on the side of "guilty" and NPOV dictates we must now reflect that rather than "both sides". DeCausa (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

What?! You're saying no defence material is allowed? Only material from the prosecution case? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no particular need for either. It should just say he was guilty of XYZ offences arising out of facts ABC. DeCausa (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Except that, as IanMcM points out above, with allegations like the It's a Knockout incident, some of the "facts" don't seem very convincing. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That is absolutely not our job to point that out. Whether we think the facts are not very convincing is utterly irrelevant. If after the verdict RS say that he was convicted but there's some doubt here because XYZ evidence wasn't convincing, then that could go in the article. If, however, we decide those facts are not convincing and because of that we think (absent RS saying it) it provides an alternative or additional view of the conviction, then putting them in the article is a breach of NPOV. It amounts to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. DeCausa (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

So it seems that you'd be happy for no more material to be added to the "Trial" section. This was published on 16 June: [15], saying that the prosecution case had 'unavoidable doubt'. But now he's been convicted, we can't include it yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa is correct that this has WP:RGW issues, as the mainstream media has not yet launched a "Free the Bray One" campaign. Jonathan King was denied leave to appeal over the 2001 convictions, and they still stand although he vehemently denies them. It is up to Harris whether to appeal, and it will be interesting to see whether any evidence turns up proving a visit by Harris to Hampshire in 1968-9. The jury should have seen the sketchy nature of the Havant and Cambridge charges as a worry IMHO, but this is not relevant to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, ok. I'm hardly on a mission here. It's just that what you said about "beyond reasonable doubt" seemed to strike a chord with that BBC report. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to the 16 June BBC report above, what you have to remember is that that is a pre-verdict report on the defence case. It could be right to include something about that report at that time. But the requirements of NPOV vary over time for a trial. (Remember that NPOV isn't about representing "both sides", it just means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic").

At that time (16 June) all the RS are reporting the case in an ultra neutral way because of sub judice/contempt etc. We must reflect that. When the verdict comes in, the reports normally change. That sort of neutrality goes out the window and the RS reports normally are couched in terms of "he did it"/"he didn't do it", depending on the verdict. (There are exceptions: the OJ trial or there is an appeal or opinion in the RS changes as time passes - and the article should reflect that subject to WP:BLP.) If that's the new balance in the RS then NPOV dictates we now need to reflect that. That's why it is dangerous in BLP trials to just cumulatively add material to what's already in the article when the verdict comes in (although that is often done). Really there should be an thorough re-write at that point and the pre-verdict "balancing" material taken out. DeCausa (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Does anything need to be added to the "Trial" section? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Harris did not record or become involved with the song Two Little Boys until 1969, so the claimed date of 1968-9 for the Havant incident (where Harris is said to have sung the song [16]) looks questionable. The song was not released until 22 November 1969, and charted at number one on 18 December 1969; it was the final number one British single of the 1960s. From [17]: "The alleged victim claimed Harris, 84, touched her intimately when she was seven or eight after she queued to get his autograph at a community centre near Portsmouth in 1969. Despite searches of local newspaper archives, council records and letter drops appealing for witnesses, no confirmation could be found that Harris had been there. This included looking at copies of The [Portsmouth] News between January 1967 and May 1974."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely production records for Star Games exist somewhere? Including venues and participants? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Star Games, regarded as an ITV ripoff version of It's a Knockout, was made by Thames Television and hosted by Michael Aspel, and ran between 1978 and 1980.[18] There seems little doubt that the 1978 Cambridge episode was the one recalled by B in Count 2. The episode was recorded at Jesus Green according to the trial coverage. "Harris was captain of the “Theatre” team, participated in a swimming race and painted a mural on a wall."[19] Other celebrities in this episode were Joe Brown, Monkee Davy Jones, actor Julian Holloway, On The Buses star Anna Karen, and actress Rula Lenska.[20] There is considerable detail on this, but a black hole on when the Havant event was, or any details about it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that context, I think it's pretty clear that the one in Havant never happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It depends. Harris was such a big star in 1969 that it is almost inconceivable that he would have performed in the Portsmouth area with no record of it in the local newspapers, archive material or personal recollections from other people. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out entirely. The judge said: "On Count 1 you indecently assaulted ‘A’ in 1969 (when she was aged 8 and you were aged 39). You did so when you made an appearance at the Leigh Park Community Centre in Havant, and she approached you for your autograph. Others were present. Taking advantage of your celebrity status, you twice put your hand up her skirt between her legs and touched her vagina over her clothing. In her Victim Impact Statement ‘A’ states, which I am sure is true [my emphasis], that you took her childhood innocence ‐for which she blamed herself and became an angry child and teenager, unable to express herself and unable to trust men. She continued “I have carried what Rolf Harris did to me for most of my life, it took away my childhood, it affected every aspect of my life from the point he assaulted me. Something that he did to me for fun that caused me physical and mental pain for his own pleasure and then probably forgot about as quickly as he did it, has had a catastrophic effect on me…..”[21] These words would carry far more weight at an appeal than the views of menial Wikipedians on the matter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm at something of a loss to understand what the problem is here. We can cite reports that the prosecution said A. We can cite reports that the defence said B. We can cite reports that the jury decided C, and that the judge said D. All of those can be summarised in this article. It's certainly not up to us to present a slanted view, and it's not really a matter for this page to discuss who was "right" and who was "wrong". Is it? Am I missing something? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, I'm sure you're right, Ian. And any mention of such doubts in the article are out of the question. But I just find it equally baffling why there would be no mention of this visit by Harris to a Community Centre near Havant when he's a big star, doing TV and so on. I mean it's not even a supermarket opening, is it? And it's nowhere near his home. Sorry to start verging on WP:FORUM here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ghm - what DeCausa seems to be saying is that a verdict of guilty means that certain statements by the defence can no longer be reported in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I am tempted to add a brief statement that Harris denied visiting Portsmouth at that time. He claims that he was filming in the Australian outback at the time, although probably not for the whole of 1969.[22] It isn't a case of attempting to undermine the guilty verdict or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Harris' statement to the police on the Havant allegation, "I would simply never touch a child inappropriately" now looks ironic, as the court, including the judge, was sure that he was lying about this, rather than simply having an old and faded memory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I get what Martin is saying, but in my view it's a question of tone and balance, rather than not being able to say something that has been freely reported. We shouldn't frame any statements in such a way that they seem to be questioning what the jury decided, but at the same time we should be able to say things like: "The defence suggested that... but the prosecution argued that... and the jury decided that...". Rather than debating - on this page - what we think might have happened, it would be better to come up with a form of words for inclusion in the article, and discuss it here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is an interesting interview on the Law Report blog in Australia where Associate Professor David Hamer of the University of Sydney explains that in most jurisdictions in Australia, tendency’ evidence of the kind permitted in the Harris trial is not allowed; this is where the prosecution can include several victims and "bad character" witnesses in a trial in order to show the jury that the defendant exhibits a particular pattern of behaviour and claim the improbability of so many similar lies. However, jury might develop "moral prejudice" i.e. dislike the defendant so much they do not not give the defendant the benefit of reasonable doubt and "reasoning prejudice" where they see patterns where there are none and think all witnesses with similar stories are truthful; "Many defence lawyers and civil libertarians have grave concerns about this kind of evidence. They argue that juries should only hear evidence relating to the specific charges being heard against an accused." These factors may explain why Harris was convicted on all counts including some quite dubious allegations. Reference: Why the Rolf Harris trial would have been different in Australia. 2014. Radio National.[23][24] --Diamonddavej (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really. The linked to article doesn't saý anýthing like "that's why he was convicted". This applies only to the non-UK evidence. There was plenty of evidence from the UK complainants to convict him. "dubious allegations" is a POV not supported by reliable sources. It is also a BLP issue because you are implying that the witnesses, who were believed by the jury, were committing perjury. A serious BLP allegation. DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

He went to court by boat

• On 4 July (last day of his trial) (and also other days?) he went to court from his home by motorboat along the Thames.(ref. ITV news). I inserted this information at 22:18, 5 July 2014, and someone promptly deleted it as not notable. But it seems to be notable to me :: his house and the court building were both by the Thames, so he went by boat, likeliest to avoid pestering by reporters and suchlike. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me like short-term, tabloid news pap that will quickly become completely non-notable. I judge these things on whether anyone will care in ten years time. HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the media seemed fascinated by this, but it isn't noteworthy (see also WP:10YT per the above comment).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Gee, thanks Ian. Wasn't aware of that suggestion. It feels good when one's personal approach matches the "official" one. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

AKA "commonsense"! DeCausa (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps notable if the boat had sunk? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28163593 also says that Harris "displayed no emotion and stared straight ahead as he was jailed". This looks like the "thousand-yard stare", as if he was in severe shock, which may explain why he "showed no remorse", as the court called it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, quite. I think "showed no remorse" is generally judge's short-hand for "you haven't even admitted you did it". But "displaying no emotion" certainly fits with the shock of realising he had been convicted and might even die in prison. But we're not talking about PTSD here - that lifetime of nightmares is reserved for the victims. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Forget about the boat and the thousand yard stare. The most important thing that is not currently in the article is the letter he sent to the father of one of his victims apologising for his behaviour.[25] [26] This was one of the key pieces of evidence at the trial, although whether it "sealed his fate", as The Independent article claims, is hard to say. The jury appears to have taken a dislike to Harris and found him guilty on all charges, even though some allegations were sketchier than others. The trial section in the article is too short and needs expanding.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

... In which case, he very certainly had expressed remorse, if by means of a private letter rather than by public admission: "When I see the misery I have caused [the woman] I am sickened by myself. You can’t go back and change things that you have done in this life – I wish to god I could." A letter begging for forgiveness, written many years latter, is not going to put things right. But It seems to show that Harris was genuinely sorry for what he did in that case. It was obviously evidence that proved his guilt, but it did show a strong element of remorse I think. I suppose, therefore, that the judge's remarks concerned Harris's behaviour in the courtroom during the trial. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Harris did not deny a sexual relationship with one of his daughter's friends, but said that nothing sexual had happened until she was over 18.[27] The jury failed to accept Harris' word on this, which has been seen as the turning point in the trial. Seven of the 12 counts were based around these allegations, and Harris was found guilty on all of them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dropped charges

I've removed this from the lead, on the basis that it is inappropriate detail, and in any case is poorly sourced:

Charges relating to possession of indecent images of children were dropped however after identity documents of the models involved confirmed they were over 18. (The references are here: [28][29])

Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

After Harris was arrested on a charge involving a sexual offence, it was routine for police to seize and examine his computers. This showed that he had visited some mucky adult websites that were not believed to contain illegal material; the charges were dropped and never heard before a jury.[30] This is not going to be notable in 10 years' time, although his imprisonment in 2014 will be.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. The prosecution dropped the charges because he had been found guilty on other counts and it was no longer in the public interest to proceed, given the cost involved in prosecuting an elderly man who was already discredited and in prison. The child porn issue is still on the record and far more likely to be remembered in ten years than are some of the details of his career that are listed in this article.--Rosabibi (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

So, you're saying that that statement above, supported by two sources, is not true? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a widespread misconception that Mr. Harris was caught with child porn images on his computer, as illustrated by now ex-friend of Rolf Harris Amanda Platell who wrote an article only a few days ago where she said "I’ve learned of more than 12 fresh allegations of abuse and of the stash of vile child pornography found on his computer."[31] So allot of people, like Rosabibi, will remember the child porn allegations ten years from now whether it is true to not. --Diamonddavej (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The initial argument was about whether this was notable enough to be mentioned in the WP:LEAD. It isn't, because the charges were dropped and never heard in court. The dropped indecent images charges are mentioned later on, which is due weight for their importance. If Harris is charged with making indecent images in the future, it should undoubtedly go into the article. However, with Harris now banged up on a five years and nine months stretch, adding a few months for making indecent images, and spending tens of thousands of pounds on the court case to do it, may not be high on the list of things to do for the CPS. This is what was meant in plain language by "the Crown Prosecution Service has decided that it is no longer in the public interest to proceed with a trial on these charges." We may never know what the verdict on the four indecent images charges would have been, but the view of independent experts was that the sites were mucky but not illegal. Had the images been obvious child porn by any reasonable standard, it is unlikely that the charges would have been dropped.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That's guesswork on your part. There are many reasons why prosecutors may decide not to proceed with charges. The fact that the girls have not been identified and that Harris is unlikely to live much longer than the term of his current sentence are much more likely factors than your supposition that the photos were not child porn by any reasonable standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosabibi (talk • contribs) 08:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a BLP question, I think. If the charges were dropped, then we accept innocent until proven guilty and not mention them unless there is some very good reason, which does not seem to apply here. --Pete (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As I've said, we may never know. The Internet Watch Foundation said that the sites do not have a reputation for child porn, and the sites produced documentation that the participants were over 18..--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox parameters

It seems some of the parameters included in the info box are not visible. Should Template:Infobox criminal be used instead? Perhaps a similar discussion has already taken place with regard to Jimmy Savile? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is primarily a WP:BLP, and before 2013-14, Harris was notable for things other than being a criminal. Infobox person looks OK at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The "Infobox person" template has the appropriate params (i.e. "criminal_charge", "criminal_penalty", "criminal_status") so I've filled them out accordingly. -Oosh (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Do all criminal charges appear in a person's infobox? Are there set criteria or guidelines for when to include them? Or is it a matter of judging notability with regard to recency? I guess if a person is in prison then criminal charges should appear. But as Ghm says above, he's become a criminal in the 85th year of his life. He's not well-known simply for being a child molester. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That's true, but I suspect that even under Wikipedia's ten year test his convictions do count as notable. HiLo48 (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

His trial and conviction have generated a lot of media attention, so for now I would defer to put them in because people would probably expect them there. Whether the notability will be the same in ten years, who knows? Only Pete Townshend seems to have escaped the paedophilia pointy-finger with his reputation intact, so possibly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Makes a difference if they die first? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It makes it harder for a trial to be held, that's for sure! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, granted. But I meant before the "wiki ten years" expires. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate Victims ages and times of offences have crept into the article

We have to be careful not to introduce errors into the article from poor secondary sources. I would recommend using the sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Patrick Sweeney as a guide.[32] However, given his remarks are a primary source I believe we must find secondary sources that report the same facts. For example, apart from Victim A, all other offences that Mr. Harris was convicted of involved females aged 15 to 19 years. The courts are careful to ascertain the age of the victim and the perpetrator as this information guides sentencing.

• Victim A was assaulted in 1969 at age 8 when Mr. Harris was 39.
• Victim B was assaulted in 1978 at age 16 when Mr. Harris was 48.
• Victim C was fist assaulted at age 15 in the latter part in 1980 when Mr. Harris was was 50.
• Victim C was last assaulted in 1984 at age 19 when Mr. Harris was was 54.
• Tonya Lee was assaulted in 1986 at age 15 when Mr. Harris was was 56.

--Diamonddavej (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was wrong about Victim C, the Judge agreed that the first "indecent assaults" occurred on the Holiday to Hawaii in 1978, but Mr. Harris was not convicted for those offences. --Diamonddavej (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My interpretation of WP:PRIMARY is that it is acceptable to use those primary sources in cases like this, especially where it is important that we set out accurate information, as is the case in relation to living people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Allegations by Vanessa Feltz and Linda Nolan

Re this edit: I was wondering how long it would be before the Vanessa Feltz and Linda Nolan allegations were added to the article. The fact is that they both had ample opportunities to make statements to the police after Harris was arrested and charged in August 2013 amid great media coverage, but for whatever reason, they did not do so. In their current form, these allegations are little more than showbiz anecdotes with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER issues. The same is true of the other allegations that have been made since the trial. Unless Harris is charged again, there is no pressing need to mention them. The Amanda Platell and Dominic Lawson news articles are interesting, but do not really need to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article, as this is a biography rather than a commentary piece. They might be suitable for the external links, though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there about the Feltz situation. She actually did work with police not long after Harris was arrested and was expecting to testify, Rolf's defense managed to make her testimony inadmissible. She was one of many who came forward but ultimately wasn't used as a witness during the trial.[33] I'm not sure if any of this should be included in the article, but it's an important correction nonetheless.LM2000 (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

According to this source, "Miss F wrote a newspaper article in 2012 about being groped by a “household name” – although she did not name him. During the trial police received an anonymous tip linking Miss F’s story to Harris, and they took a statement from her and found old TV footage of the interview, which the prosecution said showed the moment she was groped. However the defence argued, in the absence of the jury, that it would be unfair to Harris to allow her evidence to be heard, because they had not had enough time to investigate her claims. They also said it was unclear from the footage what was happening." This is another area where we may never know what the verdict might have been. The Vanessa Feltz claims were ruled inadmissable by the judge because they emerged during the trial and there was insufficient time to investigate them in detail. It also appears that Feltz did not approach the police directly before the trial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, it's quite more complex than most assume it to be, but ultimately fits under the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER banner that the "New Allegations" thread discussed earlier. Feltz has discussed that she hasn't accepted paid interviews on the subject and is unlikely to pursue action against Harris so the discussion really ends there as far as encyclopedic material is concerned.LM2000 (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, Ann Leslie has told a very similar story about Nicholas Fairbairn.[34] This never came to court either.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason it was added is to inform people that the guilty verdict led to further formal complaints, as people felt supported to do so, or thought it was an appropriate action to take. There is nothing in the content verifying the claims; however, in a historical account of Harris's life, why is it not encyclopedic to document significant aspects of a significant crime, committed by a notable person? The magnitude of the crime become clearer with this information and it is also culturally significant, as it shows the relationship of fame/celebrity to incidents of this nature. Harris is not being condemned by the content—a thorough description of a significant event in history is simply being presented.--Soulparadox (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit was reverted because is has WP:BLPNAME issues (no need to name the woman involved) and also WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:10YT. Unless Harris faces fresh charges in court, nothing that has happened since the trial is significant enough to mention in his BLP article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely that the material is too trivial to be reported here in detail, though I wouldn't object if there were simply a sentence saying something like: "Further allegations of sexual harassment were published after his conviction." It doesn't matter if they were made by celebrities or not, and they need to be given due weight - that is, very little (if any) weight at all - in an encyclopedia article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

HMP Bullingdon

The tabloids have claimed that Harris has been transferred to HMP Bullingdon and is no longer in HM Prison Wandsworth.[35] This has already been added to HMP Bullingdon, but the sourcing is far from ideal. It appears to rely on hearsay from inside the prison rather than an official confirmation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The original story seems to come from The Sunday People.[36] Using a story from a tabloid, based upon an anonymous source, about a convicted sex offender is not in any way a reliable source. The publishers Trinity Mirror previously claimed he was going to HMP Leyhill.[37] I think this may be enough to remove his current residence as Wandsworth, as that prison was inferred and never officially announced. Martin451 19:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

He's already made his appearance over at HM Prison Bullingdon c/o 'the Daily Mirror. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the Mirror story. It cites an unnamed source saying that he is there, as do the other tabloid articles. Not ideal, and it would be better to wait for confirmation from an on the record source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

But the previous status quo relied on the Guardian writer's prediction or assumption before the 4 July sentencing. No justification at all there. The Mirror may have a chequered reputation in the eyes of some, but it is a substantial source which checks its facts and is accountable for errors. My reading is that there was a plurality of informants, both at Wandsworth (where no-one had seen Harris) and at Bullingdon (a "senior source" and a second "source"). Granted, it's not official. But it's a report of purported actual events, and therefore a better verification than the Guardian speculation. If we don't accept that, the only proper course would be to remove both accounts and wait for an official statement on where Harris is locked up. Bjenks (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A later Sydney Morning Herald prison report also specifies Bullingdon as the place. (Thanks, User:Anthony Appleyard.) Bjenks (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

SMH credits The Daily Mail and The Sun for the story though, so it's not quite as reliable as it seems.LM2000 (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• The Guardian now says "the Sun says he is now at Stafford jail". I think this falls below the sort of thing we would state on a BLP. Any other opinions? --John (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This is classic churnalism. "Newspaper A reports that newspaper B said" adds nothing to what is already known. There has been a lot of this sort of thing in the Rolf Harris case. The Australian media sources often report what the British tabloid press has said without making clear that it may or may not be reliable. This is also discussed in the section Harris "moved to HM Prison Stafford" below.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Harris's youngest victim waives anonymity

This was "A" at the trial, who was assaulted at Leigh Park Community Centre in Havant in 1969 according to the judge's sentencing remarks.[38] Not sure if this is nececessary on WP:BLPNAME grounds.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with WP:BLPNAME. It is not necessary for Wikipedia to name this otherwise private person. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The same could be said about naming Harris's wife and daughter in the infobox. I was 50-50 about whether this was necessary, but left them in for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

His daughter's name arose frequently during the trial, as the connection to one of the victims. It's therefore pretty public already. His wife less so. HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Little Convict

Thanks to the ip for reminding us of this, now somewhat ironically titled, film. I see that Harris in fact has 13 "actor" cedits at IMDb. Should they all be listed in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I have added a table. The source is not ideal. It could be condensed slightly if need be. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Given this [39] I have changed Olive the Ostrich to one line. Harris narrated all 104 original episodes, and is seems Alexei Sayle was brought in to re-narrate them. Martin451 17:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Obvious proof of IMDb's failings. But I think 104 episodes is worthy of mention somewhere. And the replacement by Sayle probably deserves to be in the text? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Is/was/former

There have various edits and reverts over this. Regardless of what the sourcing says, it would be WP:CRYSTALBALL to say that Harris's career is completely over. He *might* be asked to play Captain Hook in a Christmas pantomime in five years' time, who knows? Saying "He was a musician, singer-songwriter, composer, comedian, painter and television personality until his imprisonment in 2014" is silly, because nothing would stop him from doing these things after his release from prison (or in prison, with the exception of television personality, for that matter). Please don't worship the sources saying that Harris's career is over without looking at WP:CRYSTALBALL or common sense first.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing WP:CRYSTAL at all. As he currently is not an entertainer, he was an entertainer. That's not saying that his career is completely over. He may as you say perform again in the future. In that case the wording can be changed back from 'was' to 'is', but at this point in time it is extremely evident that he is not currently an entertainer. AlanS (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to come up with a compromise wording on this. "Was" is too simplistic and unverifiable in my view.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

AlanS - there is nothing preventing him entertaining other prison inmates. If he does (and maybe he already is) he is still an entertainer. HiLo48 (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL Hilo. From some of the news reports coming out since his incarceration it doesn't sound like the other inmates particularly want to be entertained by him. From the sounds of it most of them are more interested in potentially doing harm to him. AlanS (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No doubt. I think we may both be right with our speculation. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be "Captain off-the-hook", surely? But this is a bit of a conundrum. I'm not sure that painting the fence at HM Prison Bullingdon would really count. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• The current wording is good. But I feel I need to take issue with AlanS's contention that Harris has ceased, at least temporarily, to be an entertainer. A writer who is sent to prison does not suddenly cease to be a writer, just because he doesn't do any actual writing while inside. He'd no doubt be gathering material for some future book, and research etc is a key part of the writing process. Indeed, he might not have done much, or any, writing for the previous few years; instead, he might have been swanning around Cannes and the Costa del Sol on the proceeds of his previous writings. He didn't cease to be a writer while he was not publishing anything. Similarly, an architect who goes to jail does not cease to be an architect just because he's prevented from designing any specific building. He'd no doubt be thinking all the time, observing stuff, taking mental or even paper notes, etc. Same with entertainers. They have to plan and practise their acts, and their acts need to be refreshed and updated and renewed. This is an essential part of the entertainment process, and it all requires thought, and that can be done in prison as well as anywhere else. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

From wiktionary - A person who entertains others, esp. as a profession, as a singer, dancer, musician, comedian, etc.[40]. Clearly he is presently entertaining no body. AlanS (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That is your OR and POV. If I, a very active and long-term WP editor, take a month's break while travelling overseas, have I ceased to be a WP editor? Even temporarily? Not as far as I am concerned. If today you were to ask Harris what his occupation is, I reckon he'd say "entertainer" or similar. It's not for others to decide for him, or anyone, what they identify as and how they should be described. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Put another way, Vincent van Gogh has been dead for 120+ years, but he is still described as an artist (albeit in the past tense), not a former artist. And yes, since you seem to want to be very technical about this, technically some may still be entertained by Harris by virtue of recordings and other media, even if he will not be making personal appearances for a while. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Reading the article on Max Clifford, as a point of comparison, it seems that his career is well and truly finished? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This revert contains material that makes little sense. Graham Ovenden can continue to paint after his release from prison, but the value of the paintings might not be the same as it was before. Harris can do likewise. It is unlikely that Harris will be flooded with offers of work after his release from prison, but "former entertainer" "was a painter" etc is hard to verify and looks POINT-y. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any WP:RS that could be directly quoted about his career or end if it? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There is Rolf Harris' career ends in disgrace on Sky News Australia, but it is making a point that is hard to verify. Wikipedia BLP articles do not usually extrapolate about the future because it fails WP:V in many cases.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Didn't the trial judge pass some kind of comment? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In his sentencing remarks, the judge said "Your reputation now lies in ruins, you have been stripped of your honours but you have no one to blame but yourself." This is a more relevant comment than "Harris is a former entertainer/painter/musician" etc which is not what the judge said. The judge's remarks could go in the Trial section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In order to be an entertainer you must entertain people. I don't think you'll find anyone who says they are entertained by Harris. AlanS (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

According to this [41] Harris seems to be entertaining other prisoners with his paintings of them, and their families. Although the sourcing is far from ideal. “Harris has been overwhelmed by requests,” one prisoner told The Sun newspaper. So he is still an Entertainer. Martin451 14:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently someone else "aimed a spit at him" but he was unhurt: [42]. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

When we have reliable sources that he is a former artist we can include this but until then we cant and must call him an artist as otherwise it would be the original research of an editor and that is not how things are done here. The logic that you must entettain people to be an entertainer is again original research and should be discounted. Its verifiability not truth which (rightly) guides us. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

WP should strive to be academic at all times. We do not describe a deceased author as a 'former author', nor do we describe one who has retired from writing as such. We can therefore rule out describing him as a 'former' entertainer. To address 'was', this is commonly used in WP when something has ceased to be, ie when someone becomes deceased. As Mr Harris has not passed away, and his entertainment work can still be located and viewed by people, 'was' does not apply either. Therefore we should use 'is', this is the correct encyclopedic term. Justin.Parallax (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Not the Nine O'Clock News sketch

This seems to have caused some controversy: [43]. But it's perhaps a bit too tangential for inclusion in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The source is a reliable one. Can perhaps be included somewhere. AlanS (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Even without that van he's made quite a packet. Maybe this should also be mentioned somewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Both of these are not notable enough at the moment. John Lloyd makes clear that no dubious sexual meaning was intended in the Not the Nine O'Clock News sketch at the time; subsequent events have changed its meaning. The question of what happens to Harris's money is not notable unless he is sued for compensation by his victims.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

... or gives it all to a children's charity, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comedian?

Are we suggesting that in the whole course of his television career, including all the episodes of his own BBC show, throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, Harris never told a single joke? Here's one, on someone else's show: [44]. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Jake the Peg is comedy. The lead for Sun Arise includes "Unlike many of his early chart hits, "Sun Arise" was not a comedy record," True Animal Tales is a book with comedy value. This [45] seems to sum up Harris. "Bear with me for a moment. I am fully aware that Rolf Harris is not a stand up comedian, but having seen him do an hour set at Guilfest 2004 this past weekend and be funnier and more entertaining than most of the comedians, I think he deserves some praise." [46] describes Harris as a comedian. Martin451 13:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Rolf Harris show at IMDb -Comedy|Music. [47] "He was a skilled comedian, musician and cartoonist." [48] "and multi-instrumentalist, comedian," Martin451 13:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Not forgetting, the nomination for the 1994 ARIA Music Award for Best Comedy. Martin451 15:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I reckon the claim that he was a comedian is easily covered by WP:BLUE. Anyone whose career effectively started with Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport is hardly playing it straight. HiLo48 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

shucks, and I always thought he was a darkie. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Harris "moved to HM Prison Stafford"

Front page of The Sun today is a claim that Harris has been moved to HM Prison Stafford.[49] No doubt this will get added to the article, but it is an unconfirmed report.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum for unconfirmed reports.--Soulparadox (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Even Harris being in HMP Bullingdon is an unconfirmed report, in the sense that it has relied on the word of other prisoners reported via the tabloid newspapers. Other sources picked up on what the tabloids said, but it is hard to produce an official confirmation of which prison Harris is being held in, because it is not prison policy to say this on the record to journalists.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I know it's still tabloid sourcing, but there's now more evidence (that's not just a rehash of The Sun's report) that he has been moved.[50] And now, there's a reliable source stating that he's in Stafford,[51] although they may well be just restating what the Sun said and just not attributing it. Still, that's their business.

At the very least, Criminal status should probably be changed to remove any reference to his current prison. Likewise lead. Or the Sun directly attributed as the source of his current location ("The Sun reported in October that he was moved to HM Prison Stafford," or similar); after all, it's not a contentious statement. Bromley86 (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

International Business Times is not an ideal source, because on close inspection it is almost invariably churnalism based on material culled from other sources. Although Harris may well have been moved to HMP Stafford, it is hard to source reliably.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, worth a try. Again though, why are we mentioning it's Bullingdon based on tabloid reports, but not Stafford? The Guardian cite for Criminal status in the infobox makes no mention of Bullingdon; this does, but it's attributed to AAP rather than the usual The Guardian - given that the Aussies have been re-reporting the tabloid sources, that's no better. Either we mention Stafford on the basis of tabloids, or we remove reference to Bullingdon, surely?

Also, if we mention it in the lead, shouldn't it also be in the body? Bromley86 (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it as I agree it was undue until something is directly reported by a decent source. --John (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

But, of much more concern, he's "carved his very own didgeridoo behind bars". Not an easy feat surely, in the confines of a tiny cell. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Guardian article

Have inserted ref 117. Please remove immediately if not WP:RS, given that the article does state "reportedly" . . . I'm not sure how "reportedly" the New Zealand complaint (ref 116) is, and whether my ref 117 is any more "reportedly", so I inserted it, and leave it to somebody else to assess, thank you! Alrewas (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the difference is that in the case of the NZ complaint, the complainant has confirmed publicly. In the case of the 10 others, we have only the word of an investigative journalist. So probably remove?Alrewas (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It is too early to say whether any of these allegations will lead to a prosecution, so there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL. However, it is worth noting briefly that other women have made similar allegations against Harris.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2015

No longer AO please remove as per http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015G00261. 1.136.96.156 (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 1.136.96.156 (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2015

Every honour has now been rescinded. 81.139.29.94 (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No source given. -- haminoon (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

But there is no source either for the belief that any of the honours remain in place. If they exist, they must be obscure. "All notable honours"? 124.150.40.28 (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned yesterday by Mitch Ames [52] it is hard to say this without introducing WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"there is no source either for the belief that any of the honours remain in place"
Which is probably why the article does not (so far as I can see) say that any of the honours remain in place. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)