Talk:Jonathan King/Archive 2

The autobiog as a ref: FAIL
I've removed '"Everyone's Gone to the Moon," which made number one in the UK over The Beatles' "Help" in August that year and sold four million copies worldwide' from the lede, because it's not true. It only ever got to number four in the UK chart, and certainly was never 'over' The Beatles' 'Help' (I'm not even sure what 'over' means in this context). Here's a link to a legit record of the UK Chart for the period:. Furthermore, there's no chance that a record that only made it to #4 sold four million - again this is an unsupported claim made by the subject, whose integrity in such matters is..... suspect.

The lesson, once again, is that King's self-published autobiography is *not* a reliable source. It contains myriad 'errors', which always seem to err on the side of aggrandisement. Whether these are simple errors in recollection by the subject, or deliberate attempts to big-up a mediocre career is of course unknown - but to suggest that one is 'bigger than The Beatles is a step too far! Little grape (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * King's work is a reliable source for this article per V, which is the policy, and the link was just a courtesy link to the source. We can add in-text attribution if you like. "Over" means it was one ahead of the Beatles, as the source says. The source you provided doesn't contradict the source I provided if you read them; they are about different weeks, and it's not clear your link is a reliable source anyway. Here is another source for four million, but I don't know who produces it.  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 11:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's not a single reliable source for the 'four million' claim (songfacts and the ilk are fansites, and certainly not reliable where one considers that it describes itself as 'a searchable database of song information compiled by radio professionals, music enthusiasts, and visitors to this web site').


 * The most reliable data when trying to authenticate claims re. chart positions and sales numbers is that which references *actual* sales data - the ref I've used, www.everyhit.com, provides that data and appears far more reliable. It states that King's song only ever got to #4, whereas 'Help' sat at #1 for three weeks. The link I gave demonstrates 'Help' at #1 for three weeks in 1965; this link gets you to the search page where, if you input 'Jonathan King', you will get what appears to be an accurate record of his UK chart success. Little grape (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see that everyhit.com is any more reliable than anything else&mdash;there were different charts, different criteria&mdash;but regardless I've added a couple of book refs. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 11:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyhit appears to use the Record Retailer data from the period, which I think is the most reliable as it uses actual sales data. Either way, we should rely upon actual sales chart data rather than dubious self-published anecdotes from the subject, or fansites.


 * I can't see the 'bestseller' line in the bookref (it only gives me as far as 'released in the United') but I'll take your word for it. We don't really use the term 'bestseller' in the UK for singles though; this is more used with regard to book sales. Is a position in the 'top 10' a best seller? I would say yes, by any measure. But top 20? 30? 40? Is anything in the Billboard Hot 100 a 'bestseller'? I don't really know how one would define the term for use here?


 * Is there any non-King sourced ref you can find that states that '...Moon' got to number 1? I can only guess that he's tried to use some minor chart from the period; there was a lot of bribery around chart positions in the sixties - e.g. pirate radio stations would puff places for cash. It may be no coincidence that Decca was involved in the payola scandal at the time, so we need to be careful not to repeat and perpetuate the 1965 fake data here....... Little grape (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at the source, it's a poster from a radio station saying it went to number one, so it is a non-King source, but as you say, a different chart. Mind you, I don't which chart is being used for the number 4 thing either.  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 12:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, hang on, it's not a poster. It's something King has written up based on information from Radio London. Would be interesting to find out whether it's accurate. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 12:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah - that explains it. The 'Radio London' mentioned isn't BBC Radio London, it's the 60's pirate ship Radio London. They made up their own chart, allegedly based on how much people paid them, and thus are about as reliable as Bernie Madoff's abacus..... Little grape (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm now tuned into them, listening to the charts from the 60s. What Becomes of the Brokenhearted now playing. :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 13:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * for gods sake stop trying to boost this pervert little grape is doing a good job making less of his past exept for his crimes. jusdt because he says something in his book doesnt make it true. its not like its a actual chart or photo or anything. i like the bit when you keep removing his claims people like nina simone recorded his song. very good. keep at it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.84.114 (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop trying to boost this pervert little grape ...? LG, is there something we should know? :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I know the oh-so-laboured punctuation is wearing, but I think he was trying to accuse *you* of the 'boosting', not me! The comma helps thus: 'stop trying to boost this pervert, little grape is doing a good job'. Clearly he thinks I deserve some sort of barnstar? Perhaps 'The Barnstar For Not Boosting A Pervert' might be considered small reward for my unceasing efforts in this regard? It seems only fair.... Little grape (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I look forward to getting my "I boosted a pervert on Wikipedia" T-shirt. A wet one, I trust. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * why put in that rubbish about genesis? put more in about how he did crime —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.84.114 (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The fake bad spelling, the fake lack of capitalisation, the fake presentation as a 'nonce-basher' (topped off by the trip around the corner to get an anon wifi connection) - you have become very predictable..... Little grape (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are we already acquainted with this gentleman, then? :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a Friday, so I shall suppress the cynicism that wells up from my very pips and say that perhaps it is mere coincidence that always seems to bring the same type of seemingly illiterate IP editor forward to declare they're on my 'side' against 'a pervert'. Because the more worrying conclusion would be that there are many, many, many illiterate King-hating people out there who, unable to figure out how to create a username and login to wikipedia, are content to spend their online lives discussing the boosting of perverts (did we ever figure out exactly what that meant?). Glad you're a Robert Elms fan BTW Little grape (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I used to harbour fantasies about various anon idiots on Wikipedia really being the same person darting between internet cafes&mdash;or even countries! I was often accused of ABF, but really it was born of hope. :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 14:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

shuffle
per some of the above threads (european court bit et al) I've reworded a little to make more neutral, and shuffled some bits from the lead to the main body. I think it's in better shape now. Privatemusings (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

So many details wrong Aliceinsprings (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Either someone is having a joke or they haven't bothered to read his book. I have and corrected accordingly.

He spent two more years at Cambridge before his finals. His brother was not Kenny - he is Kenneth. They were raised near Cranleigh in Surrey, not Dorking. Stoke House is on the South Coast, miles from Surrey. Peter Asher was a singer, not a record producer then. He recorded several songs long before he travelled - some for Joe Meek. He graduated in 1967 not 1965. Johnny Reggae was in 1971. He says the Genesis tape was given to him by a friend of the band. He only suggested the Pet Shop Boys may have plagiarised Stevens. He didn't host the Brits 90-92. He produced them. Surely if we are going to include his arguments of innocence or other claims not allowed we should either put them all in or leave them all out, not cherry pick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliceinsprings (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Alice, thanks for your input. I've reverted your edits for now, not because I think they're necessarily wrong, but because they're unsourced, and some of them contradict the sources that are there. If you want to use his book as a source, we'll need page numbers.


 * Could we start with his Cambridge timeline&mdash;when he went up and when he graduated? The Press Association said in March 2005 that he was sitting his finals when he had a hit with "Everyone's Gone to the Moon", which was in 1965: "After a rocky start and a series of eminently forgettable numbers, he finally stumbled upon a successful formula with Everyone's Gone To The Moon. The song became a huge hit, reaching number four in the single charts in 1965, while King was studying for his finals. After graduating he continued writing, but also moved into management."


 * He was born in December 1944, so I'd expect him to be at Cambridge between 1962 and 1965-ish, though he did take a gap year. Does your source have precise dates?


 * I see the PA has other material that may not be right, such as his age when his father died: "His father, the managing director of a local textile firm, died when King was 12." His book says he was nine, so I take it the textile firm issue may not be right either.


 * As for his brother's names, it's King who calls them Jamie and Andy. And it's King who talks about spending his early life in Dorking; see here for the latter. Where Stoke House is has no bearing on that because he says he was a boarder. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

People don't take their finals and continue at University for 2 more years. There are numerous sources about this and his book makes it quite clear. The Press Association has clearly made several mistakes. Admittedly I'm only going by his book but why would he lie about things like Stoke House being miles away from home by the sea and how he hated it? And I agree with the previous Editor about details and claims he makes about his innocence - if people are interested they can read his book; Wikipedia should not be carrying such details; neither should it carry other bits about prosecution claims. It may be trivia that Peter Asher was a singer at the time and only became a producer years later but surely we should be accurate? There are loads of sources about his earlier attempts to record and write - let alone the Meek letter shown in the book. A quick look at The Brits site shows he produced the later shows and didn't host them. Anyway, I've had my say; that's quite enough time spent correcting obvious mistakes! Ted Burnham. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.144.5.5 (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please say what your objections are to the material you removed? Also, please be careful when removing citations, because it leaves other material unreferenced.


 * I've left some of your changes, but I've restored material I could see no reason to remove. I've also removed that he graduated in 1967. I'm not doubting it; it's just that we need a reference for it.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Decca
sorry to be a bit of a fly-through contributor here - unfortunately, that's likely to continue - but I thought I'd just respond a little to the above.

Re: Decca - I believe in previous discussions it was common ground that King's first spell at Decca was as an unpaid assistant to Sir Ed. (I believe sources are available too) - further, in his second spell, I believe it's common ground that King was employed (ie. paid) as an advisor directly to Sir Ed. - King represents this spell as basically having run the place, for example asserting to have been intimately involved in delivering Let It Bleed - but other sources spell out more clearly the 'advisory' nature of this role.

Now I'm happy to source all of the above (in fact, I believe sources are littered throughout the archives, which I've not hopped in to check, yet) - but I think it's reasonable to assert, once sourced, that if indeed King's role was, in the first spell, unpaid, in and the second, advisory, that it's probably not appropriate for us to write that he 'ran' Decca. If we wanted to get a wee bit more 'OR' about it, it may be worth examining the weight that articles such as the Guardian's give to this aspect (as in, it's really a passing fact mentioned with little weight or authority in my view, there may be further discussion and evidence of such) - and balance that against our desire to be accurate, and not to mislead. Cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.talkforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1040246&sid=d925486bcb63194099d0359f3c109365 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffwise (talk • contribs) 07:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy
I didn't want to edit but Slim Virgin's talk page does not accept messages - I feel the wording of the Mail article makes it seem that more than one male initiated the case whereas King says in his book it was one man and even Clifford never says more than one initially approached him - only that more came forward after the first publicity. This may seem trivial but one wording implies that of course King was guilty if three men independently approached a publicist whereas it is possible (I don't say either interpretation is the truth) that if one man started the ball rolling and others joined in after the publicity, King's claims may have worth. Cliffwise (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sex Offender
Wow, my edit lasted all of a few seconds. This article on Mr King has a very strange feeling to it. The fact that he was convicted of a string of sex offences against boys doesn't get mentioned till the fourth paragraph. And then, when it does get mentioned, it is given less space than is given to the mentions of his proclamations of innocence, and his numerous appeals. Is this standard practice in Wikipedia, that greater weight is given to protestations of innocence than is given to the verdict of a jury? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.3.179 (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Just thinking out loud here, but what would happen if the editing of an area of Wikipedia became dominated by pedophiles? How would Wikipedia tackle that problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.3.179 (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This was getting messy
Needed trimming and removal of repeated material. Aliceinsprings (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 86.159.3.179 (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, I don't pretend to understand all your rules, and frankly I don't intend to try to learn them all. I am here simply to try to correct an entry on the world's most read encyclopedia - an entry that is notable for the extent to which it panders to pedophilia. Let me explain. The fourth paragraph of the opening section currently reads: "King was sentenced to seven years in prison in 2001 for the sexual assault of five teenage boys aged 14–16 between 1983 and 1989.[3] He protested his innocence.[7] He was refused leave to appeal and was released on parole in 2005.[7] The Criminal Cases Review Commission agreed to review his case in 2006, and in 2008 it was reported that the European Court of Human Rights was considering his application for an appeal.[8]" I object to this for the following reasons - the second sentence reads: "He protested his innocence." Why is that even worth stating? Sentence four: "The Criminal Cases Review Commission agreed to review his case in 2006." And? That was four years ago. That just sounds like spin to me, to give the impression that there is some doubt about the conviction. What were the conclusions of the Criminal Cases Review Commission? Later in sentence four: "the European Court of Human Rights was considering his application for an appeal." So that was two years ago. What was the result of that? Or is this just a bit more spin to cast doubt in readers' minds? Later on in this entry I find the following sentence: "Some commentators felt King's persecution had been unfair, among them Charles Shaar Murray, Howard Jacobson, Carole Sarler, Lynn Barber, Richard Stott and Danny Hammill.[28] [29]" I have tried removing this sentence, and it miraculously re-appeared in a slightly different place. Firstly, in what sense has King been persecuted? This seems to me to be an outrageously loaded word to use. Perhaps "prosecution" was the intended word, rather than "persecution". Secondly the two refences given for this sentence only seem to lead to an article by Richard Stott, who argues that King should have been released because the children who accused him "all agreed to the sex and some were pop groupies who kept on coming back for more." I find it incredible that someone can even make the claim that having sex with boys aged 14 to 16 is OK if some of them "kept coming back for more". But perhaps more to the point, I don't see how this perverse reference had anything to do with the views of "Charles Shaar Murray, Howard Jacobson, Carole Sarler, Lynn Barber,"..."and Danny Hammill".

Agree with "persecution" - changed to "prosecution" and corrected link. The rest is valid as is. 86.155.167.68 (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of the article
Aliceinsprings, we have to be careful not to turn the article into an extension of King's website. The latest addition about him saying he'd submitted a novel for the Booker Prize, and that one judge loved it, is somewhat engineered. I have no problem updating the article from time to time, but the issues have to be genuinely notable. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse cat
The conviction is noteworthy; the cat is appropriate.Lionel (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC) I did not find "extreme" as a criteria in WP:CAT. However, WP:CAT states "It should be clear from verifiable information." Lionel (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You added him to the same cat as people like Fred West and Sidney Cooke, which is a serious BLP violation. It's the kind of cat that should be deleted because it lends itself to this. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 07:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Slim, the cat isn't so bad.. William Mayne and Gary Glitter are there. King has a lengthy, reliably sourced section on the child abuse conviction. The conviction is significant to the article. BLP comes into play when content lacks sourcing or is poorly sourced. That is not the case here. Your position sounds like it's based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. Anyway I looked in WP:CAT to see if there was a policy to exclude the cat but didn't find anything; am I missing something? Lionel (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't feel comfortable talking about it here, Lionel. Would you mind if we discussed it on my talk page (or yours) instead? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 08:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It is SMURP
Google Jonathan King Smurp images —Preceding unsigned comment added by Progrockerfan (talk • contribs) 08:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems that it is. But please discuss the other changes here... Thanks. Lionel (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Lionelt and Slim Virgin
LionelT and Slim Virgin - thank you for your patronizing changes. Lionel - you have said King is a "revolting pervert" and you may well be right. Slim Virgin - But your attitude to this article is so sloppy. Of course it was SMURP - I wasn't the first to notice. He probably changed it to avoid being sued for copyright breach. But why not click Google once instead of constantly changing corrections? Lazy editing. Why omit Johnny Reggae from discography when it's in main body text? Why avoid his new movie when it's all over the media?

www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/featur...call-Pictures?page=5

Lionel, your beloved Mail had a huge feature a few days ago on Nigel Lythgoe where he says King was his first choice of judge before Simon Cowell. Isn't that worth mentioning? Links removed. Words dropped. All to fit the SEX agenda. I'm a Genesis fan and would like more about his connection there and with 10cc and The Moody Blues. Surely Wikipedia is meant to inform not just titillate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Progrockerfan (talk • contribs) 07:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What does deleting "aged 14–16" and removing the "Conviction" title and the other conviction-related changes have to do Smurp, Johnny Reggae, his new movie and Genesis? Your edit to the Conviction content has been reverted by 2 editors. You don't have consensus for this change. Why not try persuade us your change is an improvement instead of edit warring? Lionel (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Two points: first, please don't keep changing the conviction section against consensus. Argue here instead for the points you want to make or remove. Secondly, this article isn't intended as an extension of King's personal website, where we plot everything he's doing. We're supposed to include only notable material, and that really shouldn't include material that's given only a passing mention in the press. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 11:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Problems
Hi Ghmyrtle, the problem with this is that some sources say it's not correct that he was involved, e.g. Songfacts (who say he was only involved with the band in a minor way). And I think this may be true of a few things in the article, where over the years sources have erroneously associated him with certain songs or productions. Ideally, what we need are contemporaneous sources, i.e. sources from the period, before the Chinese whispers set in. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 11:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. According to the record label (which, at least on that copy, doesn't have the longer title), he didn't write it but did "produce and direct" it.  So, it certainly falls into a different category from most of the others listed.  I would guess that a more detailed analysis is unlikely to have concerned the compilers of more established reliable encyclopedic sources.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding that; that's exactly the kind of source we need. "Produced and directed" is good enough for me, in terms of his involvement. Songfacts is wrong, I would say! :) SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 12:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Marsmuse, 10 June 2011
Marsmuse (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Avic ennasis  @ 11:59, 9 Sivan 5771 / 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Record Sales
King has NOT sold 40 million records, and the claim "Everyone's gone to the moon" was a UK million seller is highly comical. 82.44.88.211 (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is qualified by "The Guardian reported" which seems fair enough. Record sales are always estimates. There have been flame wars on Wikipedia in the past over who sold the most records, Elvis, The Beatles or Michael Jackson. It is possible to find citations to "prove" that any of these sold the most records.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the claim is made on King's own website and is not independently verified (and, incidentally, is probably untrue, as the IP suggests), I've added the words "he claimed" to the text about the number of records sold. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While I have my own views on who sold more between Elvis, The Beatles and MJ, one thing is clear, it wasn't Johnathan King. The 40 million "report" was simply the guardian repeating Kings own claim. They have not kept a seperate tally of sales of Kings releases. 82.44.88.211 (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This was removed. It is too contentious and basically an estimate from King himself. King has probably sold millions of records, but as with other Wikipedia articles where this problem has occurred, an exact figure can always be challenged.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Direct quote from the article in question; surely we should not remove it just because he is such an unsympathetic character? In fact, the truth makes his story more interesting. "But one cannot categorise his career as a downward spiral from Everyone's Gone To The Moon onwards. In fact, he has sold 40 million records." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.198.195 (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the article that this is a "direct quote" from? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've found the reference in this article - about half way through the article, para starting "One of King's friends...." It says: "But one cannot categorise his career as a downward spiral from Everyone's Gone To The Moon onwards. In fact, he has sold 40 million records...."   So, Ronson says it as part of an interview piece.  I still do not believe that it is true, or that such a source, in context, counts as "reliable".  It would be useful to have other independent sources on record sales, if they can be found.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I told you that it always sets off arguments when a specific figure is given for record sales. FWIW, I find the "over 40 million" figure unconvincing, but the real problem is that it is, like all of these figures, hard to source reliably.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved it out of the intro into the main article. Lead sections are not supposed to contain information not set out in the article, and the uncertainty over the veracity of the claim means that I think it is inappropriate for the opening paragraphs.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I only came here after reading in my paper the Telegraph about his It Only Takes A Minute being edited out of Top Of The Pops by the BBC. I wasn't aware that was him. I was astonished to find he had also recorded Loop Di Love, one of my favourites, under another name. I have it on a compilation of seventies hits from Holland. I know that sold a million in the Netherlands. I also have the sun has got its hat on - on a Japanese compilation that sold millions there and johnny reggae from a similat Million Selling Hits compilation from Germany. I had never known all these were King. Surely worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.198.195 (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This was put back into the WP:LEAD, even though it does not fit in well there. Given the ease with which this figure could be challenged, it is not really suitable for the lead section.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * good point - i've changed it into a more vague reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.198.195 (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not here to make "vague" statements - we are here to build encyclopedic articles. I've taken that statement out, not only because it's "vague", unhelpful, and pretty near meaningless - countless numbers of artists will have had tracks widely duplicated on compilation and other albums around the world - but it's also unreferenced and doesn't (so far as I can see) summarise a referenced part of the main article.  Building an article based on what you think to be true, and on your personal experience, is not what we are here to do.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

2010s-2020s
Has Wikipedia become a prophecy site? What's this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.66.198 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)