Talk:Cliff Richard/Archive 2

WP:RECENTISM issues in 2014 property search and sex assault allegation
Now, as you've probably noticed, I made a rather bold edit yesterday trimming this section down to a manageable length. Remember, we are talking about somebody who has had sustained notability since 1958, and since he's not been charged or convicted of anything, per WP:BLP we should err on the side of conservatism. I appreciate the information put back in is reliably sourced; indeed, everything I removed was, but that doesn't mean we need to cite every reliable source ever. The coverage does not deserve more than his conversion to Christianity in 1964, yet that is relegated to a single unsourced paragraph simply because online newspapers didn't exist then. I really think we need to keep things into perspective and retain a proper balance of somebody who has been in the public eye for almost 60 years. So, what does anyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My view is that the five paragraph summary of events re-added here by KTF is excessive, and given WP:BLP, etc., we should not be giving this undue weight. Of course, if the legal situation changes we should review it, but as things stand my preference would be to revert to 's version.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely, this whole "scandal" says more about South Yorkshire Police than about "St. Harry of Wimbledon"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else have any thoughts? If not, I'll bounce it back to my version per the apparent consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I respect and value other people's opinions. However, the main body of the article at present contains over 100 paragraphs. I feel that having five paragraphs relating to a major news story is not overly excessive. If Sir Cliff Richard later updated his 2008 autobiography at some stage in the future, I'm sure that this major event in his life would merit a new chapter in his autobiography.

To indicate the profound effect this has had on his life, his friend, the Northern Irish broadcaster Gloria Hunniford said earlier this year that he is "going through agony" as a result of the false allegation. Hunniford said: "He's totally devastated. He's got no idea who his accuser is and he is appalled at what he regards as a completely false accusation."

A citation for those words from Gloria Hunniford is at the following link:

I had been planning at some stage next year, in 2015, when I have more time available, to significantly expand the overall length of the Cliff Richard article, with additional content and references about his career related to the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s etc. Is having five paragraphs, or less than 5% of the article in relation to a major news story, really terribly excessive, given the profound impact this has clearly had on his life?

This story from 2014 has received major news headlines in the UK, being the lead item on television news broadcasts in the UK, and receiving many front-page headlines in broadsheet newspapers. The situation is ongoing and has received separate news headlines for a period of months, rather than weeks, with the involvement of a Home affairs select committee investigation and strong criticism of the handling of the police raid by other prominent people, including the former director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, QC.

I feel that an article from The Sunday Times in August 2014 is significant, as senior law figures were quoted as saying that the search of his home may have been illegal because police officers failed to tell a court about a deal with the BBC to televise it.

When you have a potentially illegal police raid on one of the most famous pop singers in the world, televised live and creating major news headlines, as well as creating (in Gloria Hunniford's words) a devastating impact on the person accused, then I don't personally feel that having less than 5% of the article relating to it is overly excessive. And as mentioned, I do plan next year to expand the article in other areas relating to his career, and perhaps also include further content related to his conversion to Christianity in 1964 as well, with additional references from books.

There are many thousands of poor articles on Wikipedia containing large amounts of unsourced content and unsourced assertions. There are also many thousands of Wikipedia articles which contain over 5% of the content relating to recent events, and which suffer more from recentism than this one. This article currently contains 139 references overall and it is certainly better than many other Wikipedia articles in relation to sources, but I would accept that there are sections of the article from earlier periods in his life, such as from the 1950s and 1960s, where additional references would be helpful. I would like to improve upon that area next year.

Given that the section relating to the police raid of his home has now been significantly reduced, with only some of the content restored, and as it contains only five paragraphs out of a total of over a hundred paragraphs for the article, I hope that the section will not be further cut. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "If Sir Cliff Richard later updated his 2008 autobiography". Exactly - "If". Since we don't predict the future, until you can prove that the best sources (ideally official autobiographies) can show we have the correct due weight here, the information should be trimmed down per what Ghmyrtle and myself think is acceptable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A better source - which I should have chosen (rather than the Daily Mail) to show that Cliff Richard is "going through agony" and is "totally devastated" by events this year is from the reliable broadsheet newspaper The Independent. This better more reliable source verifies the profound effect this has had on his life.

The Independent article from September 2014 (a month after the police raid on his home) states: "Sir Cliff's long-time friend Gloria Hunniford spoke of his anguish over the allegation."

She said: "He's totally devastated because he's got no idea of course who his accuser is.... He is appalled about what he regards as a completely false accusation. He couldn't believe that this would actually put him through such agony."

A citation to those words from The Independent is from the following link:

My personal view is that if there is a reliable source - such as The Independent - which indicates there has been a devastating impact on somebody's life as a result of events - then to include five paragraphs in relation to it out of a total of over a hundred paragraphs for the article, is not undue weight.

I would agree with others that the 2014 events are not appropriate for the lead section and it is right that it should not form part of the lead. However, I do feel that having less than 5% of the article in relation to a major news story which has had a devastating impact on Cliff Richard's life, is not a case of undue weight.

Just purely out of interest, Ritchie, could I ask if you are a resident of the United States? If you are a gentleman from the USA you might perhaps be unaware of just what a big story this has been in the United Kingdom. As Cliff Richard never achieved the same impact in the United States, despite eight US Top 40 singles, I would certainly imagine that there has been considerably less coverage in the US regarding this story than in countries such as the UK, where I live.

Cliff Richard has said in the past that he likes visiting the US because he is able to walk in places like New York without being disturbed by people approaching him because he is nowhere near as famous in the US as he is in countries such as the UK. I can assure you Ritchie that this has been a major story in the UK, with television news broadcasts, such as BBC News and ITV News making it the leading item on news broadcasts. The coverage has also received numerous front-page headlines in broadsheet newspapers.

I hope that after considering the widespread coverage in many reliable online news sources, and also taking into consideration the devastating impact this has had on Cliff Richard's life, that you might be able to come round to my view that having less than 5% of the article in relation to it is not undue weight. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Just from my perspective, the main weight issue I have is that the bulk of the content on this is not directly related to Cliff Richard. I understand that some coverage is warranted (although as he has not been charged, it would normally be brief), but I have some concern that only about a third of the content is about Cliff Richard and the allegations - the rest are about the behaviour of the police and the BBC. This may be an important issue, but is not directly related to an article about Cliff Richard. The result is that it does appear to place too much focus on the search. If it was trimmed back to focus on just the elements directly related to Richard, my feeling is that the balance would be better. - Bilby (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is, since this isn't a featured article, I can't easily tell that the article does have the correct due weight for everything, so I'd have to go and pick apart all the sources (including ones that haven't been used yet) to know that that's the case. Until then, I can only really go with my gut feeling, which aligns with what other people have said. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have had a trim this evening of 169 bytes of wording from the section. I have also reduced the paragraphs from five to four. As there are over a hundred paragraphs for the article in total, this means that the section (in terms of paragraphs) now accounts for less than 4% of the article. I personally feel that for a major news story in the UK, which has had separate reliable online news headlines for months, having less than 4% of the paragraphs in relation to it is not overly excessive.

I would like to go through each of the four paragraphs to explain why I think they are worthy to include. The first paragraph sets out what happened and Richard's response to it. Richard's full statement is not included in the paragraph, but the article should contain an outline of what his response was - and the fact he has stated that it is a "completely false allegation". There is also one sentence at the end of the opening paragraph which states that the BBC were criticised for their coverage of the search.

The second paragraph states that Richard's friends, including Gloria Hunniford, publicly supported him after the search of his apartment. This is confirmed by reliable sources from The Daily Telegraph and The Belfast Telegraph. This is worthy I feel to include, as it shows that Richard did not become a pariah after the police search of his home. When some famous individuals (I won't mention any names) are publicly associated with serious allegations of child sex assault, there is a noticeable lack of support from their friends in the media, as such friends are possibly reluctant to defend somebody who might later be found guilty of a serious offence; the friends might feel it would reflect badly on them if they defended a person who was later found guilty. But in Cliff Richard's case, there are people in reliable sources who have known Richard for many years and who are prepared to put their neck on the line, so to speak, to publicly defend him.

For reasons of space, I have not included other high-profile friends, such as Cilla Black, who also defended Richard. In a reliable source from Sky News, Cilla Black states: "Cliff is a very close friend of mine..... I, like everyone else, was shocked to hear of these allegations and I am absolutely positive that they are without foundation." From the same citation, due to reasons of space, I have not included Michael Parkinson defending Richard. The Sky News source states: "Other high-profile names have defended Sir Cliff, including Sir Michael Parkinson who said the media's handling of the case was like a "witch hunt" and called for greater protection of people's anonymity until they are charged." A citation for those words from Cilla Black and Sir Michael Parkinson is at the link here.

The third paragraph in the section is worthy to include as a reliable source from The Sunday Times quotes senior law figures as stating that the police search of Richard's home may have been illegal because officers failed to tell a court about a deal with the BBC to televise it. The magistrate who approved a search warrant for Richard's apartment was not told about the force's agreement with the broadcaster. When the entire police raid itself may have been illegal, according to The Sunday Times, and when such a senior law figure as the former director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, QC has strongly criticised the police force and said its action could make the warrant unlawful, I feel this is worthy to include. The third paragraph also states that after the property search Richard returned to the UK and voluntarily met members of South Yorkshire Police by appointment and that he was not arrested or charged. This is important, I feel, to make clear that he was not arrested or charged.

The fourth and final paragraph for the section updates the situation and states that David Crompton, the chief constable of South Yorkshire police, was questioned by MPs from the House of Commons home affairs select committee and that Crompton publicly apologised to Cliff Richard. For reasons of space, I have cut out the quote from Crompton, and merely said that he publicly apologised to Richard. The final paragraph also states that Richard reiterated his innocence and that Richard was reported by The New Zealand Herald as considering legal action after the home affairs select committee report was published. This, I feel, is worthy to include.

So after trimming down a further 169 bytes from the section this evening, and reducing the paragraphs from five to four, I feel that the current content in the section is not overly excessive. Over 96% of the overall article's paragraphs are not connected to these events, but as mentioned from a previous reliable source from The Independent the events from 2014 have clearly had a profound effect on Cliff Richard's life and I don't feel we should airbrush the fact that, according to senior law figures quoted in The Sunday Times, the police raid may have been illegal. Hopefully having four paragraphs instead of five is more acceptable to you. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a quick follow up on an earlier point, I'm British and am well aware of the news stories, but compared to what has happened to Jimmy Savile, or who is going to win the 2015 election, or the conflict in the Middle East, or the economy, it really doesn't figure as a sustained news item over the year, if I'm honest. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with that. It wasn't even a "sustained news item" over a single week. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Celebrity endorsements
I really see no reason why endorsements like these should be included in the article. They are not of encyclopedic value - they are the predictable opinions of friends of his. We don't add comments like that just because they are sourced - we include comments that add to our understanding of the article subject. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree. This tells us that Hunniford is a friend of his, but little more, I fear. I would guess that Richard has many celebrity friends who know little or nothing of his intimate private life. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are people from legal backgrounds who do offer useful insight into the property search and investigation and those comments have not been removed. I don't see the value of the comments from friends, it adds more length than really necessary.LM2000 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm too far removed to speak intelligently on the subject, so I'll add my perception. The RSes that are listed appear to be on a witch hunt and are mainly supporting the police investigation and these endorsements add an opposing view. If it ever comes to trial, the voices may or may not become part of the official record at which point it would be difficult to ignore, but presently they do not appear to carry any weight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Historical sexual offence allegations in the lede
The lede section is meant to summarize the entire article. I think the last paragraph of the five, beginning in August 2014, makes it a bit too top heavy with recent events. Yes, the allegations are very serious, and yes, there has been controversy. But there have been no criminal charges. Perhaps some "kind editor" could reduce the paragraph somehow? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from anything else, WP:LEAD recommends a maximum of four paragraphs, so the current version of the lead is too long. There have been previous discussions about how much weight to give to the 2014 allegations, and since he has yet to be arrested, charged or convicted of anything, I think that the current version of the lead is flawed. If the lead didn't mention this at all, it would be no great loss.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've had a stab at reducing the paragraph, and moved some of the refs into the main text. I might not have got the emphasis right, so feel free to adjust..... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a look at Edward Heath (yes I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF) and the lead section does not mention the current allegations at all, despite the widespread media coverage. Plod has had twelve months to come up with the goods on Cliff Richard and has failed to do so. Until they do, I propose removing this from the lead altogether.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also support removing it altogether if nothing comes of it soon.LM2000 (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing it. Its placement as an appended short paragraph gives it additional undue weight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am neutral on the subject. It probably contains too much detail for a lede section, and too much recentism. However, it may be a primary reason some readers come to the article and so shouldn't be entirely removed.
 * My previous edit was in error. I saw the archiving rolled up and removed only the last editor's changes. Ghmyrtle's edit was not a problem, and the archiving was done correctly. My apologies to Ghmyrtle. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Cliff Richard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150103172454/http://www.soundkitchen.com/newsitem.cfm?uid=06152009143535 to http://www.soundkitchen.com/newsitem.cfm?uid=06152009143535
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080107043403/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/radio2/musicclub/cliff_richard.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/musicclub/cliff_richard.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 10:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Portrait modelled in Blackpool
1958–63: Success and stardom, last sentence: "In mid-1963, Cliff and the Shadows appeared for a season in Blackpool, where Richard had his portrait modelled by Victor Heyfron." I assumed this meant for a waxwork in Madam Tussaud's, but googling reveals that Victor Heyfron is a painter and sculptor, and that he is responsible for a bust of Richard - which makes more sense, since portraits are usually painted rather than modelled: http://www.worcester.ac.uk/community/victor-heyfron-graduation-2014.html. He's not a famous artist, or significant to Richard's history in any other way, so how does this merit mention?Robocon1 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Final para of lead
I can't see why Richard's dual residency and allegations of sexual abuse should be linked in one paragraph. Perhaps someone could explain. Thank you. NationalTreasure (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that they are both in the same paragraph does not mean that they are linked. In the lead section, there should be no more than four paragraphs covering the most important aspects of someone's life, and the general consensus is we should avoid short paragraphs containing only a single point.  Both his residency, and the allegations, are seen as relatively minor in the context of his overall biography - hence, they are both placed at the end of the section, after the mentions of his musical career - but, at the moment, the view is they should both be mentioned in the intro.  It's hard to think of a way round it, unless (or until) the allegations are dropped and no longer need to be mentioned in the lead.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As Ghmyrtle explained, his residency, and the allegations are relatively minor in the context of his overall biography. As yet, Richard has not been arrested or charged with any offence and therefore he must be presumed innocent until any charges result in a criminal conviction. I agree with Ghmyrtle's edit summary on the morning of 7 October 2015 (UK time) that the previous version was better balanced.


 * One of NationalTreasure's edits stated that it is "a controversy that concerns police conduct into an allegation against Richard of historical sexual offences against a number of boys." But the initial controversy concerning the conduct of the police came in August 2014 as a result of the property search of Richard's home which was leaked to the media and filmed by the BBC. The citation at the end of the final paragraph from the BBC states that the property search was after "an alleged historical sexual offence".


 * Later on, after much publicity from the property search of Richard's home, two other men did indeed reportedly come forward with, as yet, unsubstantiated and unproven allegations of historical sexual offences. One investigation into one of the allegations has reportedly been dropped after detectives failed to find any evidence to substantiate the allegation. Therefore two allegations continue to be investigated by police. But the initial controversy came about as a result of police conduct after one allegation. The Home Affairs Select Committee have recommended that there should be anonymity before a charge. Clearly, that's too late now for Cliff Richard, as there has already been publicity, but the Home Affairs Select Committee have recommended that people should not be named in the media merely for allegations and they should only be named when actual charges are brought against an individual.


 * It was reported in The Guardian in May 2015 that after the Savile scandal erupted there were a huge number of allegations of historical sexual offences made against a huge number of famous individuals: 76 politicians and 135 celebrities from TV, film or radio. There have apparently, according to The Guardian, been allegations made against 261 high-profile individuals. The vast majority of these 261 high-profile individuals will never be named in the media unless charges are brought against them. There was publicity surrounding the property search of Cliff Richard's home, but I feel there doesn't need to be a lot of content in the lead section about the allegations against Richard, which have not resulted in any arrest or charges as yet.


 * If a majority of editors feel that it is right to also include in the lead section the additional content that police are currently investigating two allegations against Richard, with one further investigation into an allegation against Richard having been dropped, then I'm happy to go with what the majority of editors feel. But in my view the previous version (which I have now gone back to) is better balanced with just two sentences about the controversy in the lead section. To add further content to the lead section seems, in my opinion, to be unnecessary. Also, in a previous talk page section, it was felt by editors that the content about the controversy should be trimmed in the lead section. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the edit summary of ianmacm on 6 November 2015 (UK time) that the fact Richard has been interviewed twice by police doesn't need to be hyped up in the lead. I have made a modification to state the fact that he voluntarily agreed to the two police interviews, but I do feel that the content regarding police interviews probably doesn't need to be in the lead section at all. It is probably sufficient merely to say that he has not been arrested or charged.


 * I have also made a slight adjustment to the content in the main section of the article. It is already stated that two allegations continue to be investigated (with one allegation having been dropped). So although the reference in The Daily Telegraph refers to "two new allegations" - these are only "new" in the sense of coming after the original allegation was made which led to the property search in August 2014. They are not new in the sense of being in addition to the two allegations currently being investigated.


 * In my view the property search in August 2014 was a significant controversy, but things don't need to be hyped up in the lead given the fact that Richard has not been arrested or charged with anything. Incidentally, tonight I had a look at the Wikipedia article on Boy George and did notice that even though he was jailed in 2009 for 15 months for the assault and false imprisonment of a male escort, there is currently nothing at all about that in the lead section. Nor indeed is there anything in the lead about Boy George being barred from the United States in the late 1980s after being convicted in the UK of heroin possession in 1986. In George's case, his jail sentence for the serious offences of assault and false imprisonment appear to be deemed by editors not significant enough for the lead section. So the two allegations currently being investigated about Richard, which have been strongly denied by him, and have not resulted in an arrest or charge as yet, do I think need to be taken in context. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * My initial thought that Richard's two voluntarily agreed police interviews don't need to be hyped up in the lead section is one that I have gone back to and therefore I have today removed the sentence about interviews from the lead. If at any time in the future Richard is arrested or charged with any offence, then of course this would be stated in the lead. But in the meantime, without any arrest, a sense of perspective is I think required. I have trimmed the sentence in the lead about police interviews as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:RECENTISM.


 * I mentioned the example earlier of Boy George and I did also notice today that in the WP article for singer Ozzy Osbourne there is currently nothing in the lead section about him being arrested in 1982 for drunkenly urinating on a cenotaph and nothing about Osbourne being arrested in 1989 for drunkenly attempting to strangle his wife - she later decided not to press charges against him for attempted murder.


 * Some other British singers have been jailed for offences and the prison sentences they have served have not (at the time of this post) been given any mention in the lead. Ian Brown was jailed for four months in 1998 for air rage behaviour after threatening the captain and threatening to chop the hands off an airline stewardess. George Michael was sentenced to eight weeks in prison in 2010 after smashing his car into a shop window and admitting driving under the influence of drugs. There is currently no mention of these jail sentences in the lead section for Brown or Michael. I accept of course that the two allegations against Richard are of a different nature, but the important point is that Richard has not as yet been arrested or charged with anything. Therefore a sense of balance and perspective for the lead section is desirable. I don't think that the police interviews need to be hyped up in the lead. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Those trolly-dollys can get a bit annoying, can't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The police may be trying to spin this out in order to make further witnesses come forward. If so, they don't seem to be having much luck. The WP:LEAD should not play this game because the police have had over twelve months to investigate this without finding any evidence that would be enough to arrest or charge Richard. As stated above, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:RECENTISM apply here, particularly in the lead section.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Poor Cliff. It must feel a bit like Chinese water torture. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again things have been hyped up in the lead section tonight. The hyping up of "interviewed twice under caution" is not in my view justified as per the guidelines at WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:RECENTISM. I haven't trimmed the content back again tonight, because I don't wish to engage in an edit war with anybody. But it makes the lead section look like a recent newspaper report rather than a concise summary of Richard's 57-year-career. The hyping up of "two new allegations" also seems a case of recentism, because although the reference in The Daily Telegraph refers to "two new allegations" - these are only "new" in the sense of coming after the original allegation was made which led to the property search in August 2014. They are not new in the sense of coming after a statement given by South Yorkshire Police in February 2015 when the police stated that there was "more than one allegation" against Richard.


 * For a number of months there has been content in the main section to state that "more than one allegation is being investigated". So although The Daily Telegraph's headline is about "two new allegations", these are only "new" in terms of being made after the property search in August 2014. There is nothing to verify that these "new allegations" have come after a statement already given by South Yorkshire Police in February 2015. Despite the newspaper headline, to describe them simply as "two allegations" would in my view be more accurate. The current lead section at the time of this post, with the recentism of "two police interviews under caution" and "two new allegations" is not in my view justified.


 * I don't feel that it gives Wikipedia balance that on the one hand, as previously mentioned, the singer Ozzy Osbourne was arrested in 1989 for drunkenly attempting to strangle his wife to death and there is no mention of this at all in the lead for Osbourne. And on the other hand Cliff Richard, who has had a longer career than Osbourne, has a lead section with recentism about "two police interviews under caution" when these are allegations that he has strongly denied and have not led to any arrest or charge. In my view it is not balanced to have the lead section for Richard as it currently stands. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ozzy's a comparative spring chicken, by a good ten years, isn't he. And I'm sure I'd feel like strangling Sharon if I'd had to sit through three year's worth of screeching boy bands. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It smacks of WP:RECENT, goes against WP:NPOV as it sensationalism gone amok. The recent edit was the worst of the lot and lacks balance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Re this edit: I reverted it because it was bordering on tabloid sensationalism in the wording. Being interviewed under caution proves nothing, as this is standard police procedure. If and when the police find any evidence strong enough to arrest Richard or send a file to the Crown Prosecution Service, the article can go to town on it. Until then, the police seem to be clutching at straws and hoping that something will turn up despite having had over twelve months investigating this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Re this edit: The WP:LEAD is a summary and I think that this is as much as the lead section needs to say about the matter. Any further detail about the whys and wherefores of this investigation should be left until later on in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Case against Richard "to be dropped"
The Sunday Times today quotes a friend of Cliff Richard as saying that the one of the cases against him will be dropped (, subscription to read full article). The WP:LEAD of this article gives way too much prominence to the allegations and should be trimmed.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with sentiments expressed in the thread above, that the lead sentences about this should be removed entirely. I had trimmed them down from the substantial paragraph that was there before, but am happy for them to go completely. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also still support their total removal from the lede.LM2000 (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We should cut back the part of the introduction mentioning the allegations, but I think it would be wrong to remove all mention of them at this stage. They are serious allegations, and we should not rush into removing all mention at this stage on the basis that it is reported that "a friend" of his says that one of the cases will be dropped.  That is simply rumour.  Even if it is true, it still leaves other serious allegations against him, reported in reliable sources, which are still being investigated.  We should not give them undue weight, and I'd support a shortening of the mention of them in the lede - but we should not remove them entirely at this stage.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ghmyrtle. Currently there are just two sentences, with just 44 words. I think the content speaks more to police incompetence than to Richard's private life. We can't use "a friend of Richard" as a source for anything, even if he or she reads The Times. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it appears to me that so far the controversy of this issue has principally been about the way the police have handled the investigation, and when I trimmed the lead info last month, I phrased it to reflect this. However, considering that charges have still to be made, my question is whether a matter of police competence is important enough to warrant mention in the lead? It's still all there in the main text. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is now over twelve months since this controversy surfaced. There is still an element of WP:CRYSTAL, but it is unlikely that many people will be rushing down to the betting shop to bet on any charges being brought, or convictions being obtained. This is increasingly looking like another Paul Gambaccini case for the police. If and when the investigation is dropped, the police will face criticism. As things stand, the allegations could be removed from the WP:LEAD and dealt with adequately later on in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's a reliable source that charges have been dropped, I'd have no objection at all. And yes there is the time factor here. I wonder if other regular editors such as User:Kind Tennis Fan have a view on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally feel that the two sentences in the lead section are not overly excessive after PaleCloudedWhite did a good job about six weeks ago of trimming back the content in the lead section. I wouldn't have strong objections though to removing the current two sentences, but I feel it may be better to do so after such a time as South Yorkshire Police confirm that the investigation into Cliff Richard is over. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There is currently just two short sentences in the lead section regarding the accusations against Richard, which as most editors seem to feel is perfectly adequate for the lead. However, on 11 November 2015 (UK time) an editor trimmed one sentence from the main section of the article regarding the news from June 2015 that one of Richard's accusers had been told, by South Yorkshire Police, that the investigation into his allegation against Richard had been dropped. It has been widely reported in a number of reliable sources that one case against Richard has been dropped, with two allegations currently being investigated.

This one sentence which was in the main section stating that one case against Richard had been dropped seems to me to be perfectly acceptable to still include, as it is verified by reliable sources and one sentence doesn't take up a lot of space. The fact that two allegations against Richard are currently being investigated by the police is included in the article. It seems to me to be reasonable and balanced to also include the one sourced sentence stating that one of Richard's accusers had been told, by South Yorkshire Police, that the investigation into his allegation against Richard had been dropped. I welcome other comments but I propose soon to restore this one sentence to the main section. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again a simple one sentence reporting that one case against Richard has been dropped has been removed by an editor. I'd like to explain here on the talk page why I feel it is reasonable, balanced and fair to include this one sourced sentence. It is important that things are done in a balanced way. It is mentioned in the article that in November 2015 Richard was re-interviewed by South Yorkshire Police over two allegations, even though there has been no actual statement by the police to confirm that he was indeed re-interviewed over two allegations.


 * The Daily Telegraph report of 7 November 2015 said: "The Telegraph understands detectives have questioned Sir Cliff Richard....." So even though there has been no actual confirmation by South Yorkshire Police that Richard was re-interviewed over two allegations it is nevertheless appropriate (in my view) that this sentence about the re-interview is included in the main article because this is what the reliable source - The Daily Telegraph understands. And to re-emphasise that was the wording which The Daily Telegraph used - "understands detectives have...."


 * So it seems to me to be perfectly reasonable and balanced to also include another one sentence from the same reliable source in The Daily Telegraph from September 2015 which says: "It is understood one of those investigations has now been dropped after detectives were unable to find any evidence to corroborate the claim."


 * So to re-emphasise - it is stated that: "The Daily Telegraph understands that detectives have re-interviewed Sir Cliff Richard over two allegations....." Another article from The Daily Telegraph earlier in September 2015 reported: "It is understood one of those investigations has now been dropped....."


 * If one or two editors might feel that we should not include any reports about Richard being re-interviewed or not include any reports about two allegations currently being investigated then that is one point of view that somebody might have. But the consensus of opinion among editors seems to be that although we do not include these reports in the lead section and that details in the lead section are kept very brief, we are nevertheless able to include them later in the main section.


 * So if it is appropriate to include details in the main section about Richard being re-interviewed by the police over two allegations then it seems perfectly fair, reasonable and balanced to also include that one case against Richard has been dropped. Therefore I have again restored a simple one sentence - which doesn't take up a lot of space in the main section - verified this time, instead of the Sheffield Telegraph by another reliable source in The Daily Telegraph. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the police can interview Richard as many times as they like, but they have yet to come up with anything that would result in him being arrested, let alone charged. This is remarkable after more than twelve months.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have restored a short sentence stating that The Daily Telegraph reported in September 2015 that one case against Richard has been dropped for the reasons stated earlier.


 * One report in November 2015 said "The Daily Telegraph understands that detectives have re-interviewed Sir Cliff Richard over two allegations....." Another article from The Daily Telegraph earlier in September 2015 reported: "It is understood one of those investigations has now been dropped....."


 * To include only one of the above reports from The Daily Telegraph stating that Richard has been re-interviewed over two allegations, but to not include the other report from the same newspaper reporting that one case against Richard has been dropped doesn't seem (in my view) to be fully balanced. It is reasonable and balanced to include both reports from the same reliable source. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

BBC TV series' and specials
Since the page is locked and I don't want to create an account simply to be blocked and banned, I'm posting here the entries for all Cliff's BBC TV shows. Feel free to add them to Cliff's page, create a separate page, or simply delete as being unnoteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.50.204.13 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 24 February 2016‎

It's Cliff Richard. Series 1. Produced by Michael Hurll. Broadcast Saturdays on BBC1 at 6:15pm.

Sing A New Song. Series 1. Produced by Raymond Short. Broadcast Sundays on BBC1 at 6:00pm.

It's Cliff Richard. Series 2. Produced by Michael Hurll. Broadcast Saturdays on BBC1 at 6:15pm (except where noted).

It's Cliff Richard. Series 3. Produced by Michael Hurll. Broadcast Saturdays on BBC1 at 6:15pm (except where noted).

It's Cliff Richard. Series 4. Produced by Brian Whitehouse. Executive Producer: Michael Hurll. Broadcast Saturdays on BBC1.

It's Cliff and Friends. Series 1. Produced by Phil Bishop. Executive Producer: Michael Hurll. Broadcast Saturdays on BBC1.

Cliff!. Series 1. Produced by Norman Stone. Broadcast Mondays on BBC2 at 8:10pm.

Why was this added asks Walter. Read the above. Quite simple.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.246.145.202 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You also left a comment on my talk page, but it's not how one makes edit requests. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow. "In a place where we are trying to operate as peers and be constructive" writes Walter. See above. And yet that's your response to an editor who clearly added very constructive work for their peers? You should be ashamed. You posted that you did not know why it had been added and hid it, when all you had to do was read the above paragraph as the rest of us did. Doubtless you'll be calling me a troll next too. Hang your head in shame as an embarrassment to Wikipedia before you hit the 'block' key for my IP address. Go ahead and delete the work of you can't see the point of it. Personally, I think it's fascinating and would be an excellent addition to the Cliff Richard Wikipedia page. But what do we trolls know? We're not as expert as others see themselves 50.200.189.26 (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No. I just wasn't sure why it was added and I was busy checking other edits on my watch page. If you're going to act like a two-year-old and delete it without discussing, I'm fine with that. I concur that it would make an insteresting article. It was well-researched.
 * I don't think you're a troll, but I don't like your attitude and until you change that attitude and lose your paranoia, I will not be supporting you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

One has never asked for your help with anything. Ever. One wouldn't dare. You are completely confused about who you are abusing.50.200.189.26 (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Editor 104.50.204.13 created the entry about Cliff Richard's BBC TV shows and explained why they had posted it here on the talk page rather than creating a new article. The article page it should be on is locked and can't be edited other than by the wiki elite. Then Editor 162.246.145.202 chimed in and wrote the reason the data had been posted - again. Editor 50.200.189.26 joins in with a response, citing Walter's earlier comments about constructive behavior. At this point Walter Görlitz doesn't seem to be fully aware of who's who. I have nothing to do with the creation of this data, but I'm reinstating the work and detail as I think it's excellent. From what I can tell, editors 2&3 weren't involved either. They were just trying to help, as I am. 50.255.55.99 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Fifteen pages of episode guides is plainly inappropriate content for a biography article, but by all means create articles about the individual series. --McGeddon (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I give up. I've tried to help but the wiki elite who CAN help are determined to get their way. Their way or no way. McGeddon could have moved it to the locked page. I can't. The bullying that goes on here is astonishing. This is excellent material but can't be posted by those who don't want to create an account simply to be blocked and abused. I can see why. And McGeddon & Walter think they're making wiki better. Happy bullying!50.255.55.99 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No specific WP:EDITREQUEST was made. If your edit request would be "add fifteen pages of episode guides to this biography" then I think most editors would reject that request, but you're welcome to try it. You are also free to create articles for It's Cliff Richard, Sing a New Song and so on and put the content there, which seems like the best use of this research. --McGeddon (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not my data as I've made clear. I was just trying to help. You could help regardless of any "official" process. But you won't. The page is LOCKED. It can't be edited. Please don't harrass me on my talk page again. All spiteful bullying will be instantly removed. 50.255.55.99 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that McGeddon stated that it would be inappropriate to add this here, but you are free to add a new article. There is no prohibition to doing so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * At the risk of wading into something that has nothing to do with me either (although Walter Görlitz seems to reply to everyone as if they're the same editor) you CAN'T create new articles. There is a prohibition. You have to beg wiki royalty to approve it and when I created a page, it was declined. You don't seem to understand what's being asked here. Deliberately it seems. 72.245.246.219 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't use multiple IP addresses to create some illusion of support or consensus. I can't see that any editor has ever drafted or requested the creation of, eg, It's Cliff Richard. --McGeddon (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How dare you. Please withdraw that slander immediately. I have nothing to do with any of the previous comments. I am interested in TV history and so saw this page and commented. Your comment is dishonest and totally inappropriate.72.245.246.219 (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Two editors from California. Both interested in an obscure topic. See WP:DUCK.
 * Obscure? You seem very keen on the subject matter, returning to it hourly. California has a population of one or two in case you hadn't heard in your tiny world of obscure singers. Still, since you are using two different accounts to defame other editors, why would I be surprised you're writing slurs.72.245.246.219 (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mixing partial truths with partial lies doesn't help your case. See Draft:List of Cliff Richard television appearances. In other words, anonymous editors may create articles, but they must be reviewed before being accepted into main space. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You have publicly called me a liar. You will now reap the reward.72.245.246.219 (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I proved that you were a liar. Anonymous editors may create articles. I just proved that above. Yet you emphatically stated that they can't create new articles. OK. Let's call it a difference of opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You have proven nothing and continue to defame me. I hope you are ready for the consequences.72.245.246.219 (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I have not defamed you and only proven you to be wrong, I fear no consequences. Are you willing to admit that anonymous editors can created draft articles? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems that an article with the suggested content has been created at List of Cliff Richard television appearances. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)