Talk:Jonathan King/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Opening sentence

There is no need to highlight the 2001 conviction in the opening sentence. It is already in the WP:LEAD and it comes across as an attempt to make a point rather than state the facts, which are already well known.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

On balance, I think it should go in the first sentence. The fact that it is already in tghe lead doesn't preclude it from being in the first sentence. Indeed that's the point: the first sentence is a synopsis of the rest of the lead. The question is what is king most notable for? I would argue that in descending order of notability he is known as "impresario and record producer", "convicted of child sex offences", "songwriter", "singer". In other words, if "songwriter" and "singer" is to be mentioned then his conviction should be as well, as his conviction has greater notoriety than certainly his singinging and probably his song-writing. DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The wording that was reverted in this edit had issues with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. King is known for things other than the 2001 conviction, so it does not need to be highlighted in the opening sentence. It is disappointing that User:Chrisstacey1964 reverted this from two editors yesterday without making any attempt at explaining why on the talk page. The current wording of the opening sentence "Jonathan King (born Kenneth George King; 6 December 1944) is an English singer, songwriter, impresario and record producer, who was convicted of child sex offences in 2001" is still badly written and has an element of non sequitur, as its chief purpose seems to be to tell everyone that he is a paedo, which is how a tabloid newspaper sees things. See also Gary Glitter which handles things in a way more compatible with WP:LEAD. It does not mention the child sex convictions in the opening sentence, even though this has received considerable coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Confused language

"King was arrested for sexual assault in November 2000 after a man approached Max Clifford, a British publicist, with allegations, originally about other men. He was released on £150,000 bail, £50,000 of it put up by Simon Cowell, the impresario, and was re-arrested, after the media publicity, in January 2001.[26][27] He was acquitted on all charges in a second case against him when a witness, whom King maintained he had never met, said that he had consented to sex and had been older at the time than he had initially told police."

These are all of the details about his arrest but according to the text, he was arrested, rearrested and then acquitted on a second case. No where is this discussion does it say that he was convicted, what charges he was convicted of, when this trial and conviction happened, what the penalty was and how much time was served. These seem like basic facts that should easily located for editors in the UK. Right now, there is more information in the lead/Introductory section about this than in the body of the article. 63.143.216.178 (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

lost its way

been reading all the archives on this page, very interesting. No-one has really looked at it for at least 2 years, in which time it has become, basically, a personally written love letter from the subject to himself. I will not bother with all the claims he makes for how important he is and all the wonderful things he has done and everyone loves him. I will not even alter all the claims he makes that he is innocent and the ECHR is looking at this miscarriage of justice personally, even though that was nearly 7 years ago! He really isnt that important, if you say his name now to anyone they ask who? Try it and see! I have simply added three words that show the boys he abused were under age. The way it is written looks like he simply had sex with men that were 18 or 19 and because of the wrong law re gay men he was convicted. He buggered, against their will, boys under 14. Only added 3 words, cant see any reason why they will be removed, and cant see why the fact they were teenagers should be listed either. The boys in question were under-age, he was convicted and went to prison for it. Please leave the edit as it is or discus? (17:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC))— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfc06 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

editors needed, HOW BIASED IS THIS ARTICLE

No, this article is so over the top for him I cant just leave it. But I am new here and am asking all experienced editors to look at this article and correct all the reverts please. Even the opening paragraph, why re his few, not well know, films listed? Its not like that for successful actors. Then all hos books are listed. Then all his "hits" and all other claims. "I ran Deca" for example, something that was removed many times in the history of the archives because its not true and it cant be verified. Can someone please make this article a balance truthful one? I have marked it NPOV, bit dont know what else to do?(Trfc06 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC))

links to Jimmy saville, help needed to set up new section

King classes veteran TV presenter Jimmy Savile as one of his closest friends - they have known each other for 25 years. Savile once said of him: "He's a sabra. A sabra is an Israeli fruit that's prickly on the outside and all soft and lovely inside. That's Jonathan King."http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/24/6 Lots of links confirming his links to him, this is in his own words. Due to his convictions for underage sex, and his many close links to other celebrity pesos, and what is now know re Jimmy and the interest in it I think this is relevant. Can anyone tell me how to add the section anfd links please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfc06 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Please do not remove the NPOV banner until it has been discussed and agreed upon by the community. Please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute

I have set this up the way Wiki says to and will add more NPOV opinions as we go. I have asked several well know editors to review the article and judge as well.

FIRST NPOV. Does not need the word teenage boys in what he was convicted for. This is done to imply that they were 16+ They were under 15. If the word teenager is left, then I suggest that we put the ages of the boys after that staement?

2nd King first came to prominence as an undergraduate at the University of Cambridge in 1965. Prominence is subjective, ask a person in Japn for example when did JK come to prominence and Im certain he would answer with this quote, or indeed any person anywhere in the world. This is put in to back up JKs claims that he is a prominent person. I will rewrite as" He when wrote and sang "Everyone's Gone to the Moon," which became an international best seller, while he was an undergraduate at Cambridge." Will change to this in 7 days unless anyone can tell me why its there?

Like I said, I will add every little npov on this page until it is a GOOD article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfc06 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I am removing the POV tag as I think this article comes across as fairly neutral overall. By all means challenge individual sentences if you think they are POV, but I do not think a POV tag for the whole article is justified. -- Alarics (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

According to the link i gave above I did it the right way. Im my opinion it is biased, you cant just decide that its not. I just wasnt a discussion on it please. I will add the npov tag again until the majority decide. No offence meant at all, just want it right. Thansk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfc06 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

need section for this please

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/JONATHAN+KING%3A+THE+VICTIMS+SPEAK%3A+Do+you+recognise+me%3F%3B+EXCLUSIVE%3A...-a080243027 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfc06 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will get reliable sources today and put the links here. will be as quick as I can. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfc06 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have raised an issue at WP:BLP/Noticeboard. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

40 million

only a small point, but important. please read this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jonathan_King/Archive_1#40_million_records.3F

One article in one newspaper where king tells the person doing the interview that he sold 40 million records and its presented as a fact on here. Can we please see some agreement as to wether this should be included in the article please? (Trfc06 (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

Not as such, unless there is some independent verification somewhere. (Is there not a website for that sort of thing?) However, we can, if we wish, say that "he claims" this, the fact cited in the ref. being that he claims that this is so, not that it is necessarily so. I would not have thought the claim was particularly unlikely, myself, as he certainly had a lot of big hits, but what do I know. -- Alarics (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Age of victims

There is contradictory information as to the ages of King's victims. The Guardian reports 14-16 and the Telegraph says 13-15. Does anyone know of a source that can be relied upon for the correct ages? Formerip (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

King faced a range of charges over a period of time, and the media may have reported them in different ways. I'm going through the sources and trying to make sense of it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The two sources are this and this, both relating to the case where King was convicted. It seems like one of them must have made an error. Formerip (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This BBC source, also in the article, says "King, 58, was found guilty in September 2001 of four indecent assaults and two serious sexual offences against boys aged 14 and 15, committed in the 1980s." It is all somewhat confused.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the most detailed and convincing description of the victims I've seen. They were all 14 or 15 when they met King - I would suggest that the reference to 13 was a straight error. The reference to 16 may be because some of the victims' involvement spanned several months during which they turned 16. I think therefore that either the current "14 to 16" or "14 to 15" are both ok, but referring to 13 is not. DeCausa (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

King has consistently claimed that some of the boys were older than the original tabloid newspaper stories which set off the court case. This does not alter the fact that he was convicted of sexual assault on teenagers. Men under 21 years old would have been illegal under the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which was the period when the offences occurred; men under 16 would still be illegal today. The best coverage of the case is by Lynn Barber in The King and I, in which she raises some concerns about how the case was driven by a tabloid agenda, pointing out that journalists from The Sun were at the scene within minutes of his arrest. The case also raises the question of whether people accused of sexual offences should be granted anonymity. As Lynn Barber points out, if this had happened with King, the additional witnesses might not have come forward, and he might have been acquitted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That may be all true, but I think that the ages of the 5 victims that were the subject of the 6 counts he was actually convicted of are a specific issue and different. The article I linked to was after the trial(i.e what King claimed about the age of the boys in the original tabloid stories which set off the case wouldn't be relevant) and specifically about the individuals who were the victims of the offences he was convicted of. There were a lot of others of course - 27 in all. Some of whom were outside the 14-15/16 age range. But there ages are not relevant to the conviction. DeCausa (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

whoever did the recent edit, thank you, very much better. I will list any more changes that are needed aswe go, but this reads quite well now! Thanks again.(Trfc06 (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC))

On that basis, I will remove the tag. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Trfc06 for drawing attention to a problem on this article. I think it's in a much better state now - although, it still rather reads like a CV in places. It's clear from looking at the edit history that there has been a long-term filleting of the article by IPs and SPAs and there needs to be greater scrutiny per WP:COI going forward. DeCausa (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

DeCausa, indeed it still does read like a CV a lot, but a much fairer CV thanks to your efforts. Much appreciated my friend. And thanks to Ghmyrtle as well for placing the message where he did so editors such as you saw it and helped.(Trfc06 (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

Trfc06 has added a {{POV}} tag to the section on "Early life and education". Why? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that it's something to do with the 40m discussion in the next thread and it's in the wrong section - should be the next one - (and he doesn't yet know when it's appropriate to tag.) DeCausa (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought as well, but I was hoping he'd clarify it before he's blocked (for edit warring on other articles). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tagging should be accompanied by an explanation on the talk page of what the problem is, and how to go about fixing it. Otherwise, WP:DRIVEBY applies and the tag is likely to be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Trfc06 is now indef blocked, so I suggest that we remove the tag. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ivor Novello award?

I'm puzzled by the claim that King won an Ivor Novello award for Paloma Blanca ("Record of the Year"). The award's website says that its awards are for song-writing and composing - I can't see any reference to performance. Yet King's record was just a cover and the song was written by George Baker (musician). The citation in the article is to a website called "Songfacts". I can't tell how reliable it is. There is an FAQ which says "You can contribute to Songfacts by clicking "Add Songfacts," and entering anything you know about a song into the form and where you found the information. We will review your entries and enter them into the database if wee [sic] deem them appropriate." The claim is repeated all over the internet (yet to see it in an WP:RS though), but I'm wondering if it can all be traced back to King's website, King of Hits, where the claim is made. Can anyone shine any light on this? DeCausa (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And strangely I can find no other song that won an Ivor Novello "Record of the Year" award. It seems to have been unique. The Grammys had a "Record of the Year" award and I think King was involved in setting up The Record of the Year award in the 1990s. DeCausa (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case I would say definitely delete the claim. -- Alarics (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. DeCausa (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Better start working on all the other Wikipedia claims then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paloma_Blanca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.58.99.191 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:OR I know, but, for the record, I emailed BASCA, who run the Ivor Novello Awards, and they replied that there is no publicly available list of winners but confirmed that Jonathan King did not win an Ivor for Paloma Blanca.DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Good job DeCausa, the article reads much better now, you have been busy.31.53.253.141 (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted your addition that the 40 million sales is disputed because it's unsourced. The sourcing on this article has been poor and I'm trying to make sure that every statement has a WP:RS citation. DeCausa (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

is this needed??

While on a round-the-world trip between school and university, King, by chance, met The Beatles and their manager, Brian Epstein, and was inspired by Epstein to pursue a career in the music industry.[6] King then went to Trinity College, Cambridge and graduated from there in 1966.[7] He has an M.A. in English literature.[1]

doesnt really add anything apart from try to link his name with the beatles? (Dave006 (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC))

I think it's worth stating as it ostensibly gives a reason for his career. It's be covered several times by profiles of him, so that would point to it being covered in this article. You've inserted that he claims" to have met them. But that's not in the source, which just states that he did. DeCausa (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok mate, no problem, please change it back. Couldnt see any source apart from the subjects own claim, sorry. Dave006 (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

small point

in the lead it says five further songs made the top 10, yet in the list of his records there are only 4?(Dave006 (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC))

Well spotted. I've corrected it. DeCausa (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

support??

Journalists Richard Stott and Lynn Barber have been sympathetic to his cause, although neither have said that they believe he did not commit the criminal offences.[27][41]

Read the articles, nowhere do I see that they support him? They wrote an article about him, doesnt mean they support him. Think this should be removed. (Dave006 (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC))

Nowhere did you see that because the two refs given were the wrong ones. Somebody had removed the Richard Stott reference altogether. I have put it back, and substituted the correct ref for Lynn Barber. -- Alarics (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Alarics, still cant see " I support him" anywhere, but at least im reading the correct articles. Thats not flippant by the way, really do mean thanks. (Dave006 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC))

I removed "support him" and substituted the more specific "wrote that he had been over-harshly treated". -- Alarics (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

redone opening

It was bascially a shorter version of what was in the rest of the article. Facts and songs etc were repeated twice on the page in two different sections. For example, do we need to list his "hits" in the opening, do we do that with everyone who has had a hit, the answer is no. Then there was a large section about genesis, bay city rollers and 10cc, all of which was repeated lower down in the exact same way. Will look at rest of article as well. (Dave006 (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)) another one, do we need to note that he was released after half his sentence, thats the norm for english prisioners.(Dave006 (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC))

There are several problems with your edits (I'm referring to the edits in the body of the article as well as the lead) including your use of sources, NPOV and WP:BLP, but you are currently editing so I'll wait until you're finished and address them in one go. As far as your above post is concerned, the point of WP:LEAD is that the lead should be a summary of the article, so there should be repetition. howevr, I agree on the ist of singles, which could go. DeCausa (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

will leave it to you mate, sorry if i messed it up a bit, really tried to do a good job! Very personal reasons why the facts about this man have to be correct, hope you understand. Thanks(Dave006 (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC))

You say you have a personal agenda on this subject, in that case you should not be editing this article. WP:NPOV WP:COI -- Alarics (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's strongly discouraged rather than outright banned - but in this case I would think it would be very difficult to maintain WP:NPOV and have that sort of COI. @Dave006, while some of your edits are ok (some are not) we have to maintain the over all balance of the article as having a neutral point of view. Every one of your edits has a negative aspect (for the subject) and cumulatively they damage the neutrality of the article in my opinion. Not only is this contrary to Wikipedia p0olicies but it undermine's the article's credibility to the average reader. DeCausa (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing but respect for you DeCausa, please show me examples of what you mean and I will change them back? I simply removed items that werent relevant, like he applied to be a witness at the levenhume, lots of people did? Is it worth of an entry in Wiki? Like adding to the date of his release that he served half his sentence, to imply that he must have been released early for a reason, when all english prisoners are released at the mid way point. Like saying he produced the brits for years, yet the imdb says it was one year? Like saying he is supported by journalists, when nowhere in the sources does it state " I support him". Loads like that. But if you show me ones that are wrong, please change them back, like I said I trust your judgement. Thanks Dave006 (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully, my edit summaries explain why I've restored some of the text - I've left some of your changes or only partially reverted them. In fact, I haven't restored the text you've highlighted in the above post, although the "supporters" text has been rightly restored and amended by Alarics, and that's discussed below. If you disagree with any of my reverts or the reverts of other editors, raise it here and we can discuss them. DeCausa (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

entertainment usa

one thing I will say, cant belive there isnt an article for this, I rember it being quite big then, but I was a kid!(Dave006 (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC))

Yes, it was a TV programme at least as significant as many for which we do have WP articles. It ran for several seasons and won BAFTA for Best Light Entertainment Programme in 1987, according to IMDb. Probably a case of WP:RECENTISM. -- Alarics (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That's possibly true, although it's very difficult to find any reliable independent sources that cover it. Not "heritage" TV, and most people who remember it probably want to forget it. Even IMDb is struggling to say anything. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a particular issue with this topic, though, which is that King's career got pushed into a memory-hole around 2001. Entertainment USA really was a significant show at the time but, understandably, no-one is very keen to reminisce about it nowadays. Obviously it still needs to pass GNG, but I'm sure there will be sources out there, it just may take a little more work than is usual. Anyway, the bottom line is that this is resolved by someone who wishes to finding the sources and creating the article. Formerip (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've now started possibly the stubbiest stub ever. Help welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I had a look around Google and Google Books and it's a WP:RS black hole. DeCausa (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Entertainment USA was very popular on BBC2 in the 1980s. It seems to be largely forgotten today though. WP:GOOGLESEARCH turns up little about the show.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, King's own site has some mentions of the show. Not reliable in their own right of course, but may help point towards better sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

discussion please

I have read the archives and cant see any agreement for the reason that conviceted sex offender isnt in the first sentence. Editors in the archives argue a lot better than me for the fact that he is beter know for that now than a song 50 years ago. Can senior editors please explain to me why its not suitable for the first sentence. Thanks(Dave006 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC))

Because he is notable for his musical and media career. If he hadn't had that career, he wouldn't have an article at all - and we need to spell out why he has an article. He is not notable for his offences. They should be (and are) mentioned, but given due weight, not over-emphasised. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Even arguably the most globally famous "celebrity offender", O.J. Simpson, only has his convictions mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. I think some aticles of this type do have convictions mentioned early on, but it does give a tabloid appearance to the article. DeCausa (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, great answers and understand the logic, BUT I disagree. The purpose of a encylo is surely so someone with a passing interest can find further details out about it? My argument is that JK is NOW famous for his convictions and lack of remorse, and the fact he was a "star" when it happened is the second reason people may search on here for him? If you asked 100 people what JK was know for, my guess is that more would say convictions before music. Google it and see what comes up. He is famous because he is a celebrity sex offender now, more than a limited carer 40 years ago? Your example of OJ proves my point by the way, mention his name and he is known for the murders, trial and not guily verdict, and he is famous for those things because he was famous before he did it. I know Im not going at explaing what I mean, but I hope you get my point? If you look a subject up on here, the reasons the article is on here should be in the first sentence. And if that reason is a negative one thats should still be the case. Wikis views that anything sordid is somehow bad editing and should be mentioned as little as possibile is clearly wrong. Do you think in 100 years when someone says OJ they will think gtreat NFL star or person that may have escaped justice? Be honest, its the second answer, thats why the reason he is most famous should be in the first sentence?(Dave006 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC))

Someone of the age who remembers King from pre-2000 may now think of the convictions first when they think of him, but the fact they knew of him at all will be for his pre-2000 career. I think someone who knew nothing of his pre-2000 career (eg because of age) probably still doesn't know who he is. In other words, his convictions are notable only because of who he was before - not because of the convictions themselves. DeCausa (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) As I said before, if King were "merely" a sex offender, there would be no article here. There are thousands of sex offenders in the world. They don't have articles. King doesn't have an article because of that - he has an article because of what he did before he was convicted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks as always, good points. We will agree to disagree, as I think your experience on here must mean you understand it a lot better than me! Wont change anything, promise, just wanted to know why, hope thats ok. Thanks again (Dave006 (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC))

is this a source

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7052/Profile-bubblegum-King-pop.html: King classes veteran TV presenter Jimmy Savile as one of his closest friends - they have known each other for 25 years. Savile once said of him: "He's a sabra. A sabra is an Israeli fruit that's prickly on the outside and all soft and lovely inside. That's Jonathan King."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7052/Profile-bubblegum-King-pop.html#ixzz2pnnSVe1P Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebookis this classed as a reliable source, and if so can I add one sentence about it? Seeing as the savile case has been on the news none stop for 18 months and is a massive news story and the fact that JK was also a sex abuser, I think its relevant?(Dave006 (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC))

That newspaper is very rarely - some would say never - a reliable source about anything, certainly not living people - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of the Daily Mail and multiple earlier discussions. It should be avoided. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/24/6

This should be a good source then? Thanks for your help by the way, trying to play nice now due to you, so thanks.(Dave006 (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC))

It's an OK source, but bear in mind that where it says that King claims something, it should be phrased to make clear that it is only a claim, unverified. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

...and, the fact that a source about something exists does not mean that we should report it. The fact that King had friends in the music business is unremarkable. The only reason that you want to add the fact that one of them (allegedly) was Savile would be to try and tarnish King by association. There is no evidence to link King with any of Savile's activities, so we should not report it as though there might be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You said it was a good source and relevant, and then you undid what i wrote? How do I word it then? Thats why I asked first, didnt want to do it wrong! Sorry mate(Dave006 (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC))

See above. I did not say the article was relevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

if this is relevant: Journalists Richard Stott and Lynn Barber have been sympathetic to his cause, although neither have said that they believe he did not commit the criminal offences.[27][41]

Then it must be relevant as well?

Dont understand why 2 articles are seen as relevant at all, doesnt make sense to me. Some people support him, but we dont link all the journalists that have slated him to balance it? Can you explain please?(Dave006 (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC))

It's relevant that Barber and Stott commented about King. It's not relevant that King commented about Savile. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry mate, you should know I dont explain myself properly by now! What I mean is: 2 journalists write one article each, that can be seen to be symphatetic to JK, and for that reason they are in the article as notibile. Hundreds of journalists write hundreds of articles that are negative about JK, yet they arent listed as relevant? Dont understand the difference, should be both sides listed or neither. I think neither? Also re the Savile link, understood, will leave alone, but you will see, in time, thats its relevant! By the way, im Dave (!!), can I call you by your first name instead of mate, sounds rude by me? (Dave006 (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC))

I don't have a strong view on the need for the Stott and Barber mentions - but the list of commentators having some sympathy with him was originally much longer, for example in this version of the article. It's probably best not to assume that I'm your "mate"! Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: Reminder to self - discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive191#Jonathan King. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

tony blair quote

removed this as there is no source. spent 2 hours looking, but only source, as usual, is a claim by JK himself. I have also emailed Ian burrell and if he confirms the quote I will put it back in.

^ Burrell, Ian (24 October 1997). "Ian Burrell reveals that Tony Blair is a secret fan of Jonathan King, the man who brought the world 'Una Paloma Blanca'". The Independent (London). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave006 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I assume it was inserted by someone seeing King's own site. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Jon Ronson quotes it in his 2001 piece, linked in the previous thread. It's not stated whether he sourced it from the Burrell piece or from King. This website claims to have a clipping of what Burrell wrote - but I'm not sure if the site is reliable. DeCausa (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have found the Independent piece via Newsbank and have restored the reference, with added quote. Dave006: you say "there is no source". There was a source, correctedly cited, it just didn't have a public weblink. An important aspect of Wikipedia referencing that you evidently haven't yet understood is that sources do not have to be on line. You have no business deleting a reference that was perfectly properly cited, just because you could not find it on line. You had no justification for saying the "only source, as usual, is a claim by JK himself". There is no claim by JK himself. It is an article in a respectable newspaper by a respectable journalist. I am getting slightly tired of the agenda you are constantly pushing with this article. You have already admitted having a POV with regard to JK. As I said before, that means that you should not be editing this article at all. -- Alarics (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

the hop

whenever you google any of the suggested or convicted sex offenders the disco called the Hop is mentioned? Is there anything on wiki re this, cant fins anything? Yet JK, saville, gliiter and several celebrities currently facing charges are said to have founded it and run it as a sort of "grooming" disco?(Dave006 (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC))

There are masses of blog and comment pieces online about the Walton Hop and its manager Deniz Corday - and a few possibly more reliable pieces like this. But, I doubt if the club was notable in its own right - more for the customers it attracted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There's quite a bit about the Walton Hop in Jon Ronson's Guardian piece on King from 2001. In it he mentions, in passing, a poster entitled "The Happy Hop Years 1958 - 1990. An Exhibition About Britain's First Disco: The Walton Hop", and I think I read somewhere that it was the first "discotheque" to open in the UK, but I can't remember where. DeCausa (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's also mentioned in Ronson's book here. But, the fact that the manager says that "some say that the Hop was the first disco in Great Britain" isn't enough, in my view. We need some better sources that say either that it was notable in terms of British pop music history (like, for example, the 2i's), or that it was notable as a focus of criminal activities. And, I don't think we have the sources for either claim. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: I've just noticed that there is already a short section at Walton-on-Thames#In the media. I've also just noticed that Deniz Corday appeared in King's film The Pink Marble Egg. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

edit request

King has always maintained that he is innocent of all the offences[27] and has blamed his conviction on an "incredibly unfair" legal system and "false allegations" generated as a result of media publicity.[39] He has claimed that he is a victim of a miscarriage of justice arising from the conduct of the press and the police.[40] isnt this the same claim repeated two times?(Dave006 (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC))

removed this as no source, if you know one please put back in. He wrote features in other newspapers and magazines such as the Daily Mail and The Sunday Times.(Dave006 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC))

You know what, doing edits re the wiki rules aka the right way, is a lot better!!

King has always maintained that he is innocent of all the offences[27] and has blamed his conviction on an "incredibly unfair" legal system and "false allegations" generated as a result of media publicity.[39] He has claimed that he is a victim of a miscarriage of justice arising from the conduct of the press and the police.[40] Unless someone disagrees that this is the same claim repeated twice, I will remove the second sentence in 7 days. (Dave006 (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC))

There may be no harm in merging the two sentences with an appropriate wording, but all the links to sources should remain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There are points in the second sentence not in the first, which shouldn't be lost. How about: "King has always maintained that he is innocent of all the offences.[27] He has claimed he is a victim of a miscarriage of justice brought about by an "incredibly unfair" legal system, the conduct of the press and police and "false allegations" generated as a result of media publicity.[39][40]" DeCausa (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change.DeCausa (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

King's response

I posted on King's site about the crusade to denigrate him on Wikipedia - this was his response.

Wikipedia is a great example of how a superb idea can go wrong; terrific concept swiftly subverted by negative people who either think it's funny to add insults or chip away at reputations by sneering or removing anything positive. Nothing anyone can do about it; eventually an editor with scruples moves in and clears up the vandalism whereupon, in time, more destruction will occur. Think how terrible it must be for articles about dead people. I see, searching for Oscar Wilde, the last edit was changing his middle name from O'Flahertie to O'FartieHartie. That sums up Wikipedia editors. As for whether or not I won an Ivor Novello Award, a simple call to BASCA should verify it. But, really, who cares?Progrockerfan (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no "crusade to denigrate" him - well, one or two editors may wish to do that, but experienced ones are simply trying to present a balanced picture based on what reliable sources - not self-published ones - say. The vandalism at the Oscar Wilde article lasted for precisely four minutes before it was removed. What an amazing coincidence that he happened to look at the page at that moment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the article is now in a much better condition thanks to DeCausa's edits than it was a few weeks ago. As for the Ivor Novello Award, I had a good look for sourcing about this online but could not find any. Obviously, this does not mean that King never won an Ivor Novello Award. There doesn't seem to be a comprehensive list online, and phoning BASCA would be original research. If Jonathan King has any major issues with the article as it stands, there is the option of raising them at the BLP noticeboard. BTW, if Jonathan King is reading this, hopefully he likes the new article Entertainment USA. Link to Jonathan King's original post on his forum page here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

ianmacm, phoning anyone is not original research: what matters is how things are reported. If the organization would post a note on their website, for instance, then we can easily cite that. Does anyone care to email the organization? Drmies (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Jonathan_King#Ivor_Novello_Award_again below. DeCausa did e-mail BASCA and they replied that King did not win an Ivor Novello Award for Paloma Blanca. Since Jonathan King disagreed, I e-mailed BASCA again today and await a reply. The Ivor Novello Awards are for songwriting and composing. King did not write the song, it was written by George Baker (musician). Johannes Bouwens is Dutch not British, which seems to rule him out for an Ivor Novello Award.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• As most of the recent edits to the article are probably mine, I feel I should probably defend myself! Of course, I reject the claim that I'm on a "crusade to denigrate". My only aim has been to have a balanced, and, above all, accurate piece supported by WP:RS. In so doing I have several times removed what seemed to me to be problematic "negative" material (eg this edit). I'm not saying what I've done has always been right and the article is still far from perfect, but I have no interest in "denigrating" King.

This article was unbalanced, inaccurate in several respects, and often poorly sourced when I looked at it a few weeks ago and began comparing it with the available WP:RS. If one looks back over the article history, it can be seen that there has been a sustained and consistent interest from SPAs and IPs to add promotional style material to the article (and remove aspects that could be perceived as being "negative"). The likely WP:COI issues associated with these SPAs/IPs was discussed in this SPI thread. Attempts have been made to clean up the article from time to time, but, as I've said before, the SPA/IP interest has been long-term and sustained. Btw, it is only fair to note that the article has also been targetted by IPs, SPAs who do wish to denigrate the subject. The constant back and forth between the two groups has obviously not been helpful to producing an accurate and readable BLP, which I've also tried to improve. DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is much better now, with all credits recorded and sourced, no wild unfounded claims etc. It reads very well and shows all achievements and mistakes the man made. If JK is honest, he knows he likes to blow his own trumpet and over-egg what was achieved. Example: saying his book was going to be listed for the Booker prize when it never was etc! This article still reads like someone who did well for quite a few years and then fell from grace. Dave006 (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Quote from the Independent on Sunday

I felt this edit to a paragraph that has been in the article for a while was potentially misleading, so expanded it it to this. But actually I thing it's all somewhat "undue", and was wondering whether the whole paragraph should be deleted. Any views? DeCausa (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd support taking the whole paragraph out. We don't usually include comments from people defending their moral stance, especially if they've been convicted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've taken it out. DeCausa (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Good. This is just really not good writing, jumbling facts and statements and giving a response to something that wasn't asked ("as a result" of what?). We need to tread carefully here, and often less is more in such cases. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

AfD

Well, this was weird. I was looking at The Pink Marble Egg, this version, which led me to the AfD, closed as "merge". So I merged the content and as I was typing up edit summaries I noticed that the AfD was actually for a different article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vile Pervert: The Musical (which somewhat inexplicably also has an alternate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vile Pervert: The Musical (2nd nomination)). How does this happen, you ask, besides my not looking carefully at the actual title of the AfD? This rather puzzling edit by User:Dave006 (there is no Pink mention in the AfD for the Pervert).

So the Pink Egg is gone, merged into the main article (same redirect as for Vile Pervert: The Musical), for better or for worse. I suppose one could argue that the Pink Egg ought to be reinstated, but I bought into the arguments at the other AfD which, in my opinion, apply to the Pink Egg as well: only scratching the surface of notability, coverage-wise (plus, no notable actors, no awards, etc.). So, if anyone disagrees, I suppose they can bring the article back from its current redirect, and then the next editor can nominate it for deletion--this time, I hope, properly. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the "weirdness" simply arose from Dave006 being new, and not precisely following the proper processes. But I don't really think it matters much - in my view The Pink Marble Egg is if anything less notable than Vile Pervert, and it should be a simple matter for someone to merge any relevant and noteworthy info from the old Egg article into this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits

It seemed odd to me that someone most know as the DJ and TV personality of the eighties didnt have that mentioned in the opening paragraph. There seem to be conflicting agendas so I've started an objective edit. It will take some time, going back to the sixties. As a music bore I've kept all archive copies of Melody Maker, NME, Sounds, Music Week and Billboard and will source all changes with dates and, where possible, writers. His autobiog is useful. Obviously his claims need not be taken as true but his featuring of cuttings from national papers must surely be valid. He can't have gone to the trouble of forging them. I shall avoid defending or attacking him. Simple things like the Ivor ought to be easily proven from the archive. I was around at the time he started and remember being impressed that a university student was canny enough NOT to work for companies but stayed at school and used monies earned from his first hit to independently produce his second (Its Good Newsweek) when he was only 20. As I'm sure old articles in Melody Maker will illustrate though I have no idea how to link them online if they exist here. Hopefully this will help produce an article even he will admit is fair. LudoVicar (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the article is a biography of a living person, you need to reference your changes when you make them. Please don't replace referenced content with unsourced content. Also, the lead should summarise only the key referenced points in the body of the article, and it's best to seek consensus here befoe changing the lead based on current content. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

King has not worked as a DJ or television presenter for some years. While the main text of the article says that he did these things, he is not currently working in these areas, so they do not need to be in the opening sentence. Also, the WP:LEAD should mention the convictions clearly, and avoid the pro-King denials which have been problematic in the past.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced the refs and sources. Surely his past occupation is crucial in the lead? Flat Out's point above is quite right "the lead should summarise only the key referenced points in the body of the article" which is why I trimmed down the lead and refer to later in the article. I genuinely do not feel it now has any "pro-King denials" - it simply states the basic facts.LudoVicar (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to correct some of the glaring errors but many still remain (Loop di Love was on UK Records as any basic Google search shows). I would personally suggest it's wrong to include negative comments on Genesis and not positive ones (I was at the Music Industry Trusts dinner for Peter Gabriel who opened his speech with a very generous tribute to King) but I'll leave that to other editors. I'll try to do more when I've dug out the old music magazine archives unless the majority would prefer me not to.LudoVicar (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you're yet another WP:SPA restoring many of the points previous SPA's were keen on in order to remove "the anti-King agenda". Your edits are still without sources and in some instances directly contradict the cited source. I find your changing of his graduation date particularly interesting. The cited source says 1966. You've changed it to 1967, but you haven't changed the source. In fact I haven't been able to find a source that says 1967, although I suspect 1967 is right. Tell me, why are you so sure it's 1967? DeCausa (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you've reversed all my edits so I assume you and the other editors are not interested in my contributions. I have no problem with that. The graduation date is clearly in Music Week (which was then Record Retailer) and all the other music papers; I was looking at Record Mirror which has a picture caption which says on Friday 23rd June 1967 "Jonathan King BA attends an awards ceremony at Cambridge University where he receives his honours degree in English - then rushes to Southampton to co-compere As You Like It" whatever that might be. Sorry if that doesn't meet your rules or agenda. LudoVicar (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you a professional music historian? It sounds like you have an impressively complete archive. It's even more impressive that you are able to spot such points of detail in it. DeCausa (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

LudoVicar, yes we do want the correct information and any correction to incorrect statements is most welcome. But you must cite your sources properly. So if you change his graduation date to 1967 you must also change the source to Record Mirror 23 June 1967 and give the title of the article and page number. -- Alarics (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I can check and if necessary correct the record label details, chart placings etc. when I get back home in a few days time and have access to reliable offline sources. But, essentially, the approach taken by DeCausa, Alarics, IanMacM etc., is precisely how we should be working here - rather than relying on what individuals claim to "know" or be "obvious". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

opening section

seems very cluttered to me. Looked at similar pages and it is usually one paragraph and the rest of the history/achievements later on? Whats in the open is repeated exactly again a little later? I suggest: "Jonathan King (born Kenneth George King; 6 December 1944) is an English singer-songwriter, impresario, record producer, and writer." Just a thought.Dave006 (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This is too short per WP:LEAD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As Ianmacm says - the lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article, so some duplication of material is to be expected. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I was just looking at similar people, bruno brooks, timmy mallet etc and their openings look a lot better? Im not going to change it, was hoping some one with more experience would? Not saying downgrade his achievments, but the opening really is a slightly smaller version of the whole article?Dave006 (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

King's graduation date

The source for King graduating from Cambridge in 1966 is AllMusic here. IMHO, this not an ideal source, any more than SongFacts or IMDb are. LudoVicar, who appears to have extensive knowledge of JK, says that King graduated in 1967. If the Record Mirror from Friday 23 June 1967 does confirm this, please could he scan it and upload it to scribd.com or similar, or e-mail it to me (this can be done by User_talk:Ianmacm/tools. Also, in the section above, LudoVicar says "Simple things like the Ivor ought to be easily proven from the archive" but the consensus is that the online sourcing (which is all that most of us have access to) is not very good, and when DeCausa e-mailed BASCA, they replied that King did not win an Ivor Novello Award for the song Paloma Blanca (the awards are for songwriting, not performance). Please could I ask LudoVicar if he has any old news cuttings relating to King winning an Ivor Novello Award?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure 1967 is right. I had already seen a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that it was then, but didn't want to override a source that said specifically 1966. Eg, King claims that on his gap year before Cambridge he met the Beatles in Hawaii: I checked when the Beatles were there first, and it was on the 1964 tour (three years later = 1967)Whether true or not, it's highly unlikely he would have said he met the Beatles at a time that was so provably impossible (which 1963 would be). (Oh and part of me was curious to see who would come along to correct 1966....) DeCausa (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I would not have any qualms about preferring a different source to allmusic.com, which is not particularly reliable. I have found errors in it before. -- Alarics (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have now found a Michael Frayn article in The Observer in June 1967 (in which Frayn visits Cambridge and talks to up-and-coming young people) saying JK was still at Trinity then and had been for 3 years. This is a more reliable source than either allmusic.com or the Record Mirror. One can infer (I hope this isn't "original research") that he was about to graduate then. I have also found another Observer piece later that year which describes JK as having "recently" graduated. -- Alarics (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

I had no idea it would be such a minefield trying to edit an article. I'd not tried before and only fiddled with details although even then my edits were reverted. I won't bother again. To answer the editor who considers me a sock puppet, lovely words, just let me repeat why I made some of the small changes to the lead (thank heavens I didn't waste time doing more). I thought his first hit sold in several countries but will bow to your research that it only sold in two countries though even there I can't quite see why it needs saying. I assume all other wiki entries on other singers specify similar. I find "string" of releases and "novelty" records odd words to use in a factual encyclopedia but bow to superior literacy. I assume the 4 hits "in the 70s" avoid his productions or those which don't feature his vocals although, again, I can't work out why the 70s are specifically singled out unless it's to remove his 60s and 80s productions and cant see why it deserves mention anyway. Basic research shows he discovered Genesis and produced them independently long before placing them with Decca or even leaving university. Why he is described as "working for" companies he didn't work for and those companies that released his other independent releases are ignored I cannot understand. It's not even negative to him. It's just wrong. I would have thought any editor with a Book of Hit Singles could have verified that, or is that not online? I bow to superior editing experience that 10cc were far more significant than his Rocky Horror Show or other acts. I believed Wikipedia was meant to state facts and not opinions on quality or significance. He never presented Top of the Pops as far as I remember but was on every month doing a US chart rundown but I certainly won't be checking my old music magazines to find proof. And I quite understand that his Old Bailey convictions are a far better story than his acquittal and as such deserve mention in the lead if wikipedia is meant to be a tabloid site. As for further details lower down the article, I wont bother reading or checking as my changes - even if sources detailed and provided - would be bulk reverted by editors wanting a more accurate article. I'm sorry, I just dont have time to bother scanning magazine pages into e mail. I apologize if my edits are similar to anyone else's but I'm nobody's sock puppet and wouldnt dream of accusing any other editor of being one either although that appears to be the default position. As I leave I would suggest any editor genuinely wanting an accurate article gets his autobiography and finds confirmation or proof of lying for any significant facts, as I would suggest they should do for any person warranting an article on Wikipedia, if they really want to contribute properly. Finally might I politely comment that certain editors might think about developing good manners and not bulk erasing changes, made in good faith, or chucking accusations of vandalism about? People in glass houses...LudoVicar (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Ianmacm#Jonathan_King for further discussion with LudoVicar of the issues raised here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

LudoVicar, you obviously have a detailed knowledge of King's life and career, which the rest of us can't match. We do our best from the sources available to us, but if those sources get it wrong it's inevitable that they will be replicated here. One of the Wikipedia essays has a comment that "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow", and that's exactly how it has to work. As I think IanMacM has already pointed out to you we can't use for the most part King of Hits or the autobiography because they are self-published and unmediated. Please read WP:RS if you haven't alrwady done so. None of the established editors here have an agenda "to get King", but we just can't shape the article on the basis of "basic research shows..." or "eveyone knows...", which are phrases you've used. Especially for a living person every statement needs to be derived and verified by a reliable source publishing it in the first place. DeCausa (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

allmusic

is this classed as a reliable source for wiki as anyone can edit it? read the entry and see what i mean, for example "Thus, he managed to combine elements akin to the careers of Peter Noone, Casey Kasem, Brian Epstein, Randy Newman, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Dick Clark, Gloria Stavers, and Jan Wenner all in one, engendering contempt from many of the more dedicated musicians in England and making himself king of a pop culture empire for decades"Dave006 (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

AllMusic, like SongFacts and IMDb, is a soft source and should not be used for statements likely to be challenged. There are several cites to AllMusic in the current version of the article, but unless anyone reading the article says that the facts are wrong, they should stay for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not a brilliant source - Alarics has pointed out some issues with it - but it's not the case that anyone can edit it I think. The article on King was written by Bruce Eder, who is a journalist and film/music critic - published but definitely not first rank. If we can find beter sources that would be an improvement. DeCausa (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ivor Novello Award again

This was previously discussed here. This Guardian article describes Paloma Blanca as a winner of the award (The Guardian is OK as a source), while Songfacts says "King's version picked up an Ivor Novello Award for Record Of The Year." This may well be true, but Songfacts is similar to IMDb and is not considered an ideal reliable source. There should be another look for sourcing on this. We now live in a world where what can be found in a five minute Google search determines what people know about a subject. The lack of decent sourcing about this does not mean that it is untrue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• In the previous discussion, DeCausa said "*WP:OR I know, but, for the record, I emailed BASCA, who run the Ivor Novello Awards, and they replied that there is no publicly available list of winners but confirmed that Jonathan King did not win an Ivor for Paloma Blanca." Anway, I will e-mail them again, as this is now a puzzle of considerable proportions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I feel pretty confident that the Ivor Novello award should not be included, for the following reasons, apart from the email I received confirming that he did not win one. (1) can find no source of an "Ivor Novello Record of the Year Award" other than the one allegedly awarded to King. (2) It is clear that Ivors are only awarded for composition and song-writing not for performance. King did not write or compose Paloma Blanca. DeCausa (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems like there might have been at one time an Ivor Novello award for most played record of the year, although I can only find one recipient in the whole of Google [1]. I agree, though, that we need clear, trustworthy sourcing for the claim. Formerip (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a fresh debate about this at WP:BLPN#Jonathan King.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Without reliable evidence for the award, and with the perhaps original research from the organization denying the subject won the award, common sense dictates that we should not state in the article that the subject won the award. Thanks for those efforts. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

New e-mail reply from BASCA

Here is what it said: "Our records do not show that King won an Ivor in 1975. As you rightly point out Ivor Novello Awards are presented to the songwriter or composer of works, not the performer. I should also add they are only awarded to British or Irish songwriters or composers (or in the case of co-writes there must be a certain percentage of British or Irish interest). However, I do not currently hold the printed ceremony programme for 1975 which would be contemporary source material as this archive is with the British Library. I will certainly see if someone we know as a copy of this programme so I can check." So this definitely should not be in the article unless there is some more reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's essentially the same as the email I received but without the comment on the printed cermony programme, which is interesting. I would say that's it's unlikely that the claim is absolutely baseless. I suspect that "something" was mentioned/presented at the ceremony without it being an actual Ivor Novello award. DeCausa (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Una Paloma Blanca is the opening track on King's 1979 album Hit Millionaire.[2] The songwriting credit is given as J. Bouwens, the real name of George Baker (musician). King can be seen on YouTube performing the song on Top of the Pops here, introduced by Jimmy Savile.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

notable works info box

should a cover of a song he released that made no69 in the charts be in here? there are many like this listed in here, is that correct? Dave006 (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If this refers to Gloria (Umberto Tozzi song), King's version in 1979 was not a major hit, so it doesn't really need to be in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

My view is that entire list of "notable works" should be removed from the infobox. It is not usual for a list of an individual's hit singles to be included in the infobox, and in this case most of the records were either not written by King, or not released under his own name. Some were only minor hits, if that. We should remove the entire list, and expand the Discography section, with sourced information on international chart placings, record labels, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

King was apparently the first person to release a version of the song Gloria with English lyrics in 1979, which he wrote himself. The song can be heard here, and the lyrics are not the same as the ones in the version by Laura Branigan in 1982. This might be notable enough for the article. Also, I agree that a mini-discography in the infobox is not really necessary as they are listed later on.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree too. I'm not an expert (or fan) of Infoboxes but I notice that people you might compare him with seem to use the infobox template "Musical artist" and it does seem to have more relevant parameters. DeCausa (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

One other point, that isn't stated anywhere in the article is that according to the Discogs website (which I think isn't RS) King had a massive output that seems to be continuous (several in every year from the mid 60s to well into the 80s) and much greater than the ones mentioned as having charted. Is there a reliable source for all releases not just hits. I think it should be mentioned somewhere if it can be sourced. DeCausa (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the list from the infobox, and tweaked the singles listing. I'm not sure if it will be possible to produced a reliably sourced full discography. I'm sure there are lists on his own site, and on Discogs, but neither are ideal sources. King's legacy as an auteur has so far not been the subject of research by serious musical discographers, I think. We should at least be able to add chart placings in other national charts, though again reliable sourcing is something of an issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Lobo

no mention of JK or UK records on his page and nothing found on google either?Dave006 (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where this discussion started, but Lobo's "I'd Love You To Want Me" was certainly released on the UK label in 1974 and reached no.5 on the UK chart - http://www.discogs.com/Lobo-Id-Love-You-To-Want-Me-Re-issue/release/1470018. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be I'd Love You to Want Me by Lobo (musician), which has its own article, and on YouTube here. This is cited as one of King's signings to UK Records at Southall, Brian (2003). The A-Z of record labels. p. 276. ISBN. 1860744923.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

no sources

During 1980 and 1981, King presented a daily talk show on New York's WMCA radio from 10–12 weekday mornings, and regularly reported from the U.S. No source, will look for one and the same for the Sun claim as well.Dave006 (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is on Jonathan King's website here. It is likely to be true, but like Ultra Quiz, it is largely forgotten today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Listed on subjects own website doesnt mean its true, especially on this article! Dont worry I wont remove anything until I have done a lot of searching for other sources. Pleas, if you have time, have a look at this article in the earliest days and see all the many and wonderful claims made with no sources apart from JK saying it was true, it will make you giggle I promise.Dave006 (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The radio station is presumably WMCA here, and King was living in New York in the early 1980s. I'm not going to get paranoid over the sourcing on this, but as ever, a reliable secondary source would be useful.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You undid my edit, they are not libellous claims, they are claims made IN THIS ARTICLE that were NOT TRUE, and can be proved not true, so therefore are lies? That is the definition of lies. I want to show how many lies have been claimed in this article and no=one on wiki did anything, and now I am trying to make it the truth people are acting as if Im in the wrong. I will not delete, edit or anything without doing it the right way. So if there are no sources for these claims, then until they are they should be removed?Dave006 (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Lies = deliberate untruths. Normal mistakes, inaccuracies and a bit of WP:PEACOCK are not lies. There may still be a fair amount of this in the article, but I would advise against getting worked up about Jonathan King. All this will do is to convince him that the Wikipedia article is biased against him.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I can find no sources at all for daily radio show claim, and I have looked everywhere. Unless someone knows of one I will remove this claim as it is unsourced. Also the Sun 8 year writing for claim, cant find anything, can anyone else?Dave006 (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The WP article about WMCA says that JK "hosted the weekday midday show for a year in 1981" but cites no source. Then again, that whole section of the WMCA article cites no source for anything, but reads as if its authors are well-informed. -- Alarics (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Alarics, you are much better versed in wiki than me, does that mean I should leave it in even though it is unsourced? ThanksDave006 (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

(Dave006, it makes it easier to follow talk page threads if you indent your posts as described in WP:INDENT) I'm not sure how reliable it is but this profile from 2002 in the New York Press mentions WMCA. DeCausa (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

sorry, now I know, hope this has worked!Dave006 (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be inclined to leave the WMCA mention in, unless there is some particular reason for serious doubt that he worked there for a time. The New York Press mention does back it up but only partially. Unfortunately WMCA has subsequently changed its nature completely and its website does not mention anything about its earlier incarnation as a pop station. Also, on this basis we could say "former TV and radio presenter" if not actually a DJ. -- Alarics (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

no worries mate, im not removing anything unless a more senior editor says its ok. Also in the UK a radio presenter is a DJ, always called that?Dave006 (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

All DJs are radio presenters but not all radio presenters are DJs. His WMCA gig is described in the New York Press piece as "reporting on the music scene" rather than introducing discs. -- Alarics (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, I could not find any reliable sourcing that King was a host on Ultra Quiz in the early 1980s, but believe that it is likely to be true. There is a more detailed essay on the use of self-published sources at WP:USINGSPS. Many events in King's career are now a long time ago and lack reliable online sourcing. This does not necessarily mean that they are untrue, but if they are challenged, they would need to be sourced from reliable secondary sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

so now we have 3 major claims that are all unsourced? Doesnt seem right to me that they stay in the article, they wouldnt in another article?Dave006 (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The current version of this article does not say that King was a host on Ultra Quiz. The only YouTube video that I could find was here, and it contains David Frost. It is a mistake to assume that something never happened because nobody could be arsed to upload videos to YouTube about it, so for the time being, King has the benefit of the doubt.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a source, but not a good one. Ditto this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

but we cant have 3 or more major claims in one article can we? That cant be right. Nothing for ultraquiz, nothing for radio show, nothing for writing in the sun, all significant claims with no evidence? You must know by now that most of JKs claims are what he has said himself, no prove, no-one else says it, just him. "It is a mistake to assume that something never happened because nobody could be arsed to upload videos to YouTube about it" isnt it also a mistake to assume something did happen just because the subject said it did? Another claim with no source: regularly reported from the U.S. on Top of the Pops.Dave006 (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh and another one: Lobo? Thats 5 up to now?Dave006 (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

King's self-penned biography at King of Hits does not mention Ultra Quiz at all. Maybe even he does not consider it to be a significant part of his career. The point is that some things happened a long time ago, and the sourcing available online is likely to consist only of fan sites and blogs. This does not necessarily mean that they are untrue, but they would fail WP:RS, particularly if challenged. Lobo has a source independent of JK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

1960s–1970s

its all out of date order, looks confusing. Im not changing it, was hoping someone who knows what they are doing would do it please?Dave006 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

former

English singer-songwriter, record producer, music entrepreneur, and former TV and radio presenter: Still does the first 2, even if its just for himself. The next 4 are all former, is he know for any of them now or indeed actually do them? If not it should state former.Dave006 (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Checked about 30 articles now, and on every one where the subject no longer does an act they are described as "former"?Dave006 (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

At Ian Watkins (Lostprophets), the (generally agreed) wording is that he "...achieved prominence..." as a musician, rather than saying he "is" or "was" a musician. That case is obviously slightly different as Watkins is in jail, but similar wording could still be used as it's not really clear what King "is" now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"How to become a pop superstar"

Since we are currently raiding the archive to find anything with Jonathan King in it, here is the cover of his 1979 album "Jonathan King - Hit Mi££ionaire" [sic]. It comes with a gold flexi-disc enitled "How to become a pop superstar". This can be heard here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've also discovered that he recorded a version of Joni Mitchell's "Free Man in Paris". Thankfully, I've not been able to locate a recording, for which my ears are eternally grateful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Top of the Pops

as mentioned by ludovicar, he was not a regular presenter of this show, he is listed as a guest presenter on two occasions. Should be changed.Dave006 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Purely from my WP:OR memory, he was not a regular presenter of the show, but did have a regular brief slot in the early 1980s which later became Entertainment USA. My WP:OR memory also recalls him having a slot on BBC Radio 1 entitled A King in New York. This has no online sourcing at all.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur with IanMacM. That makes two unreliable sources... Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have checked and there are only 2 listings of him being on it, even on the wiki page of presenters of the show?Dave006 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This 1982 article says that, from late 1981, he had a monthly slot on TOTP, giving exposure to US acts - the predecessor of Entertainment USA. King says in that article (you need to scroll down to p.77) that the BBC intended to run a series of eight 30-minute programmes in spring 1983. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A King in New York ran most weeks on BBC Radio 1 from 12 April 1980 to 3 September 1983. Source: radio listings in The Times (online only if you have the right library card). -- Alarics (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, my goodness, we have all been busy today. Hopefully JK is pleased with all of this new material. As I pointed out to LudoVicar on my talk page, most people do not have access to specialist archives, libraries or subscription material, which has limited the article sourcing in the past. And it's good to know that my memory still works.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

JK's Harold Shipman song on YouTube

This was originally uploaded by KingOfHits2007 here [3] but now produces the message "This video has been removed because its content violated YouTube's Terms of Service. Sorry about that." Anyway, fear not, as it has re-emerged here, uploaded around three months ago by jonking2014x. The article could say a bit more about this. Also, Jonathan King appears as Oscar Wilde in this YouTube video, in which he declares "There's nothing wrong with buggering boys." This is a clip from Vile Pervert - The Musical.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

We need to bear in mind that he is a shameless self-publicist. We should really only put material in the article if it's discussed in a reliable source - not just because it exists on YouTube. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is unlikely that the Shipman or Wilde songs would win an Ivor Novello Award, even though King did write them himself. A bit more detail was added on the Shipman video. The Wilde video is interesting but not notable enough for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Ghmyrtle. His post-prison output has made next to no impact critically or commercially . One thing to be careful of is to have disproportionate coverage of the recent output when compared to his earlier output which did have impact.DeCausa (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The Shipman video is a good example of King's post-prison work, as it is self-published, not very good and a deliberate attempt to shock and get publicity. As such it is worth a brief mention, but I agree that his post-prison work should not be given undue weight.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Further on my edits

As I've explained I have all the old music magazines in archive here and will pull them out eventually and give similar specific source details but most of the edits I have done so far are off the top of my head as they are obvious - like why say a hit in UK and USA when it was a hit in several countries so either say "global" or just "a hit"? Why say "pseudonym groups" when he clearly recorded under many solo names too? Nemo for example. It's going to take ages but I'm sure I can find specific sources from the short periods but most of my edits are just common sense, literacy or fairness. I haven't researched his case at all but assume most of that applies later in the article but where a King supporter will only mention his acquittal, a King hater will only mention his conviction - am I being strange or balanced to say both trial results should get equal prominence in the lead? I'm simply suggesting good manners and sense. Should not each edit be examined in its own right before deletion? Or do editors always block remove? And when you accuse an editor of being a single issue editor, are you only looking at one day's edits? I've only edited twice and this article only today. I've said elsewhere - I couldn't believe Leap Up and Wave Your Knickers isn't mentioned - surely it was the low point in his career and known by millions? All that Decca and Bell stuff is quite simply wrong. Basic research shows all his hits on other labels. If you want me to continue I will but it is going to take hours of flipping the pages of old magazines and there's no point if they are all simply going to get erased. LudoVicar (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Very old articles from the music press are less than ideal citations. For example, most people would not have a copy of Record Mirror 23 June 1967 lying around the house, or be able to find one easily. This type of cite should ideally be accompanied by an online scan of the document.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If I could scan I would but where would I put it? And to be honest I really don't have the time or inclination. As I said, most edits are just common sense - like we all know King's first hit was at the end of his first undergraduate year and courses are (or were) 3 years and that he stayed at Uni - so the end of the Uni year (each summer) took me to June 67 and a few pages of the nearest magazine to hand (Record Mirror) brought up the photo and caption. Plus I'm sure he mentions it in his autobiog so I could have looked it up there and just verified the date (my magazines are filed by date). I just think it's very bad manners to automatically revert all of an editor's corrections. How rude to consider oneself as more "honest" than another editor who corrects your mistakes. Yes, controversial changes should have detailed sources but how much more detailed can one get? And surely any editor can see that calling something a "small" hit is answering an agenda. It should simply be a hit if it charts and not if it doesn't. I would never put up an edit saying I think Genesis are great (I do) or that I think King's music is shit (I do). Just carry the facts. Why get unimportant details wrong? Don't bother to say It's The Same Old Song was on B&C (it was - as can easily be verified). Why mention any label? But certainly not a wrong one! LudoVicar (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Almost the entirety of LudoVicar's edits is either to change statements in the article which have inline citations, verifiable via Google books or otherwise on line, for statements which materially differ and are allegedly supported by these magazines (which may be the case, but appear to me to come from the user's direct knowledge). There is of course no requirement to use online sources and off line is perfectly acceptable. But what we have here is the alleged off line sources (which is difficult for other editors to verify) being at odds with the on line sources. But many of the edits have nothing to do with that issue. Most are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For example, there were in line citations for King being known for "novelty" records, but this user doesn't like the sound of that and has removed these refences. Sometimes he just leaves the old in line citations in but takes out the cited statements. DeCausa (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked! I have just been told that DeCausa wants me blocked for daring to correct the mistakes on the article. So the problem may be going away and crucial Wikipedia information like the correct information about King's graduation will fade into the ether. I trust other editors are happy with this! LudoVicar (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I was joking with "crucial"! LudoVicar (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Like DeCausa, I am rather concerned by the sudden arrival of a person who appears to have expert knowledge of Jonathan King, and access to specialist archive material about him. This would lead to issues with verifying some of the material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

LudoVicar, I provided the standard notification that if you (or any editor) exceeds the three revert rule they could be blocked. You have already done that as far as I can see. I gave you the warning because you ostensibly are a new account and may not kniow of this rule - although I think it quite likely you have edited Wikipedia extensively previously. Can you please disclose whether you have a conflict of interest with the subject matter of this article in accordance with this policy: WP:COI. DeCausa (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Can Decausa or one of the other editors revert the page back to what it was before it was changed by JK please. I dont know how to do it? Thanks Dave006 (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please be careful with the use of the word vandalism please - it has a very specific meaning ES&L 10:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not a vandalism issue. DeCausa (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) You must not call changes like that "vandalism", or assume that they are made by any specific individual unless they say they are. Although most of those changes should be changed back, I would certainly support the inclusion of "television presenter" in the infobox - that is how he was best known for several years. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, didnt know, do now, wont happen again. Have no problem with whatever you want to put, you know beter than me. But would say that writer and DJ shoudlnt be in there?Dave006 (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"I couldn't believe Leap Up and Wave Your Knickers isn't mentioned" says LudoVicar. There is not much about it online. This YouTube video from 1985 featuring Noel Edmonds says that it was banned from Top of the Pops in 1971, and that the 1985 appearance of St. Cecilia on Edmonds' show was its first performance on television. SongFacts, not an ideal source, says that it reached number 12 in the UK charts, and "Widely and erroneously reported to have been written by Jonathan King, it was in fact composed by bass player Keith Hancock; it is true though that King had a minor involvement with the band." Not really notable enough for the article in this form.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Occupation etc.

Whatever you may think of King, there's no doubt that his career is difficult to summarise in a few words. Allmusic describes him as "songwriter, label founder, talent spotter, writer, and music entrepreneur". The Guardian described him as a "pop mogul and former pop star". The Telegraph said "pop impresario". I'm comfortable with the Allmusic summary, or at least something close to it. "Songwriter" - yes. "Label founder" - yes (but perhaps that falls within "entrepreneur"). "Talent spotter" - yes. "Writer" - probably not. "Music entrepreneur" - yes. "Former pop star" - not really, but "former pop singer", probably yes. "TV presenter" - not mentioned in the above, but, in my view, also yes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The British Library catalogue says JK has had two novels published, at least one of them ("Bible Two", 1982) by an entirely respectable publisher (W.H.Allen). Doesn't that make him a writer? -- Alarics (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hes not known as a writer though is he? Also, dont like this " music entrepreneur" must be something better than that? It already says singer, songwriter, producer, I think that covers him re the music side?Dave006 (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Didn't he write the "Bizarre" (i.e. pop music) page of the The Sun in the 80s before Piers Morgan took it over? Not high literature, but I think it's reasonable prominence as a "writer"! I think Ghmyrtle's take up above, based on the AllMusic description sounds about right to me, with the addition of writer. DeCausa (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Re "writer" - if sources exist, fair enough. Re "entrepreneur" - that should certainly be included. He set up a significant record label for a start, and many of his other activities can best be classed under the catch-all title "entrepreneur" - it's better than "impresario" or "mogul", which reliable sources have used. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

this is a source for "Bizarre". DeCausa (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's also a source for "artist, producer, manager, discoverer of bands and spotter of trends"... ! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

so now we are using unsourced claims to claim he is something hes not notable for! entrepreneur is better than music entrepreneur? He is not a writer, and dont know if talent spotter is right, is Simon Cowelll a talent spotter? " He set up a significant record label"???? No he didnt!Dave006 (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you say they are unsourced? I've provided sources. Yes, UK Records was significant, and the article on it needs to be expanded. Your interest seems to be increasingly to campaign against King's notability, when what you should be doing is trying to present a balanced picture. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be editing here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You are so wrong. I want it to be the truth, thats all. If he didnt do something, it shoulnt be on here, simple really? What it seems you are trying to do is stop the article simply stating the facts? If I say for example, "thats not sourced", you come back with, "but we should still leave it in"? Seems to be just to spite me, cant see any other reason? If something is claimed, is not true, it should be removed. I was just saying on this occasion that entrepreneur is better than music entrepreneur and hes not notable as a writer, actually trying to make his opening sound better for him, yet you straight away see it as me trying to do something wrong? I asked for a new article for entertainment usa, was that wrong? I have spend days looking for sources for the Sun and the radio show, looks like im trying to make him look bad again!!Dave006 (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, are you really saying that the article was better and more truthful before I started trying to change it? Look at all the incorrect claims etc that were on it?Dave006 (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep calm. Ghmyrtle was pointing out that he had provided a source for "writer". In fact, he was questioning that source, but I gave a source for his Sun column. This source refers to him as a "music journalist", and it may be that that is more appropriate than "writer" (eg there is also The Tip Sheet). [[Btw, he's definitely known as a talent spotter - there's sources for that in the article as well as spotting Genesis and 10cc. DeCausa (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DeCausa, music journalist sounds much better, but still dont like talent spotter, makes him sound like a footy scout! Dave006 (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The more "correct" term would be A&R man, but I don't know if he ever had that job title. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

yes - although the sources in the article actually use the term "talent spotter". It may be that "A&R" is too corporate for someone like him: I get the impression that his role at Decca was somewhat "roving"/informal, and then his spotting was mostly for his own label. I searched for A&R in relation to him and didn't come up with anything. DeCausa (talk)

I don't think "talent-spotter" really counts as an occupation or as a reason for notability. It's just a function of working for and then running a record label. Compared to his achievements as a singer and in TV, it is not clear that this is very significant part of King's career anyway. It seems like the only significant act he really "discovered" was Genesis (10cc had already sold millions of records as Hotlegs). Not to be sniffed at, but we don't credit Pete Waterman, for example, as a "talent-spotter" (even if amusingly, we do credit him as a "railway enthusiast"). Formerip (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget the Bay City Rollers... much as you may want to. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the book I used in the citations for his involvement with the Bay City Rollers, they were already signed by Bell Records. They just brought him in to produce the first record. But several of the sources regularly use the phrase "talent spotter", so it shouldn't be ignored. He certainly "discovered" a lot of 2nd (and 3rd) order acts. DeCausa (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What about: Jonathan King (born Kenneth George King; 6 December 1944) is an English singer-songwriter, record producer, A&R Scout, and also previously gained prominence as a TV and radio presenter. The A&R thing is the correct job title according to all that I have found? But, be fair, they are all really "former" roles. Self loading videos on youtube and printing your won books doesnt mean you are a producer or writer, tens of thousands of people do that. On other articles I have seen the phrase "years active" is that no good?Dave006 (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I know you wont like this some of you, but what about similar to Gary glitters? "Jonathan King (born Kenneth George King; 6 December 1944) is an English singer-songwriter, record producer, A&R Scout, and also previously gained prominence as a TV and radio presenter. His long and highly successful career was ended in the late 1990s by a criminal conviction for possession of child pornography." And if its a no, please can you tell me why? Thanks in advance (dont worry, not going to change it!!) Please see Stuart Halls page for how prominent his conviction is in the opening. Even Ken Barlows is more prominent and he is still innocent at the moment!!Dave006 (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Long-term socking

Following a CheckUser (see this), the following SPAs that have edited this article have been blocked for being socks of the same sock master:

• LudoVicar
• Progrockerfan
• Pedohater
• Aliceinsprings
• Monica Santa
• Cliffwise

Couple of features to note: Some of these have edited this article over many years albeit sporadically; some have appeared to have the opposite of their true POV, or otherwise tried to disguise their true POV by making derogatory remarks about the subject of this article. This isn't the first SPI of this sort on this article and I suggest it won't be the last. DeCausa (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

And it is a pity because anyone, including the article subject, is allowed to correct unambiguous errors of fact. Ideally, this should be done on the article talk page, rather than by editing the article itself. What is not allowed is surreptitious editing or the use of multiple accounts. This has long been suspected as a problem area for this particular article, and hopefully the chances of being caught and blocked for doing it will sink in.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. For a variety of reasons (including press distortions) it's often difficult to get to accurate facts on King. If someone with direct knowledge openly posted corrections on the talk page I think this would greatly help in improving this article. DeCausa (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Btw, for the long term nature of these problems see this 2009 SPI thread and Talk page thread. DeCausa (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

thanks DeCausa!!! was up till 3am reading all the histories sad man that I am! Very funny and quite clever the way he did it, actually talking to himself as 2-4 different editors to make the changes! On his website, the message board is the same, you can spot his style of writing so easy! He just keeps writing as different people and answering himself, very strange. When you look at the article now, thanks to you 4, it reads like a very good article!Honest-john (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

wonder how long before several new editors turn up discussing this page until they all agree to change it??!!!Honest-john (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

He had been questioned about assaults on boys over four decades from the 1960s to the 1990s.

Think this is an important point in the guardian source. He was suspected many times, but never charged. Should it go in to balance all the points about his claims to innocence and journalists supporting him?Honest-john (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No, because WP:BLPCRIME comes into play here. It is not generally necessary to mention arrests or cases where charges were never brought.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

LudoVicar here - WikiPedia blocked me

As you probably know and don't care, WikiPedia seems to have blocked me (no problem as I have no intention of editing after all my previous were reverted). So, seeing how DAVE has been doing it under different names, I've used his method to express my thoughts. Unlike others I have no intention of accusing all Editors of being sock puppets of anyone and have no interest in bothering to correct mistakes on this article or any other. I'm sure most Editors have best intentions and genuinely feel their edits are fair and objective. I tried to correct factual errors using my paper archive. They were reverted. I suspect "Dave" under his various names has very good reason to smear and denigrate those he dislikes. The beauty of wikipedia is that he can do just that. And other editors will help him, justifying their objective points. Negative phrasing and carefully picked quotes have always been a trademark of media. Wikipedia is new media but old morality. One editor asked me to find sources for King's Ivor. I can't see anything in 1975 or 1976 about it (or, to be fair, any other Ivors) which tends to support your opinion that he makes false claims. In which case, good luck to you exposing him. But history needs to be accurate - doesn't it? Will there always be online proof? I notice many other editors have been blocked - both for and against King - as being sock puppets. But my edits were clearly neither for nor against him. Don't bother to explain. I won't be back. Though I may well edit other articles under another name like "Dave" does! At the end of the day, we only have to live with our own consciences.StinkerEditor (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The first thing to say is "Jonathan, we don't really care if it is you, but please be upfront about it". (yes, I am aware of WP:OUTING). The use of multiple accounts is banned here, and everyone involved is trying to ensure that the article is as factually accurate as the sourcing will allow. As was stated previously, anyone including the subject of the article is allowed to do this. Now that you have got it off your chest, is there anything in the article that is, in your view, a factual error that can be corrected through reliable sources?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Changed my name from Dave to new one the correct way via a wiki admin, so ONLY ONE ACCOUNT, unlike you. Dont dislike JK, feel pity for him. But find it annoying that he can just claim so many achievements that aren't true and then get peeved because they are not accepted, his bio on his website is so funny! He was a minor player for a few years, then was really unheard of until his convictions. Re his convictions, they are proofed beyond doubt, so why do you want to make them sound as if they are untrue? On Wiki, any changes have to be sourced, not just claimed. Any changes should be discussed first, not just do 50 changes (see, im learning) As Ian said in last post, if that is you JK, cant you just download a picture of the Ivor award that you won, and even though the body who awards them say you never won one, im sure we would accept that as proof? Honest-john (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the Internet, the 1975 and 1976 Ivor Novello Awards for the best pop song were both won by Freddie Mercury, for Killer Queen and Bohemian Rhapsody respectively. On the question of the convictions, I believe that the article now goes as far as WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS will allow. King has never succeeded in overturning the conviction at the first trial, and until this happens, it will be mentioned in the article as a prominent controversy in line with normal Wikipedia policy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

StinkerEditor, normally, you would be blocked as an admitted sock of a blocked user and the thread you opened closed per WP:Deny. However, I think there are special circumstances here. My suggestion - which would be subject to other editors' views and consensus, and anyone pointing out a WP policy which precludes it - would be that, if you are JK, you be allowed to continue to use that account to contribute to this Talk page provided it is the only WP account you use and you disclose your COI and be open about who you are. DeCausa (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This is fine by me.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

sorry i disagree 1000%.Honest-john (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

rules are same for everyone, and with his record of reverts with no sources many many times, this should not be allowed. There is no special case. If this user is not blocked, I will report it myself. Sorry, you have to be fair.Honest-john (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to allow for all of the possibilities here, including King launching into further "Wikipedia is inaccurate and biased" attacks on his website. It would be OK to have one account which Jonathan King acknowledged was actually him, rather than a host of sockpuppet accounts. For someone who claims not to care about Wikipedia, he seems to spend an awful lot of time reading it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thats my point Ian, look at the history of this article like I have done in detail. Its made better, people forget about it, then new editors come in and make it a love letter again. Happened again and again, and now the article is actually good, dont want that cycle again.Honest-john (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If StinkerEditor did admit to being Jonathan King, which is hypothetical at the moment, WP:AUTO would apply. This humorous quote from the policy explains the problem involved:

It is said that Zaphod Beeblebrox's birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this.

— The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Fit the Ninth

--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is all normal editing rules would apply to editing the article, the proposal would be to give him a voice on the Talk page. "Fairness" is neither here nor there, it's a question of whether it would benefit the article or not. I think there is a benefit in him being able to say, on the talk page, fact x is the truth and you can check it at source y. We can then evaluate source y in ths normal way to decide whether it should go in the article. Anyway, this is all moot at this point - he hasn't said it is him, and he hasn't expressed an interest in agreeing to it. DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

King's three trials

In media interviews, King has stressed that he faced three trials, and in two of them, the charges were dropped. At the first trial, he was convicted and imprisoned. The second and third trials both ended in nolle prosequi for different reasons. The second case went to court, but was dropped after it emerged that the alleged victim was older than originally claimed and had consented to sex. The third trial was dropped altogether and never went ahead. Also possibly worth mentioning is that after his release in 2005, King hired Giovanni Di Stefano in an attempt to clear his name.[4][5]. However, Di Stefano does not seem to have been King's defence lawyer at the trial in 2001 (probably just as well, as he is now in prison himself).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just amended it before seeing your post. Just going by the sources that I've cited, the prosecution offered no further evidence in trial 2 "and he was acquitted". I think that probably means that the judge directed acquittal. No one, including King, talks about acquittal in the third trial, just that the charges were dropped. I suspect it probably means it never a tually began. I think it's safest to stick with that terminology (i.e. as actually used in the sources) absent a detailed legal analysis of what happened.DeCausa (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The Robert Chalmers article [6] says "His case, somewhat confusingly, was split into three trials: the convictions relate only to the first. King was acquitted at the second, following which the CPS abandoned the third." The Guardian article [7] says "King had been convicted of the six offences in September of this year but the trial could not be reported until today because he had faced three other trials for similar offences. Today, however, following a meeting between lawyers and police, the court was told that it had been decided that the prosecution would not proceed with the other cases, and reporting restrictions were lifted." This appears to be nolle prosequi (it definitely wasn't a not guilty verdict in the second and third trials) and it appears that the third trial never materialised, although this could be wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to round it off, Barber's article says:

"King's lawyer asked if the charges could be split between three trials for the sake of 'case management' and, much to the prosecution's annoyance, this was allowed. The result was that King was convicted on five counts at the first trial and acquitted at the second trial, whereupon the CPS dropped the third trial, and he was sentenced to seven years."

and Ronson's article says:

"In the end, Jonathan is acquitted of this particular charge [i.e. in the 2nd trial]. The victim admits on the witness stand that he was probably 16 when he knew Jonathan, and the prosecution can't prove that the sex was non-consensual. While there is no statute of limitations for underage sex - or for sexual assaults - a 16-year-old who has had consensual sex with an adult must, by law, complain within a year of the offence for the adult to be tried. This boy waited 23 years, which is why his case is abandoned."

So, I think what we now have the article (after your latest amendments) is as accurate as we can get it. DeCausa (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The three trials are something that King has been keen to stress all along. However, saying "Harold Shipman was found guilty of 15 murders, not 250" does not make him any less of a convicted murderer. Many of the remaining charges against Shipman had insufficient evidence, and the same is true with Jonathan King.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

dont think the others should be mentioned, would get too detailed and messy. Plus agree with ianmacm re they were probably dropped because he was already in prison anyway and the courts do that to save time and money.Honest-john (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

On di Stefano, one of the knowledgable socks that got blocked in 2009 gave this summary of the legal team. It's likely to be right. I think di Stefano probably didn't do much. It would make a "colourful" addition to the article - but I'm not too sure if it's warranted. DeCausa (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ronald Thwaites QC is correct [8] but not really notable enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the explanation of why there was an acquittal in the 2nd trial is still a little opaque, particularly on how exactly “consent” is relevant. It’s a little complex and I think a full explanation starts to unnecessarily clutter up the paragraph. I’ve amended it and put the detail in a footnote. I think this is both clearer and, for the main body of the article, more concise. I hope others agree. DeCausa (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Age of victims (again)

This came up in an earlier thread, now archived, without resolution. The article currently states that the age of the 5 victims of the 6 offences he was convicted of is 14-16. However, the sources in the article are slightly contradictory :

• Guardian 2001 - 14-16
• Lynn Barber - 14-15
• BBC 2003 - 14-15
• Independent 2012 - 14-16
• Jon Ronson - 14-15
• Telegraph 2001 - 13-15
• detailed Guardian analysis of the 5 victims, from 2001 - not cited in article, but 14-15.

That says to me it should be 14-15 because (a) the balance of the sources say (b) the Ronson and Barber pieces are the most credible in terms of depth of knowledge/research and (c) the last source mentioned above is the only one that gives a detailed account of each of the 5 victioms. I therefore think the article, when it states the offences, should state 14-15 and cite Barber and Ronson. Views? DeCausa (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This looks like normal media inaccuracy. Based on what happened at the failed second trial, the prosecution may have decided that it would be unwise to proceed with cases where there was a likelihood that the alleged victim was over 16 at the time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. I think I'll go ahead with the proposed change for the moment. DeCausa (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Lynn Barber specifically discusses the fact that none of the victims were 16. DeCausa (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Lynn Barber also says "[Oscar] Wilde wasn't guilty of writing 'Una Paloma Blanca'." Then again, neither was King. However, it seems from the most detailed sourcing that all of the convictions were in the 14-15 age range, despite some variations in the media reports.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

2008 Sky News article

There is an interesting Sky News article here. Despite the unhelpful title of "Convicted Sex Pervert Jonathan King Protests His Innocence" it has some useful insights from King himself. One of the key parts of King's challenge against the 2001 conviction is that he was in New York when one of the alleged assaults occurred. The article mentions this, and also has a quote from King himself, which says "Anyone who was around in the 1960s? All us pop stars were [hitting on] anything that moved. Loads of them were groupies who put on the face-paint and the bras and claimed to be 18 and we thought we'd be lucky if they were 16, but they probably weren't a day over 14. Everybody was doing it. That's the way it was back then. I was bi-sexual and had sex with both genders. I found it ludicrous that it was legal to have sex with a girl of 16 but not with a boy of the same age." A few days after this interview I phone King to tell him that his comments about having sex with underage groupies are very difficult to square with his campaign to quash his conviction. "I've always said I was guilty of breaking the age of consent laws because they weren't equalised," he replies. But I wasn't guilty of having sex with the men I was convicted of [having sex with]."

This goes to the heart of the matter on the question of the convictions and the media coverage that they generated. Even if some of the aspects of the legal case against King in 2001 were unsatisfactory (they probably were), journalists who have interviewed King have also said that they find his protestations of total innocence to be unsatisfactory. Journalist James Silver, who wrote the article, is somewhat puzzled by this. Some material here might be suitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Equalisation of the consent laws has always been a bit of a red herring in my view. The complainants in the charges he was actually convicted of were 14 and 15, not 16. He was acquitted of that one. In terms of the article, I would suggest the volume on the convictions is about right now, but anything much bigger starts getting into "undue" territory. also, I think we don't want to re-try the case via the article. DeCausa (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is a red herring in this sense, that when these sexual acts took place the age of consent was 21; and the age of 16 did not (as far as same-sex activity was concerned) have the significance that it has now, which could not have been foreseen then. By the time they came to trial, the age of consent had become 16 and you would not prosecute for something that has ceased to be an offence subsequent to the commission of the act, even though it was an offence when it was committed. -- Alarics (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a red herring in the sense that the age of consent is completely irrelevant, but it is a red herring in the sense that it is misdirection and completely misses the point. We need to be very careful about taking red herrings from King's lips and placing them in the article.

It glosses over the key aggravating factor in King's case. He put substantial effort into devising ways to get young boys to have sex with him even though they didn't really want to. Grooming, as it is commonly called. Absent that, I think it is vanishingly unlikely that he would ever have been prosecuted in the 21st century. Plus, the argument asks us to accept the reality of a moral quandary that never really existed. Heroin is currently illegal, so there is no legal age for it, as there is with alcohol and tobacco. But, supposing some future generation decided that heroin should be legalised. Would that mean that there is, today, no moral difference between dealing a bit of heroin to your work colleagues and hard-selling it to school children? Of course not.

What our article doesn't have room for is crap arguments as to why King might have been unfairly treated. Formerip (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with FormerIP's last sentence above. Significant people do think he was unfairly treated, and this ought to be recognised in the article, as indeed it is. -- Alarics (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following either side of the above exchange. To me, the change in the "age of consent" in 2001 is irrelevant. Sex with a 14 or 15 year old boy whether or not there is consent was a crime in 1984 and is a crime in 2014. That is what King was convicted of. As discussed in the following thread, there was some confusion in the press over whether any of the victims of the crimes he was convicted of were 16. I actually think it is clear none were 16. But even if any were 16, he still would only have been convicted if there was no consent - just as now. This is because it was only possible, under the old law, to secure a conviction if the victime was 16 and there was consent if the victim made a complaint within a year.

King's arguments as to why his conviction is unfair has included: (a) they were 16 or 17 at the time, not 14 or 15 (or he never met them) that's a straight question of fact which the jury reached a conclusion on; (b) the law was unfair/discrimatory to gay sex - true, but for the reasons I state above are not relevant to his particular convictions; (c) everyone else was doing it and he's beeen singled out because of the gay angle - I think that's an argument that could be run pre-Savile at al. but no longer. It could only ever go to length of sentence, not conviction anyway. Those that were sympathetic to him spoke pre-Savile and possibly Savile-type activities were widely known in media circles. It would be interesting to know whether their views have now altered at all - although Stott is no longer alive. I think what we have now in the article is about the right coverage on King's position. DeCausa (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

It was right for DeCausa to drop the words "buggery" and "attempted buggery" in this edit, because it is excessive detail for the WP:LEAD. Also, I added King's insistence that he is innocent of the charges, as this is key to the later part of his career and notable enough for the lead section. Also, it will hopefully please the man himself, as it makes the lead more WP:NPOV.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me - although I don't think we should be trying to please him. I' ve taken the reference to "court" out as he also tried the CCRC. DeCausa (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any version of the article would please King entirely, but the lead section should mention that he has consistently rejected the 2001 convictions and tried to have them overturned. This is within the letter and spirit of WP:LEAD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Scott Walker

This book by Simon Napier-Bell (perhaps not necessarily a reliable source?) credits King with, if not "discovering" Scott Walker, at least putting him on the path to a solo career. There are plenty of other online references to his role, such as this. Should this be mentioned in the article? Scott Walker is a very significant figure, after all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this Scott Walker (singer)? The article does not mention Jonathan King.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was more than one Scott Walker - he's surely the primary topic (or maybe not). Anyway, yes, that one. I've checked through another Walker Brothers bio and can't find a reference to King either. King talks about Walker (his "best friend", no less) here. Interesting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

He's mentioned in the article on Scott 2; apparently he wrote the sleeve notes. Looking at the above links, it seems he was his friend, helped him with stage fright but othrr than that I'm not sure that he had a bearing on Walker's career. DeCausa (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Further from King's site

After being asked about details of his past life and career, his answer.

Best to read 65 My Life So Far or the Biography section here - or to watch Vile Pervert: The Musical for the actual facts. Other sites tend to get hijacked by trolls and haters, or even simply those to whom important facts are different to those I regard as important. I never worked for anyone other than myself - I had freelance contracts, through my companies, with many labels and corporations, including the BBC. After Moon I produced (i.e. paid all costs and owned all rights) for a variety of labels (for example, Genesis were through Decca in the UK, Atlantic in the USA). I ran Decca twice for Sir Edward Lewis (unpaid - very unusual - as a part time consultant... I described my role as his mascot). Some of my best known and best loved tracks weren't hits (The Sun Has Got His Hat On). Yes, Max boasts in his Biography about having a framed letter on his wall from Surrey Police thanking him for starting the wrongful prosecution and conviction in my case. I suspect he may now have removed it from display. And yes, I was given an Award from the Ivors (I couldn't attend so it was accepted on my behalf by Joe Loss - it took me forever getting the ghastly statuette back from him "I'm keeping it; it's in my toilet" he said). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.58.99.191 (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(King's original post is here)

Interesting, but WP:AUTO still applies here. On the question of the Ivor, it was removed because BASCA said twice that King did not receive one. In an e-mail to me dated 18 January 2014, BASCA said "Hi Ian, at The Ivors we do give a statuette to the associated UK music publisher and in the 1950s to 1980s also the UK record company associated with Best Selling A Side. As such there is a chance Mr King may have owned a company that was recognised, but it would be a company rather than an individual's award. However, I will do some research as currently the song itself doesn't appear on our list." At the risk of repeating what was said before, does JK have any newspaper cuttings or photographs related to the Ivor?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, King is not a reliable source on his own life. There are multiple sources that discuss his shameless self-promotion eg Janet Street-Porter talks here about his "self-aggrandising claims". Some of his claims are clearly absurd - like he was "running Decca" before he was 25. (His true role being confirmed by reliable sources anyway.) Many require reading detailed reliable sources before identifying the truth. Eg if you read accounts of the early career of the Bay City Rollers (ugh, as I have now done) it is absolutely not the case he discovered them, as he claims. The problem is often there is a core of reality which has been exaggerated. Trying to get to the core and only discarding exaggeration is not easy, and mistakes can be made. One of the specific problems with journalistic sources post 2001 is that they usually like to set up King for a "how the mighty are fallen" approach. This often results in their simply repeating (often, I notice, in one or two sentences) a list of his achievements as given to them by King, but not qualified as that, so that they can go on to point out how little he has now. Thus they can, by that sloppiness, pass into "reliable sources". DeCausa (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a normal situation which has been blown up out of all proportion. As with all living persons, Jonathan King is allowed to correct unambiguous errors of fact, but this requires reliable secondary sources. When Wikipedia got it wrong over his date of graduation (1967, not 1966, yes, these things happen) it was corrected. At the moment, there is an impasse over the Ivor Novello Award due to the conflicting claims. Also, Jonathan King should assume good faith. Here we are on a Sunday morning arguing over a 1975 issue that most people do not care about. One thought that springs to mind here is whether JK still has the Ivor Novello Award after it was kindly donated to him by Joe Loss. If so, please could he photograph it and upload it so that others can see it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

King has issued further replies here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that even King thinks that the Novello award is unimportant and can't remember why he was awarded it, I suggest that any mention simply be removed from the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It was taken out a while ago. As King does not wish to provide any supporting evidence I think this issue can now be treated as closed - unless further info emerges. DeCausa (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

King's later career

Re this edit: This has been discussed on my talk page here. The main thrust of the Independent article is that King has never worked in the mainstream media since 2005, something which frustrates him. However, it is not quite accurate to say that critics have ignored him entirely. Thoughts on how to word this, please.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Further from his site... Why this sudden reminder of photos? E Mails asking - am I a writer and film maker? I'd say so, yes - I've written a lot, from published novels to columns in the biggest national paper once a week for ten years, and I've made three films, with lots of online views. Have I been involved in things like Who Let The Dogs Out and Chumbawamba? Oh yes. Did Max Clifford start the fiasco which lead to my wrongful conviction for crimes that never happened? He boasts about it everywhere, including in his authorised biography, and claims to have a letter from the police thanking him, on his office wall. Did I get given an Ivor. Yes. Most of these are fairly trivial in the greater scheme of things although most people could not include them in the story of their lives. Those who doubt are quite entitled to do so but they are wrong. I'm not a master forger. I'm too busy doing stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.30.194 (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

(The original post is here)

and more from his site - a recent post by someone... I found your autobiog fascinating. The cuttings from newspapers are most interesting. Where did you get them from? Record Producer of the year several times and writing pages in various music papers. I laughed at your Mr Spectacles of the year prize. And all those charts. I found this site that has many of them. Could you not put up many more since online seems all important these days?

www.65mylifesofar.com/part5.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.30.194 (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

The archive bot parameters for this page seem a bit agressive. I've altered the min no. of threads to be left from zero to 2, so at least it doesn't blank the page again. DeCausa (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Mistakes

I'm a journalist - working on an article on King this week for MailOnline. I cannot believe how many incorrect details there are in here. Had to go to our files - for example, King hosted the 1987 Brit Awards not the 1990 one which he produced as he did in 91 and 92. Not bothered to make fundamental changes here but somebody should check the entire entry. 109.157.17.216 (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Now corrected, thank you. Feel free to tell us about any more errors you spot. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Good to know that Wikipedia is used by the Mail for fact checking (also wonder if this is the Mail article involved). This page from the Brits website confirms that he was the host in 1987. In his book 65 My Life So Far, King says that in the 1990s he was involved in organising the Brits rather than being the host.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There are hundreds of clippings in our file for his writings in several papers yet he's not called a journalist or columnist here. Old Radio Times articles devote pages to his role as Producer of The Brit Awards in 1990, 1991 and 1992 as well as Executive Producer for the British Eurovision contests from the mid 90s. Another article I'm researching about Max Clifford carries his claims to have started the prosecution of King in 2000 and his letter from Surrey Police hanging framed on his wall. That's just for starters. Sorry I've not got time to go further but appreciate the thanks from editors.109.157.17.216 (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Something to bear in mind is that Wikipedia editors do not usually have access to specialist newspaper or library archives. As for him being a journalist or columnist, he did have a column in The Sun at one point.[9] King and Clifford are old adversaries, as mentioned here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

IP, you'll have Lord Northcliffe rolling in his grave at Mail employees taking time off to edit Wikipedia during working hours. But maybe you're on the night desk and are at home today, which explains why your address doesn't geolocate to Northcliffe House W8. Hmmm. DeCausa (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Mokda

Jonathan King is not a convicted paedophile, because this is not a criminal offence as defined in English law. The offences are explained in the article. "Paedophile" is a vague word beloved of tabloid newspapers and yobs who want to put a brick through the window of the wrong house. The description of Jimmy Savile as a "notorious paedophile" was reverted for the same reason. The use of the word "alleged" is justified because many allegations were made against King, but only a handful stood up in court. Many were dropped for the reasons explained in the article. As for me being Jonathan King's PR agent, please assume good faith.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've warned the editor concerned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa rides again!

I'm being blocked by DeCausa - and quite right too. I'm going to see James Blunt in concert next week so looked on his Wikipedia page to see that DECAUSA has not yet pointed out how many of his singles have only been MINOR hits. Then I looked at ten other musicians. To my horror DeCausa has not yet got around to pointing out their numerous hits were only minor in many cases. I now understand why DeCausa is blocking me. Instead of having someone point out his bias and agenda on one or two articles (he doesn't seem keen on Islam either). DeCausa suggests I write on Talk pages for a consensus. Then happily reverts changes to main articles that don't conform to his WEASEL agenda. Get on with all those other articles DeCausa, and block anyone who notices your weasel words. Or suggest they are personally involved (unlike you). Disgraceful, cowardly, biased, weasel.86.146.196.88 (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator and have never blocked anyone. The only blocks that have been made previously in connection with this page (and there have been a few) have been for edit warring and long-standing and frequent sock puppetry. Those decisions to block have been made by others, not me. We follow a process called WP:BRD. When an editor makes a change to an article (B for Bold edit) and that change is reverted (the R) the editor who wants to make the change should then try to gain consensus support for his edit and not revert again (that's the D for discuss). You have breached that. DeCausa (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

King article

Some very odd changes. Several links that seem valid removed by block reversals. Quite a mess. Agree with some points. Why so much on trial? Other articles just have basic facts not specific detail. Some pages in his book have photos of clippings that look genuine. Can they really be forged or should they be RS despite being on his site or in his book? Surely he produced more than on Brits show? And Eurovision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.233.99 (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, very odd. Someone seems to have great knowledge of King's career but will not say who is making the edits. This has been discussed before, and policies such as WP:AUTO need to be taken into consideration here. I don't think that the coverage of the trial is excessive, and it is within WP:BLP guidelines for a prominent controversy. How much would you like to see? Very little or none at all?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

...and "surely" readers would be fascinated to read much more on the acquittal in the second trial. DeCausa (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Charts

Incidentally I'm here on vacation but why are Wikipedia entries only talking about UK and USA chart hits? Surely our Australian charts deserve mentions? As indeed do hits on charts elsewhere in the world. Japan? Europe? South America? Obviously not simply local hits but global ones?109.153.115.209 (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This might be better suited to a separate article such as Jonathan King discography. Things start to get complicated if various countries, labels and charts are involved. The article has stuck to UK releases and chart positions. Hope that you are enjoying your holiday in the UK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Just tried to add info about Hedgehoppers to King but the main article now seems to be frozen or blocked. I can see Wikipedia UK is having problems (reports about the Hillsborough tragedy). We don't appear to get so many vandals in the new world! Thank you for your good wishes. 86.166.117.184 (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hedgehoppers Anonymous has a separate article. A comprehensive list of all of the singles that King performed on or produced is beyond the scope of this article, and should be spun off into a discography article if desired.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

WEASEL

Correcting facts to fit BBC Documentary on Genesis. Numerous weasel words and POV used in the rest of the article as well as major mistakes. Someone obviously doesn't like KING and seeks to denigrate at every turn. Wikipedia is not for personal spats.86.146.196.88 (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Have written to De Causa TALK to suggest he takes his weasel edits elsewhere. All correct facts easily verifiable - for example charts show all the labels for King's hits, not just Decca. Will correct rest of article when I have time. Why say "minor" hits? What is a "major" hit? King's NEMO hit is probably the biggest radio record he ever made. Not mentioned. Every opportunity to sneer with incorrect detail and use of denigrating words. I see from De Causa history he does this kind of thing all the time (and clearly doesn't like Arabs). A subtle vandal, chipping and sniping, and cowardly, not daring to bully obviously and constantly suggesting opponents have their own agendas or are sock puppets. Is every other decent Editor scared to death of his stinging tongue?86.146.196.88 (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You might read WP:NPA. If you have reliable sources please feel free to cite them to support changes you wish to make. Equally, please don't change text which is supported by cited sources. DeCausa (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources to defend use of POV words... "minor" hit, "novelty" hit... quoting one chart instead of another and always selecting the lower position... it takes 2 seconds to Google numerous King hits listed in the article - http://www.discogs.com/Sakkarin-Sugar-Sugar-Main-Line-Lady/release/1549098 - clearly on RCA not Decca (for whom King was meant to be working in 1971 according to your grossly inaccurate entry). Weasel phrasing and choice of words is easy to do. All through this the clear stamp of De Causa chipping away, deliberately not getting facts right. A biased, bigoted method of editing using all the threat tactics of a bully. Bulk reversions, use of phrases, please don't revert corrections which are easily verifiable by an objective editor not pursuing an agenda. The standard of editing is disgraceful.86.146.196.88 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Today's edits contain themes which mirror those favoured by the article's subject. Leap Up And Down (Wave Your Knickers In The Air) by St. Cecilia is not hugely notable other than for being banned by Top of the Pops at the time. JK has long pointed out that the trial saga began when one of the alleged victims contacted Max Clifford before going to the police. This was left in because it does have some relevance to how things were handled at the time. The question of what is a major or minor hit is rather subjective; It Only Takes a Minute was his last top ten hit, and the subsequent singles were not as successful.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we stick to WP:BRD until changes are agreed here on this? I've restored the article to its state before our friends edits this morning. As you point out, they reflect the subject's usual preferred themes - no problem with that if they are sourced. But most of the changes are not reflected in the citations, but the citations haven't been changed. Wvith regard to Max Clifford, this is something that King has been peddling for a long time. But the only RS references to it are in passing and are clearly sourced to King himself. You've cited the Chalmers 2012 article for it - but as we know that was clearly sourced by Chalmers from the interview. The only two detailed accounts of the investigation are cited at the end of that paragraph plus the Ronson piece. None mentioned Clifford. In any case what's it's relevance other than to provide a subtext insinuation of the motivation of the complainants. There's a NPOV issue with that. Happy to discuss the other changes, but let's follow BRD. DeCausa (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with mentioning that the initial complainant apparently went to Max Clifford first, because this has some relevance to how the case progressed. I don't think that it implies an insinuation about the motive. At Clifford's trial, the jury was told that "Clifford also claimed he had actually exposed paedophiles such as former pop star Gary Glitter and Jonathan King during his career."[10] Clifford writes about King in his book Read All About It (something which I haven't had a chance to do). The remainder of yesterday's edits are back to the old problem of someone who has an apparently detailed knowledge of King's career adding or changing material without proper sourcing. The sentence "Between then and 1979 King had a further series of minor hits" is inaccurate, because It Only Takes a Minute was a respectable top ten hit. The songs after that did not achieve much success in the charts, but distinguishing between a major and minor hit is subjective and has an element of POV.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, King and Clifford both claim that, for different reasons. But what did he actually do? No RS has, AFAIK, said what that was in any convincing detail. What we do know from the RS is the investigation began with an email to NCIS from a complainant about another celebrity. Nothing to do with King or Clifford. As far as other edits are concerned it's about giving the account the King slant. Eg King in his biography says he was the head of Decca's "mascot" not personal assistant, which is the role referred to in the cited source. As far as "hits" are concerned, yes he got a number 9 during the period in question but mostly they were in the 50s and 60s in terms of chart position. It seems ridiculous to call them all "hits". DeCausa (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't happy about the addition of "mascot" because it is vague; personal assistant and talent spotter seems like a better description of what he did. On the question of genre, some of King's hits would qualify as novelty songs, but not all of them do. King's chart success waned in the late 1970s, and It Only Takes a Minute was his last top ten record. I don't think that the current wording is entirely fair or objective in how it deals with this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Current citation 11 is the source for King being known for novelty records. I think we should stick with RS assessments rather than tweak them. Having said that, what changes would you suggest to make it fairer? DeCausa (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Simply changing to correct glaring mistakes made by prosecution lawyer or so it reads. If these changes reflect those suggested by others they and we may be right. Statements on oath in court and printed in national newspapers are surely valid sources? Links to label evidence is surely proof? Minor or major hits are not words that should be included in Wiki. A hit either charts or sells. Stats say Leap Up sold 400,000 copies in the UK and remained on the chart for 17 weeks in the spring of 1971. Music Week and Guinness Book of single. Easy to verify. Not top ten in those days. Peaked at 12. But one of the year's biggest today. OK I apologise for suggesting one editor may be a victim or lawyer. But this constant weasel wording is disgraceful.86.146.196.88 (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

JK was apparently the producer of Leap Up And Down (Wave Your Knickers In The Air) by St. Cecilia and did not write or perform on it. There is very little decent sourcing on this, and SongFacts is not a reliable source as discussed previously.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Came here from King's site where I went to find out more about Hedgehoppers Anonymous - big hit in Australia. Confused by the war going on here. Like above - surely his productions are of interest? Odd words used. Read his autobiog and indeed he did call himself "mascot" but "advisor" seems more appropriate. And why so much on his fairly trivial court case? And the point made above is fair. why so much on his conviction and so little on acquittal? Two trials both lasted days at Central Criminal Court. In this current climate of celebrity trials I'd like to know more about his acquittal. I feel far too much space devoted to it but it should at least be balanced. Just a contribution from the colonies.109.153.115.209 (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Fairly trivial court case? Given that it wrecked King's career, hardly so. The argument that the case was split into three trials and the second and third trials were dropped after the conviction at the first trial is basically pro-King spin. The CPS most likely did this in order to save time, hassle and money. Leap Up And Down (Wave Your Knickers In The Air) could be mentioned if some decent sourcing was found, but there is very little about this in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Most likely"? Is that enough for Wikipedia? According to Google, Guardian, Independent and many others the second trial lasted some days and the Judge declared King Not Guilty. There is a photograph on his site of the official Old Bailey acquittal notice. Is that pro King spin or fact? I agree that the entire case seems a hefty chunk of the article and much more than it deserves. The Knickers link is a long article not at all pro King but making his contribution quite clear and anybody reading it can see the group had a hit with King producing them and none without. If I'd produced one 400,000 seller in my career I'd regard it as a great success. I suppose one man's hit is another man's failure but Wikipedia ought to reflect facts surely? 86.146.196.88 (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

One of the lessons of more recent trials like William Roache and Dave Lee Travis is that the CPS has a tactic known as bundling, which involves lumping together various similar allegations. Against the wishes of the prosecution, the case against King was split up into three separate trials. As the article points out, he was convicted at the first, acquitted at the second and the CPS dropped the third. My own unsourced opinion is that the CPS dropped the third trial because there was little point in spending further public money on the case after King had been sentenced to seven years in 2001. The second and third trials are something of a red herring in that they do not imply that King was not guilty in the first trial. If the trial is a hefty chunk, it is because it goes into far more detail than the usual "JK is a paedo" stuff from the red top tabloids and is careful to stick to broadsheet sourcing. I don't think that the current wording in the article has undue weight given the consequences for King's career.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss

OK, so the article is now protected and reverted to the version prior to the edits made by the IP. Can we now discuss and agree what changes need to be made. If there's consensus on what the changes should be, let's implement them. Let's do it change by change rather than do a block change of a bunch of things. Who wants to make a specific proposal? Minor hits anyone? DeCausa (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Some links appear legitimate such as the one about Leap Up And Down and one editor's comments on description of his position at Decca. He produced hits including Leap Up And Down on different labels so cannot have been employed by one label. Obvious. Glue 15:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: above post (15:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)) was by blocked sock User:Ellymental, for reference. DeCausa (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah. We simply share different views on Wikipedia. I quote from your Talk page - "The objective is to reflect the balance of opinion as found in reliable sources." As opposed to my assumption that it should reflect the truth. I can't fight that especially as I'm not an administrator or proper editor and don't want to be. To save you the trouble of getting me banned or ruling me unsuitable to edit I shall elegantly remove myself from the fray and let other editors agree or disagree with your position. I'll send a message to King suggesting he joins direct.86.146.196.88 (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope Mr King accepts your suggestion. A number of article subjects openly post on the talk page of their articles and that generally results in a very constructive engagement. Peter Hitchens is often cited as an example where it's worked well. The most relevant policy he would need to look at in the first instance is WP:COI. On the subject of "truth" it would be worth his while reading WP:V and WP:NOT TRUTH. DeCausa (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's have a look at why WP:AUTO can lead to problems. Here is a quote from Jonathan King's autobiography 65 My Life So Far:

"The only time I was sued for a column was when I pointed out the marked melodic similarity between the new Pet Shop Boys single ‘It’s a Sin’ and Cat Stevens’ ‘Wild World’. Irate, they took legal action. So I recorded a version of ‘Wild World’ with the PSB arrangement (as I’d done years before with ‘He’s So Fine’ and George Harrison’s ‘My Sweet Lord’). The case fizzled out when I met Neil and Chris on a plane going to the Caribbean, they discovered I was multo simpatico sexually and I gave them the addresses of several good gay bars in the area. They dropped the case."

Now here is what Sound on Sound says about the same incident:

"TV presenter Jonathan King used his regular column in The Sun to accuse the Pet Shop Boys of having crafted their latest hit by stealing the melody from Cat Stevens' 1971 recording of 'Wild World'. Then, never one to do anything by halves, especially when he could cause controversy and attract attention to himself in the full glare of the public spotlight, King tried to substantiate his claim by recording and releasing his own cover version of 'Wild World'. This utilised a similar arrangement to 'It's A Sin' but, despite his best efforts to discredit the electronic dance‑music duo, King's single was a flop. Evidently, no one really cared... that was, aside from the men actually being accused of the plagiarism. After suing Jonathan King, the Pet Shop Boys won out‑of‑court damages and donated the proceeds to charity."[11]

These are two very different takes on the same event.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course. But just to be clear, per WP:COISELF I wasn't suggesting that he edit the article. But if he were to openly post on this page the reliable sources he has and engages with other editors in discussion on them, then that would potentially benefit the article. Obviously, if it degenerated into "I say X is the truth" or "there are numerous [unspecified] sources that say this is the truth" or "I think this is the most important aspect of [the truth] even if reliable sources don't give it much attention" or "I've got a picture of [the truth] hanging in my bathroom", etc then it's not going to work. DeCausa (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't add link

Tried adding links to both this and Max Clifford's biographies after the publicity about Clifford's trial but they appear blocked. King's film about it is valuable.109.146.48.66 (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

King's film is a WP:SPS on this issue. In Chapter 24 of 65 My Life So Far, King says:

"Tom Hendry [King's publicist] had been tipped off that the Sun was intending to ‘confront’ me with someone – I could guess who, but thought it wiser to be away from the house. Sure enough, during a day of interviews and photos, still followed by Hornby who Tom had nicknamed the Albatross and a photographer we had booked for our own pictures, as we returned to the hotel a man announced himself as a Sun journalist and introduced me to the whistleblower, the man I’d never met whose initial approach to Max Clifford had started the whole thing. I got rid of him quickly and politely but the Sun had got its photo and Hornby, eyes sparkling with delight, filmed the incident for use in his future ‘supportive’ film, “which will concentrate on your side of the story and what you’ll be doing in the future – we don’t want to go down that old road of past claims.”

There isn't much to go on in the mainstream media about the Clifford/King link other than "King was arrested in 2000 after a man approached the publicist Max Clifford, then contacted the police."[12] There may be legal reasons preventing the media from expanding on this, but it would be worth looking for further sourcing that does not involve repeating the Clifford or King claims directly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Links in the papers about his defence at trial (Clifford's) and in papers this morning. Also interesting links about Hamiltons, Theroux, Glitter, Beckham.178.79.143.195 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

What is in the papers this morning is not very detailed. At the trial, Clifford claimed to have helped to "expose" King and Gary Glitter, and is quoted in The Guardian: "He said of Jonathan King, "I'm delighted to have played a small part in his arrest and trial. I even have a letter from the Surrey chief of police thanking me for my help in bringing him to justice. King and Glitter are typical paedophiles, manipulative and arrogant. Their arrogance is necessary for them to squash their guilty conscience. And they need to be manipulative to undermine their victims. The only difference between them and other paedophiles is that they like the spotlight, whereas most prefer to stay hidden away."[13] The "small part" phrase is rather vague. It appears from the other sources that one of the alleged victims, who King denies ever meeting in his autobiography, went to Clifford in 2000 before going to the police. It is unclear whether this person, who it may not be possible to name for legal reasons, was a witness at the 2001 trial or whether his allegations resulted in any charges or convictions. What is known is that after allegations against King were aired in the media, 27 men came forward with similar allegations.[14] I'm not against the idea of mentioning the Clifford link in the article, but on the current sourcing the link is lacking in detail. For example, it is not known whether the man who approached Clifford was KM or R as described here, or somebody completely different. It is also worth pointing out that KM sent an email to the National Criminal Intelligence Service in 1999, which predates the 2000 approach to Max Clifford. This doesn't really square with Clifford being the éminence grise behind King's conviction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The most detailed coverage on the investigation appeared in the Guardian shortly after the conviction, in this piece and in a two parter by Jon Ronson (used in the article) which was subsequently expanded in a book. Neither mention any involvement by Clifford. I think it is not credible that if Clifford had any sort of material involvement, it would have been omitted in these. The first Guardian piece is very clear that the investigation began because of an email from a complainant to NCIS about another celebrity - subsequently identified. Only King and Clifford have ever claimed that Clifford prompted it, and one can clearly see self-serving reasons for that. For Clifford, it demonstrated his influence and was an attempt to show he was a benefit to society. For King, it's consistent with his contention that he was a victim of made up claims put forward for money. To the extent they have been repeated by others it's been in the format of the Chalmers piece: one liners with no detail which from the context can be seen to have come from King or Clifford. Clifford may well have had some involvement with one of the complainants but without a detailed explanation of exactly what that was it shouldn't appear in either the King or the Clifford article. To include it would be a NPOV issue since it insinuates either the King or the Clifford contentions. DeCausa (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

We aren't allowed to name the first celebrity in the NCIS investigation (and "celebrity" is putting it a bit strongly). There are presumably legal reasons why King's accusers cannot be named, and this leads to gaps in the Clifford/King version of events.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• There is further coverage of this here. The problem again is lack of detail, because a) King denies ever having met the man who went to Max Clifford, and b) it is unclear whether this man's allegations led to any charges or convictions. The description of the man as a catalyst is about right.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Aside from it once again being a one-liner my comments on that source are:(a) he's a columnist, not a news piece, and doesn't have the same degree of reliability, I would say, as the investigative items I referred to earlier; (b) it's clear from what he says that King is the source for his piece - the whole piece is basically a repetion of same claims by King (c) he says (as a source) it's "common knowledge". That's a very odd expression indicating he hasn't checked it and seems to me to be tantamount to saying it's "folklore". I think a + b + c confirms my suspicion that it's something that gets repeated without knowing what specifically was Clifford's role or getting it properly sourced and is lazy journalism. DeCausa (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It is possible that KM here might have been the man who went to Max Clifford, but neither King nor any of the newspaper articles have said this, and it would be OR/SYNTH to draw this conclusion. It isn't in dispute that one of the complainants may have approached Clifford, but it was the e-mail to NCIS and Operation Arundel that led to King's conviction. Unfortunately the details of who alleged what in Operation Arundel are sketchy, and the accusers' names are protected by anonymity.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. My personal WP:OR on this is that Clifford probably advised one of the early complainants to go to the police but, more likely than not, it wasn't the key one that sent the email to NCIS as it's highly unlkely that those broadsheet news stories either missed it or knew it and didn't want to report it. . DeCausa (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The Sun Has Got His Hat On

King is in the news today, albeit briefly. There is a row over the song The Sun Has Got His Hat On. The Mail's coverage points out that King avoided this non-PC disaster area in 1971 by changing the lyrics to "He's been tanning negroes".[15][16]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is too marginal an item to be worth mentioning in the article. -- Alarics (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The Sun Has Got His Hat On/Eurovision

Searched for mention but only found it under the song title so added it here. Also Eurovision. Recently King's name has cropped up in numerous news items about both. There seem many inaccuracies in this biog. I'm sure he also produced The Brits shows. Schofield1990 (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There is very little reliable sourcing about The Sun Has Got His Hat On (currently in the news, see above). King's 1971 version under the name "Nemo" was not a big chart hit, but is still well known today. As for Eurovision and the Brit Awards, this has been raised before. They are both mentioned in the article but without exhaustive detail. Is there anything reliably sourced that should be added? Incidentally, if the Mail had not been preoccupied with reminding its readers that King was convicted of sexual offences in 2001, it might have asked him why he chose to change the offending line in The Sun Has Got His Hat On to "He's been tanning negroes". This shows that by 1971, using the n-word was considered unacceptable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note: User:Schofield1990 is yet another sock, now blocked on a WP:DUCK, from the same sock farm. DeCausa (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It bears repeating: it doesn't matter if you disguise your username or IP address, if you say the same things in the same prose style, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Please don't use multiple accounts, no-one benefits from this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's worth pointing out to any editors who edit this article that this sock farm has been editing this article since 2006, using at least 11 accounts (and of course numerous IPs) either simultaneously or consecutively. Some had edited the article over many years. Of the top 25 users (by number of edits) who have edited this article, a third have come from this sock farm. DeCausa (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, some of the edit history shows signs of multiple account use that passes the WP:DUCK test complete with a tasty helping of orange sauce. The question is now why the person involved keeps doing it, because it is not going to achieve anything in the long run.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Strange Wikipedia entry and unable to edit

Having read Mr King's book 65 my life so far, the article seems to be full of inaccuracies - neither from one side or the other, just mistakes. And cannot be corrected. Why is this? Vandals? Incompetence? Editors not bothering? 213.152.6.214 (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr King's autobiography cannot necessarily be taken as a reliable source, of course. If you identify any particular "inaccuracies", no doubt one of the many independent editors who see this page will be able to verify and, if appropriate, correct them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ditto, and this does seem rather similar to complaints that have been made before.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I see. At first I thought "if there have been similar complaints why haven't the faults been corrected?". Then I read the archive and see it's basically a battle between King fans and detractors with "you're a sock puppet" being the main argument and details ignored. I won't join in. I Googled Same Old Song. Couldn't find it. Then found it under It's The - saw King had the UK hit with 250,000 sold (a Number One these days). No mention on his page. Saw it in the list. No Sun Has Got - until in archive and here on talk I saw it's been discussed and rejected. "King left Decca in 1970" it says - and then has several hits listed after that on Decca. Gave up. Over to one of the "many independent editors". 213.152.6.214 (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "battle" between "King fans and detractors". I don't think this article (or King himself) attracts that sort of attention. What's hapened is that there have been problematic edits from two sources. The first is a group of accounts and IP addresses over the last 8 years who are in fact the same person. This has been established through technical checks which us ordinary editors are not privy to. The second are drive-by edits by a variety of people who broadly have an "anti-Pedo" (to frame it in tabloid terms) agenda. Most editors who edit this article are not connected with either problematic source. DeCausa (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In Chapter 12 of his autobiography, King informs readers "I took to answering the phone “Hello, this is God – who are you?” There were some who believed that I was teetering on the brink of insanity." It also says that he left Decca at around this time and began "investing my own cash into my own records – that’s right, expenditure, not income." So maybe the Discography is wrong about the post 1970 records being released on Decca. It's the Same Old Song is in the Discography but does not go into any detail. In his autobiography, King describes The Sun Has Got His Hat On as a "massive airwaves hit" (ie not a massive chart hit) which is why it is not in the Discography. There really isn't a lot about this song in reliable secondary sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Re Decca, it's certainly the case that the singles that were released under his own name in Britain up to and including "Flirt" in 1972 were on Decca - one source here. Allmusic says that he "left Decca" in 1970, but that might apply either to his employment, or to his recording contract - his records up to when he formed UK Records could have been issued by the same company as one-offs rather than under his previous contract - or it could be a simple error in the Allmusic article. I don't think we know the detailed answer, and it would useful to have an explanation of the apparent anomaly, but until then there is nothing on this point that I think we should change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There was a source at one point that made a reference to his ceasing being Lewis's assistant in 1970 - I definitely remember reading it. I'm sure that's what the sentence means - although I agree the Allmusic reference is ambiguous, and the source i recall doesn't appear to be cited (and I can't remember what it was!) DeCausa (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I would be wary of Allmusic as a source. I have found errors in it in the past, in relation to other artistes. -- Alarics (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But it may still be more reliable than what King says about himself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm neither a detractor nor fan but both Allmusic and Chapter 12 make it clear he stopped as an assistant (unpaid he claims - no reason to doubt this?). As a producer he was independent from 1965 (Good Newsweek) and used pseudonyms (sock puppets?) as well as different labels to distribute his product as he still seems to do with Amazon and iTunes. I rather admire his persistence and stamina. Glad to have helped here. 213.152.6.214 (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Allmusic doesn't actually say that. It says: "A little bit later [than 1965], he was hired by Sir Edward Lewis, the founder and chairman of England's Decca Records, as his assistant.... King became his resident advisor in dealing with the new pop music.... King left Decca in 1970...". Nothing there about him being unpaid, or about him being an independent producer. Both of those statements may well be true, but the source doesn't support them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It is the same old problem of the reliability of sources like Discogs and AllMusic versus WP:AUTO. Chapter 12 of King's autobiography does not go into details about the labels on which the records were released post 1970, so it is hard to say whether there are any outright errors in the article on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The record labels in the table of chart singles are all derived from official chart books, and are correct and easily verifiable. It is the article text that may need tweaking a little for accuracy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Read Ch12 again on Kindle ianmacm. Unless it's different to print version all details are given in there. Easy to forget (or I wouldn't have come to Wiki for Same Old Song) but why B&C (no money) and who they are (verified on Google) plus more on Decca and worth an independent editor correcting article text after reading and verifying. 213.152.6.214 (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Chapter 12 says " My first project was ‘It’s the Same Old Song’, a track I’d recorded on a session some months earlier and had always felt was a hit... I took it into the little record label based in the ground floor of my 37 Soho Square office block, B&C Records." The discography section in the article says that it was released on B&C Records. I'm now getting confused. What exactly is wrong in the discography? Chapter 12 also says "I did the decent thing. I quit Decca as Sir Edward’s mascot and unofficial, unpaid deputy chairman, gave up everything I’d been wasting time on, and went fully into independent production." Some of the post 1970 hits are said to be on the Decca label, but this is what the sourcing said, eg Lazybones here. The AllMusic article says that King left Decca in 1970, and the UK Records songs (King's own label) were distributed by Decca.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The records released under his own name were released on Decca up to 1972. But, "Same Old Song", "Sugar Sugar", and "Johnny Reggae", which appeared under pseudonyms (or where he was the producer), were issued on different labels. From 1972 onwards, all his recordings - as JK or otherwise - were issued on the UK label. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've now split the table to differentiate more clearly between those under which he was credited in his own name, and others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'm going to step away from this now but it illustrates my original comment that the article is full of inaccuracies like "he had a short period where he made a number of hits"???. Makes him look like a successful exec, or a singer who moves labels, when it seems JK started producing independently almost as soon as he made money from Gone to the Moon, with Good NewsWeek. Genesis were obviously produced and paid for independently by his company (he still appears to own the recordings) and licensed to Decca (not made by him working for Decca). His "job" at Decca seems almost like a part time hobby that he gave up when he needed to make money and returned to independent production - licensing to many labels including B&C, Decca, Bell, EMI and GTO. That was where his money - and success - came from. If this seems confused I wonder how muddled the rest has become if you throw in JK fans and JK detractors intentionally boosting/smearing. It needs an independent voice prepared to read his book, verify details or find flaws and rewrite this without fear of either biased side. Good luck! 213.152.6.214 (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The place where the phrase "short period" appears is the lead section, which says "After leaving Decca in 1970, he had a short period with Bell Records, where he produced a number of UK hits including the Bay City Rollers' first single." "Short period" is a bit vague and it would be better to give an exact figure. There are numerous changes and nuances that could be made, but the primary concern has to be outright errors of fact which can be corrected through secondary sources. Also, I don't go along with the theory that the article is a battle between King's fans and detractors, because reasonable efforts are made to correct things when they are shown to be wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all clear what role, if any, he had at Bell Records - other than having some of his productions released by the label. Allmusic says: "King left Decca in 1970 and two years later - after an interim period producing a series of minor British hits for bands like the Weathermen, the Piglets, and St. Cecilia, which were often King working pseudonymously - he formed his own UK Records label..." - without mentioning Bell at all. Perhaps it would be best for the lead to use a wording loosely derived from that wording - from Decca, via other independent stuff including the Bay City Rollers, to the UK label - and drop the mention of Bell from the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

King describes his role with the Bay City Rollers: "I was also persuaded to make a record with a young band from Scotland, the Bay City Rollers, that Dick Leahy, a friend of mine who ran Bell Records, pointed out to me. Dick, a prematurely greyhaired, lean, bright executive, showed me their pictures and told me that they were inspiring Beatles-type reaction from the fans of their gigs in Scotland. This could be my meal ticket for the Seventies, I decided. A ‘real’ artiste. And the market was ready for a new British teen band. Much future cash. I went into the studio, discovered they weren’t too hot as singers, and released ‘Keep on Dancing’, which featured no Rollers playing on it (all session players), 13 JKs in the background and one tentative Bay City Roller on lead vocal.They were nice, ordinary Scottish boys, with virtually no talent at all, but they looked different, in their ridiculous, tartan edged, short/long trousers. Their manager Tam Paton, who was, I believe, a potato farmer, had the right idea. I added a level of professionalism to the project and vetted all photographs, supervised hairstyles, banned random interviews, told them not to smoke or drink in public and cancelled fraternising with the fans from their lives. Most of these autocratic rules came from the Colonel Tom Parker/Elvis Presley book of star making. I’d watched him create an aura of mystique around Elvis by making him unavailable. I did the same with the Rollers. Although I have to say I could not see their appeal. Very plain young men, I thought; Tam clearly had no taste at all." King combined performing, talent spotting and producing from an early stage in his career, and this is reflected in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle that the reference to Bell should be dropped from the lead. The reference to Bell in the article is as follows: "In 1971 King was asked by Bell Records to produce the first release for The Bay City Rollers, who had recently been signed by the label.[27]" and doesn't warrant a name check in the lead. Also, I'm not now sure why the Bay City Rollers deserves special mention in the lead either. All things considered, I suggest simply deleting the sentence "After leaving Decca in 1970, he had a short period with Bell Records, where he produced a number of UK hits including the Bay City Rollers' first single." DeCausa (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Is use of the phrase "alleged victims" appropriate?

Genuine question; I'm unsure of our policy in this area. The article at present includes the following sentence:

The investigation had been prompted by one of his alleged victims contacting the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) in May that year, initially in relation to alleged offences committed by another celebrity.

The way I see it, there are a few complicating factors here:

1. Were charges stemming from this particular (alleged) victim proven, making that person not an alleged victim but a victim?
2. Does the fact that at these allegations were not proven at the time the allegations were made (obviously) mean we should refer to his (alleged) victims as alleged victims up until the time the charges were proven in court, then victims afterward?
3. How does an expression like one of his alleged victims reflect the fact that some charges relating to individual (alleged) victims were proven and others not? i.e. Some people made unproven allegations while others' allegations were proven; is describing this group of people collectively as alleged victims POV?

A factor which I don't think should complicate things is this:

1. The perpetrator denies the truth of these allegations.

Because lots of people deny crimes, and I'm pretty sure our standards don't apply a convicted person's self-identified innocence over that determined by law.

Thanks for any thoughts or direction to appropriate policy. Vague | Rant 16:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the answer to your question 1 is probably "We don't know", so it is safer to leave in the word "alleged". -- Alarics (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

There are some legal and sourcing issues here. If you look hard enough on the web, it is possible to find the name of the person who approached Max Clifford in 2000, but I'm not going to give it here. This person's allegations were due to heard at the third trial which was scrapped and never went ahead, much to his annoyance. However, for legal reasons it is not possible to source this reliably. As a result of the prosecution being dropped after the first trial, allegations from only five persons of the 27 who came forward resulted in a conviction. King vehemently denies ever meeting K, the person who went to Max Clifford.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

BBC Genesis documentary

Back in the news here and here. Not sure if this is notable enough for a mention in the article, but it is a rare example of a mainstream media appearance for King.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that might be worth taking from the BBC piece is the quote: "I'm not very good with really good creative artists. I'm actually better with people just doing as I say because it's my work of art I want to do." It's an interesting insight from his perspective of why the time with Genesis didn't work, which also explains succinctly a lot of the rest of his music career. DeCausa (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out that this documentary will be broadcast on 4 October. Will be watching this and there may be further media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a screenshot of King in the documentary. His contribution is quite short, and most of it is mentioned in the text sources. Is there a fair use for this image in the article?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Doubt it since the article already has a recent free-use shot of him. DeCausa (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There are three images in the current version, all CC licensed. This is the most up to date image of King.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, meant licensed not free-use. The justification has to be that's the only available image. The image in the infobox scuppers that I would have thought - it's only about 5 years ago I think. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Intentional errors?

I have two other Bay City Rollers singles on vinyl with King credited as producer but this says he only made one. I also have CD giveaway discs of his 1995 and 1996 Great British Song Contest entries - he's photographed on them - but this entry says he only produced 1997. I've spotted other missing facts. I notice one editor says not to mention his recording of Sun Has His Hat On. Are these intentional errors minimizing his activities since he's now a non person?Gary Bern (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jonathan Gary. The article does not contain intentional errors because he is a non person. As mentioned before, the article is limited to what has appeared in secondary reliable sources. Please suggest sources for the changes that you would like to be made.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't know how to send pics of the discs but just wanted to know if it was policy. Thanks.Gary Bern (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Added link to article http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/do-we-need-the-eurovision-song-contest-1347087.html Gary Bern (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

....an article which King wrote, so not (ahem) "independent". Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

We are lucky to have so many new editors drop by this article from time to time with first hand knowledge of the minutiae of King's career. Unfortunately, we can't use their record collection/clippings library/personal memories as sources. DeCausa (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

According to Discogs.com, only "Keep On Dancing" and "We Can Make Music" were produced by King. Were there any others? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC):

those are the songs I have but if u can't use it how do I scan sleeves in?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Bern (talk • contribs) 10:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You could scan the sleeves and upload them to http://imgur.com/ or similar, then post the links here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC):::: don't know how to scan!

scanned and sent to you. did you get them? Gary Bern (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't received anything, how were they sent?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

friend did it i think she emailed it.Gary Bern (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)