Talk:Rolf Harris

Opening sentence flawed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I agree with the reasoning here, I'd like to point a potential reason to change the initial paragraph. I think it's fine as it is here in the article. But if you are in another article and hover over the link to this article, the preview shows a smiling photo, the first sentence and a chunk of the second, without getting to the sentence about the conviction.

I think it would be good if the conviction was moved before the sentence about the didgeridoo and unusual instruments, so that it shows in page preview. 94.73.45.117 (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Does everyone get a smiling Rolf with text when hovering, or does this depend on your device and set-up? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Surely, Martinevans123, it is dependent on if one has pop--ups active? I see the picture from the infobox and the first paragraph of the lead ~ the three sentences ending Template:Tq ~ Lindsay^Hello 10:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not too sure of what is the problem with having "a smiling photo" visible in other places. Is the IP suggesting that the article lead image should be a police mugshot? (even if we had one) An image of him looking suitably contrite, perhaps? I'm unsure what a typical paedophile looks like. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence needs work as at present it is not compliant with MOS:FIRSTBIO. However I don't think "convicted paedophile" is appropriate wording per MOS:CRIMINAL. Instead I would suggest something along the lines of:

Template:Tq2

TarnishedPath^talk 10:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

And i disagree, i'm afraid. This conversation has gone around and around ~ twice stated by you, as i recall ~ and come to the conclusion that the very clear mention of his offenses and convictions in the first paragraph is appropriate and meets policy ~ Lindsay^Hello 10:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep discussion to the article please. TarnishedPath^talk 10:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively, and the consensus is that the sex offence convictions do not need to be in the opening sentence. The opening paragraph is clear that his career was ended by the convictions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't visited this talk in quite a while, but I can't recollect it being discussed in a while. Consensus can change. TarnishedPath^talk 07:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

There was a RfC in September 2023 (see Archive 4 - which also has two other discusions on the same topic)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

That was a 20 months ago. My point stands. TarnishedPath^talk 08:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what has changed in relation to Harris in those 20 months. As far as I can see, the arguments for and against remain exactly the same. You are of course welcome to open a new RfC here, although I'm not entirely sure as to the expected wait period. Like most processes at Wikipedia, it seems to depend mainly on who decides to turn up. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

There's no rush with these sorts of things. TarnishedPath^talk 08:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Quite agree. Perhaps we could pencil in another RfC for 2035. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

As you state:

Template:Tq2 TarnishedPath^talk 08:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says "the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents". The lead section here already does this. It's clear that some people will never be happy unless the article says "he was a disgraced paedo" at the earliest possible opportunity, but that's life.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

As you can see from one of my comments above, I'm not supportive of anything along the lines of "... he was a disgraced paedo" However, MOS:FIRSTBIO, regarding the first sentence, states:

Template:Tq2.

It is clearly evident that one of the activities that he is mainly known for is being convicted for the sexual assault of underage girls as any source analysis demonstrates. It is therefore appropriate that his conviction be stated in the first sentence. TarnishedPath^talk 10:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The word you may have missed there is "possibly". Because something is possible, that does not imply it is required. I would suggest that in each case it depends on the relative importance of those activities. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss it because given the sourcing I would suggest the relative importance of the activity to the subject is extremely high. TarnishedPath^talk 12:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you think the level of "the sourcing" for his entertainment career, throughout the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, is comparable to the attention directed by the press towards him during his criminal conviction? i.e. there was no internet back then. His criminal activities first came to light in 2013, ten years before he died, and when his career was effectively already over. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

That might be an argument if "the sourcing" you speak of was used as references in the article. WP:AGEMATTERS and we can only make an assessment on the sourcing which is available. Any review of the available sourcing indicates that the convictions are a major aspect of their notability. TarnishedPath^talk 15:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that may act as a huge source of bias in many articles. There is bound to comparatively little coverage of Harris's music and television career up to the 1990s in the "available sourcing" online. Or are you saying we need to all dig out our old dusty print copies of Radio Times from the 1950s and add lots of "new sources" about his career then to redress the balance? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing should be able to be found through archives such as newspapers.com. That said, it's not like the internet has only been around for a few years. I've been on it for almost 30 years now. TarnishedPath^talk 00:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm just saying that for most of Harris's career, his entertainment activities were not regularly reported via the internet. In total contrast, in the age of the internet, the press across the world took great interest in his criminal activities and reported them regularly and in great detail. Would you disagree? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Nothing in MOS:FIRSTBIO follows your reasoning. Also as stated above the internet isn't something that only popped up yesterday. By the time Harris was charged the internet was mainstream by almost 20 years. TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I see. I was responding to your comment "Template:Tq" Is that comment also supported by MOS:FIRSTBIO? Perhaps I have misunderstood you. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I probably allowed myself to veer off point a little. What happened prior to the internet is beside the point. There is no doubting that the conviction is one of the most noteworthy occurrences in his life. TarnishedPath^talk 11:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm really not sure why "Template:Tq" Perhaps you think his career was so dull that his conviction was inevitably going to be a noteworthy highlight? Perhaps more notable than anything else. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It's beside the point when considering if his conviction is one of the most noteworthy occurrences of his life. That's certainly not to say that nothing else of interest occurred in his life, but the conviction is clearly one of the most noteworthy occurrences. TarnishedPath^talk 11:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but again, the first sentence in your reply here looks to me like a complete self-contradiction. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we're not going to convince each other here. TarnishedPath^talk 12:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's something we might agree on. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

It is worth looking at WP:GOOGLE. Believe it or not, the world did exist before the internet was around, and in this world Harris was a famous entertainer, not a disgraced paedo.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ianmacm please refer to above. I'm not arguing for what you state. TarnishedPath^talk 13:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Criminal summary in the infobox

In this edit [1] a user has reverted in the Criminal charges, Criminal penalty and Criminal status lines in the infobox person summary of Harris. I had removed these because Template:Infobox criminal says of that template: Template:Tqb But, of course, we are not using that template, a point made by Khiikiat in their reversion. We are just using the same three lines that have been included into the generic infobox person. And as that editor says, why are those there if we can't use them? But equally, just because we have them does not mean we should use them. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says: Template:Tqb I think these three lines are out of proportion here. Harris was well known prior to conviction, and although the conviction is key information, and part of his legacy, I think that using these three entries straight out of the criminal infobox runs counter to the advice in the criminal infobox. One third of the space in the infobox is consumed by these. Why do we have these? Perhaps for BLP1Es where crime is the primary subject of the page, but the criminal does not meet the infobox criminal threshold. But a single line summary would be better, or we could rely on the very full coverage in the lead and on the page. Is there a good reason this needs to be summarised in an infobox? Is there a more succinct summary of the key facts that we could use here? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

He was convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault against 4 underage girls, one of which was later overturned. That puts him in the same category as a serial rapist and therefore it's appropriate to use infobox criminal. TarnishedPath^talk 10:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have unprotected this article. It was protected for around nine years for BLP violations, but this reason cannot of course apply now. That is not to say it cannot be reprotected if vandalism or another reason arises. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Later career

It seems that a summary of his later career, particularly his activities in the art world, television work and later musical recordings and experimentation, is absent from the lead section. Not sure how that might be corrected, as there are already four paragraphs in the lead, one of which is dedicated to his sexual offences. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)