Talk:Jonathan King/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Does Sub Judice apply to Talk as well as the article?

And should it stop adding material and correcting errors in the main article? As the death of Glen Campbell carried the sales (estimated) of his career and I see the Cliff Richards one does the same, perhaps it is time to replace the Guardian figure of 40 million sold as a singer? Certainly could be valuable for researchers after the trial concludes, whichever way it goes.62.128.211.250 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sub judice and WP:BLP apply to talk pages as well as the article. I'm not sure whether the trial in June 2018 will be debating how many records Jonathan King sold during his career, but we have agreed to give 40 million as a qualified estimate in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Article says different names like Shag and A hundred Ton; Worth pointing out as I looked at sales and saw small hits in Europe were on compilation albums of hits that sold millions. 62.128.211.244 (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

tittle tattle

we dont need to know what house he bought, or how he decorated it, or what his mum said about it! I have removed all this tittle-tattle. Also we can't have claims not referenced or just with a ref to the subjects own blog. Please do not re-add these wild claims without proper citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:23A:F600:E054:A86A:D8D5:73B0 (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

please protect this page

The IP editor might be well intentioned, but their edits are indiscriminate and hence are highly disruptive. Please protect the page from IP editors. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Please make a request at WP:RFPP. DrStrauss talk 10:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The edits by 2A00:23C4:23A:F600:E054:A86A:D8D5:73B0 are disruptive, and if there is any more nonsense like reverting ClueBot the article should be protected.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

King's website

Re this edit: the edit summary which removed it said "I removed the link as it isn't his website, or someone else has taken control - check it out if you want." TBH I can't understand what this means, as the site doesn't look much different from how it did last week or last month, and it is still given as King's official website on his Twitter page. Am I missing something here? There is URL redirection so that kingofhits.co.uk and kingofhits.com both point to the same site, but this doesn't mean that it is a separate website.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

next changes because of many unsourced claims

We have this

In 1987 King hosted the Brit Awards for the BBC,[85] and from 1990 to 1992 was the event's producer. He resigned just after the 1992 show because he and the British Phonographic Industry, which runs the awards, disagreed about the show's format.[3][86][87] The following year he founded The Tip Sheet (1993–2002), an influential weekly trade magazine promoting new acts.[88] King's media work included finding and producing the Eurovision Song Contest entrant for the BBC from 1995. He selected several songs for them.[3] Love City Groove's song, "Love City Groove", came tenth in 1995. Gina G's "Ooh Aah... Just a Little Bit" came eighth the following year, and was number one in the UK.[89] "Love Shine A Light" by Katrina and the Waves came first in 1997.[90] His entry for 1998, when the UK hosted the event in Birmingham, was by Imaani and came second.[91] His writing continued and his second novel, The Booker Prize Winner, was published that year. He was also involved in finding and promoting the Chumbawamba hit "Tubthumping" (1997), which made number two,[92] and the Baha Men's number one hit, "Who Let the Dogs Out?" (2000). In October 1997 King received a Music Industry Trusts Award at a dinner held in his honour at the Grosvenor House Hotel in London, where a video tribute to him featured Guy Mitchell, Ozzy Osbourne, The Moody Blues and Hanson.[1][93][94][95] The following year he devised The Record of the Year, produced by his Tip Sheet and London Weekend Television, a show in which the public voted for the year's best single.[96][97] In 2000 Nigel Lythgoe, executive producer of the new Popstars talent show, considered hiring King as anchor of its judging panel, but he turned it down. Lythgoe took the position himself.[98][99][100] King reportedly turned down the chance to manage the band, Extreme Noise Terror.[101]

Which I propose to change to the following

In 1987 King hosted the Brit Awards for the BBC,[85] and from 1990 to 1992 was the event's producer. He resigned just after the 1992 show because he and the British Phonographic Industry, which runs the awards, disagreed about the show's format.[3][86][87] The following year he founded The Tip Sheet (1993–2002), a weekly trade (npov words) magazine promoting new acts.[88] King's media work included finding and producing the Eurovision Song Contest entrant for the BBC from 1995 for 3 years. He selected several songs from the entries.[3] Love City Groove's song, "Love City Groove", came tenth in 1995. Gina G's "Ooh Aah... Just a Little Bit" came eighth the following year, and was number one in the UK.[89] "Love Shine A Light" by Katrina and the Waves came first in 1997.[90] His entry for 1998, when the UK hosted the event in Birmingham, was by Imaani and came second.[91]

In October 1997 King received a Music Industry Trusts Award (it wasnt in his honour for Gods sake, it was an award dinner with many awards. No sources for the video claims for this award. No sources for him devising record of the year, no sources for the Popstars claims, no sources for him managing that band etc etc

The rest of this section should be removed as there are simply No sources at all for these dubious claims that just keep getting reinserted If someone can provide sources that are acceptable for wiki thats great, but if not, then all these false claims need to stop appearing in the article?Simply-the-truth (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

sandbox

I have no idea of how to allow others to view this? I have pasted it below then, sorry!

As you can see, virtually 90% of the wild claims in this article have no sources. Either no sources, dead sources, sources written by the subject himself, or in the few ones with sources, they dont actually say what is claimed. Its not my fault this is the case, all I can do is point this out. There are no special rules for this article where it can flout wiki rules, so why this has been allowed to continue year after year is beyond me. Please help me with my proposed changes below, as long as there are good sources it can be included as you know better than me. But if that is not the case then I propose the following changes

Jonathan King (born Kenneth George King, 6 December 1944) is an English singer-songwriter, record producer, music entrepreneur, and former television and radio presenter. King first success was in 1965 when "Everyone's Gone to the Moon", a song which he wrote and sang whilst he was still an undergraduate, had chart success in Britain and the United States.[2] As an independent producer, he discovered and named Genesis in 1967, and produced their first album From Genesis to Revelation. He founded his own label, UK Records in 1972. He released and produced some early songs for 10cc and the Bay City Rollers. From 1990-92 he produced the Brit Awards, and from 1995-97 he selected and produced the British entries for the Eurovision Song Contest.[3] In September 2001 King was convicted of child sexual abuse and sentenced to seven years in prison, for having sexually assaulted five underage boys in the 1980s.[4] He was released on parole in March 2005.[5][6] In May 2017, he was again charged with historical sexual offences against children.[7] The trial was sent to Crown court to start in June 2018 [8] Contents [hide]

1 Early life 1.1 Family background 1.2 Stoke House and Charterhouse 1.3 Gap year 2 Career 2.1 Early success 2.2 Discovery of Genesis 2.3 Broadcasting, Decca Records 2.4 Early 1970s 2.5 UK Records 2.6 Move to New York 2.7 Brit Awards, Eurovision Song Contest 3 Prosecution 4 Later life and media involvement 5 Selected works 5.1 Singles discography 5.1.1 As performer 5.1.2 As producer 5.2 Books 5.3 Films 6 Notes 7 References 8 External links Early life[edit source] Family background[edit source]

Brookhurst Grange, Ewhurst King was born in a nursing home in Bentinck Street, Marylebone, London, the first child of Jimmy King (d. 1954) and his wife, Ailsa Linley Leon (1916–2007), a former actress.[9] Originally from New Jersey, Jimmy King had moved to England when he was 14. King's birth was a forceps delivery and a muscle on his upper lip was affected during it, giving him his slightly crooked smile.[10][11] After he was born, the family lived in Gloucester Place, Marylebone, then moved to Surrey. In 1954, his father died from a heart attack, and the family moved to Forest Green.[13] In 1958 King became a boarder at Charterhouse in Godalming Gap year[edit source] King failed the scholarship exam for Trinity College, Cambridge, but he was offered a place in 1963 after an interview.[14] He accepted, but first took a gap year. In Hawaii June 1964, he met the manager of the Beatles, Brian Epstein. [15][16] Career[edit source] Early success[edit source] Further information: 1960s in music In London, 1969 (photograph by Allan Warren) Jonathan King – "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" (1965) MENU0:00 "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" was written and performed by King while he was at Cambridge University Problems playing this file? See media help. in 1965 Decca records released one of his songs, "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyone%27s_Gone_to_the_Moon".[18][19] When the song made number 18 in the charts, King performed it on the BBC's Top of the Pops, introduced by Jimmy Savile. It peaked at number three in the UK and 17 in the US, and was awarded a gold disc.[19][22][23][24][25] After telephoning King to ask his permission, Dietrich sang "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" and its B side, "Summer's Coming", at the Golders Green Hippodrome in October 1966, with an arrangement by Burt Bacharach.[26][27] His next release, "Green is the Grass", flopped, but the third (which he wrote and produced, but did not perform), "It's Good News Week" by Hedgehoppers Anonymous, made the top 10 in the UK charts. It was released in September 1965 through Decca and credited to King and his new publishing company, JonJo Music Co. Ltd, which was named after King, Ken Jones and Joe Roncoroni and based in Jones' and Roncoroni's office at 37 Soho Square.[29][30][31][2][32]

Discovery of Genesis[edit source] In early 1967 King attended an old boys' reunion at Charterhouse. [35] When they heard he was going to be there, a school band recorded a demo tape for him, and a friend, John Alexander, left the cassette in Kings's car with a note, "These are Charterhouse boys. Have a listen."[36][37] Calling themselves Anon, the band consisted at that point of Peter Gabriel, Tony Banks, Anthony Phillips, Chris Stewart and Mike Rutherford, all aged 15 to 17.[38][39] King liked several songs such as "She is Beautiful" (which became "The Serpent" on the band's first album) and, according to Philips, they got the deal with King on the basis of that song. King signed the band to JonJo Music and licensed the short-term rights to Decca Records. He paid them ₤40 for four songs, and came up with their name, Genesis, to mark the start of his own production career.[37][38] According to Phillips, King was "hugely patient and indulgent" with the band.[37] John Silver, drummer on the first album, wrote in 2007: We would be pretending to rehearse or simply waiting around and somehow somebody would bring a message to the flat, "Quick, get over to Jonathan King's flat, because Paul McCartney's turning up." We would scurry over as quickly as possible because the art was to be there, looking casual, before the next famous person arrived, so that Jonathan King could say, "Hey, these are my new protégés. I trusted him as a god, because he knew these people. It wasn't celebrity like it is now. There were only a few famous people and he knew them. If Jonathan said jump or stand backwards or stand on your head, basically you did it. This was the nature of the relationship; he was completely omnipotent, in a decent way.[40] King produced their first three singles, including "The Silent Sun" (1968) and an album, From Genesis to Revelation (1969). Banks and Gabriel wrote "The Silent Sun" as a late-1960s Bee Gees "pastiche" to please King; Robin Gibb's voice was apparently King's favourite at the time.[41] The records made little impact; the album sold just 649 copies "and we knew all of those people personally," wrote Banks. Genesis left King in 1970 for Tony Stratton-Smith's Charisma Records, were joined by Phil Collins and Steve Hackett—and released Foxtrot (1972) to critical acclaim.[43][44] King retained the rights to the first album and re-released it several times under different titles.[45] Rutherford said in 1985 that, "for all his faults", King had given the band an opportunity to record, which at that time was hard to come by.[a] Broadcasting,

Decca Records[edit source] External images King with Jimi Hendrix 1 January 1967 King at his graduation ceremony 23 June 1967 King on Top of the Pops 23 February 1972 King twas asked o present Good Evening, a weekly television show that ran nationally on ATV at 6:30 pm on Saturdays from October 1967 to 1968.[48][49] The following year he began broadcasting for BBC Radio 1, including a "blast off" slot on the Stuart Henry show.[50] Around this time, he was recruited by Sir Edward Lewis, the founder of Decca Records and another Trinity graduate, to be his unpaid (expenses only) personal assistant. King writes that Lewis recruited him twice for this position, once not long after graduation and again in the late 1970s.[31][52] Early 1970s[edit source] Further information: 1970s in music and Bubblegum pop "It's Good News Week" (1965) was the last hit King had for nearly five years. Then his cover of "Let It All Hang Out" (1969) made the top 30 in January 1970.[53] King also released "It's the Same Old Song". Released by B&C Records in December 1970 under a pseudonym, the Weathermen, it moved into the charts a month later. Using pseudonyms meant more airtime: radio producers might play several songs by the same artist during a programme without realizing they had devoted so much airtime to one person.[50] King's 1971 releases included a version of Bob Dylan's "Baby, You've Been On My Mind", released as Nemo, which failed to chart; The Sun Has Got His Hat On, also as Nemo; "Sugar, Sugar" as Sakkarin; "Leap Up and Down (Wave Your Knickers in the Air)" by St Cecelia (this one a real band, rather than a pseudonym), which went to number 12; and "Lazy Bones", released under his own name.[50] Bell Records asked King to produce four songs for the Bay City Rollers, including their first hit, "Keep on Dancing", on which King sang the 13 backing vocals himself. Released in May 1971, the single reached number nine [54] Another 1971 hit was "Johnny Reggae", a ska pop song about a skinhead, written by King after he was introduced to a Johnny Reggae at the Walton Hop disco in Surrey.[50] It was sung by King and middle-aged session singers pretending to be teenagers, credited to The Piglets and released by Bell.[50][58] John Stratton writes that "Johnny Reggae" was the "first British hit with a ska beat to have been written by a white Englishman ... and performed by white English singers and musicians."[59][60] While, according to Lloyd Bradley, the BBC was reluctant to play reggae by black Jamaican artists, "Johnny Reggae", which Bradley described as "lamentable [and] audibly jarring", reached number three in the UK in November 1971 (when Slade's "Coz I Luv You" was number one) and stayed in the top 50 for 12 weeks.[61][b] UK Records[edit source]

10cc in 1974. Clockwise from left: Eric Stewart, Kevin Godley, Graham Gouldman and Lol Creme In 1972 King set up a record label, UK Records, distributed by Decca and later Polygram in the UK and London Records in the US. Chris Denning left Bell to run the UK office and Fred Ruppert, formerly of Elektra Records, the US office.[2][64][53] Don Wardell then took over the US office, Denning left and Wardell moved back to run the UK company. King's brother Andy was hired in 1974 as the promotion manager.[65] The label's first hit was "Seaside Shuffle" by Terry Dactyl and the Dinosaurs, followed by King's "Loop di Love", which reached number four, released under the pseudonym Shag.[66] Other signings included Ricky Wilde, then 11 years old and promoted to fill the gap later taken by Donny Osmond, a potential David Cassidy Simon Turner,[67] Roy C, the First Class and Lobo. The label also released King's cover of "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" (1974) under the name Bubblerock, described as a "Grateful Dead"-style country version".[2][68][69] In June 1973, after seeing The Rocky Horror Show on its second night, King invested a 20 percent stake in it, making him one of its two original backers, along with Michael White, and released The Rocky Horror Show Original London Cast.[11][70] The label's most significant signing was 10cc. Eric Stewart, one of the band members, had known King since 1965, when Stewart was with The Mindbenders and King had wanted to write for them. The band had planned to release "Donna" as a B side, but decided it could be a hit: "We only knew of one person who was mad enough to release it," Stewart said, "and that was Jonathan King."[71][72] King gave the band its name and released two of its albums (10cc and Sheet Music) and eight singles. "Donna" (1972) and "Rubber Bullets" (1973), reached number two and one respectively, followed by "The Dean and I" (1973) and "The Wall Street Shuffle" (1974).[73] With King unable to help them crack the American market the band left King and joined Mercury records. They then went on to dent the American market, with "Rubber Bullets" making 73 on the Billboard Hot 100.[74] and had further sucess, particularly with "I'm Not in Love" (1975).[75] Move to New York[edit source]

King in 1982 In April 1978 King stood for parliament as an independent in the Epsom and Ewell by-election, calling himself the Royalist party. He gained 2,350 votes, finished in last position and was not elected[76][77] A year later he decided to leave the music industry and closed UK Records.[68] King set about building a new career in writing and broadcasting. He was given a weekly five-minute slot on BBC Radio 1 called "A King in New York", a "Postcard from America" slot in Radio 4, and he reported for Radio 1 on the 1980 presidential election.[79] In December 1980, watching television in bed, he heard there had been a shooting outside the Dakota Apartments. He called and woke up BBC producer Tom Brook, who was living in New York; Brook became the first to announce to the UK that John Lennon had died.[80] Throughout 1980 and 1981 King presented a radio talk show on New York's WMCA from 10–12 weekday mornings, and regularly reported from the United States on Top of the Pops. He devised and hosted a spinoff series, Entertainment USA, broadcast on BBC2.[81] He also created and produced No Limits, a youth programme.[82] He was also hired by The Sun, to write a weekly column, "Bizarre USA", which began in February 1985 and continued for eight years.[83] He continued with several music projects, including with the hard-rock supergroup Gogmagog, which released an EP, I Will Be There (1985).[84][85] Brit Awards, Eurovision Song Contest[edit source] In 1987 King hosted the Brit Awards for the BBC,[86] and from 1990 to 1992 was the event's producer.[3][87][88] The following year he founded The Tip Sheet (1993–2002), a weekly trade magazine promoting new acts.[89] King's media work included finding and producing the Eurovision Song Contest entrant for the BBC from 1995-97. He selected several songs from the ones presented to him, for them.[3] Love City Groove's song, "Love City Groove", came tenth in 1995. Gina G's "Ooh Aah... Just a Little Bit" came eighth the following year, and was number one in the UK.[90] "Love Shine A Light" by Katrina and the Waves came first in 1997.[91] His entry for 1998, when the UK hosted the event in Birmingham, was by Imaani and came second.[92] In October 1997 King received a Music Industry Trusts Award [1][94][95][96] ]

Prosecution[edit source] In September 2001 King was convicted, after a two-week trial at the Old Bailey, on four counts of indecent assault, one of buggery and one of attempted buggery, committed between 1983 and 1987 against five boys aged 14 and 15. At a seperate, second trial for other charges, he was found not guilty after an alleged victim (someone King denied having ever met) acknowledged that he could have been over 16 at the time.[c][104][63][105] The National Criminal Intelligence Service had begun investigating King for child sexual abuse in 2000, when a man told them he had been assaulted by King and others 30 years earlier.[106] The man had approached the publicist Max Clifford, himself later jailed for sexual assault, about other men, and Clifford told him to go to the police.[107] King was arrested in November that year and bailed on £150,000.[108] He was arrested again in January 2001 on further allegations.[109][110] Twenty-seven men told police that King had sexually assaulted them during the period 1969–1989.[111] Police found "several hundred" pictures, mostly Polaroids, of teenage boys in a search of King's home.[111] King acknowledged having approached thousands of people with a questionnaire about youth interests, saying he was doing market research. The questionnaires asked teenagers to list certain topics according to importance, and the prosecution said that boys who listed sex high in their list of priorities were then targeted by King.[112]

At the Old Bailey on 21 November 2001, Judge David Paget QC sentenced King to 7 years in prison. In addition, King was placed on the Sex Offenders Register, prohibited from working with children, and ordered to pay £14,000 costs.[113][d] In 2003 the Court of Appeal rejected his application to appeal both the conviction and the sentence.[115] He appealed twice unsuccessfully to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.[116][117] He served over 4 years of his sentence and was released on parole in March 2005.[118] In September 2015, King was arrested as part of Operation Ravine, an investigation into claims of sexual abuse at the Walton Hop disco in the 1970s.[119] He was later released on bail.[120][121] On 25 May 2017, he was charged by Surrey Police with 18 sexual offences, relating to nine boys aged between 14 and 16, allegedly carried out between 1970 and 1986. He was released on bail and appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 26 June,[7] where he was released on conditional bail to appear at Southwark Crown Court on 31st July.[122] [123] The trial date was set to start on 11 June 2018.[124]

Later life and media involvement[edit source] Journalist Robert Chalmers wrote that King's creative output after he left prison "resembled a primal scream of rage".[11][27] Two novels appeared: Beware the Monkey Man (2010), under the pen name Rex Kenny, and Death Flies, Missing Girls and Brigitte Bardot (2013), under his real name, Kenneth George King. He also published a diary, Three Months (2012), and two volumes of his autobiography, Jonathan King 65: My Life So Far (2009) and 70 FFFY (2014). King maintained an interest in prison issues and writes a column for Inside Time, the national newspaper for prisoners.[125] He released Earth to King in 2008. Mainly new songs, one appeared to defend the serial killer Dr. Harold Shipman.[127] He also produced three films. Vile Pervert: The Musical (2008), available for free download, is a 96-minute movie in which King plays all 21 parts and presents his version of events surrounding his prosecution. He portrays his viewpoint of those he holds responsible for his troubles.[128] [128] Rod Liddle called it "a fantastically berserk, bravado performance".[129] King has complained about his media coverage since his conviction. In 2005 he went to the Press Complaints Commission about an article in the News of the World that said he had gone to a park to "ogle" boys. The complaint was not upheld, but Roy Greenslade argued that King had a good case.[132] In October 2011 then BBC Director-General Mark Thompson apologised to King for the removal of King's performance of "It Only Takes a Minute" from a repeat, on BBC Four, of a 1976 episode of Top of the Pops. King described the cut as a "Stalinist revision approach to history".[133] When asked by a newspaper in 2012 if he believed he had anything to apologise for, to anybody from his past, King replied, "The only apology I have is to say that I was good at seduction. I was good at making myself seem attractive when I wasn't very attractive at all."[134]Simply-the-truth (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Chronological Order

Tried to correct Chronological Order but still not quite right! BemusedConfused (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

trivia

I have removed several unverified claims re what house he lived in, or what dorm at what school etc. These are not relevant at all, plus they are only confirmed by the subjects own personal blog, which is not allowed on wiki. Please discuss here if you want the reinserted?Simply-the-truth (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC) I am going to tidy this article up, slowly and piece by piece. I will state on here what changes I will make before I make them, and wait for any other contributions before taking any other action. I do not want to destroy or vandalise this article, but if you look at the history, it has a long history of abuse by the subject over many years with countless false claims etc. So I will ask if a change is OK on here, wait and see if it can be allowedSimply-the-truth (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Fist change, early life. Not relevant were he worked as a sales person and not supported by any proof. I plan to remove this bit unless anyone objects?Simply-the-truth (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This is making large changes to the article. It would be better to come up with a proposed WP:SANDBOX version, then get consensus for it here. I'm also concerned by the username Simply-the-truth as it has potential problems with WP:USERNAME. We are not here to be pro or anti King, or to allege that he has edited the article in the past. At the moment you are abusing the minor edit feature, please don't do this when you know that it removes large chunks of text.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I will only make small changes as I go as already stated. The name should be a problem, wiki is supposed to be the facts and thats all. Like I said my 1st proposed change is to simply remove an unverified claim that his first job was as a MD of a company, thats itSimply-the-truth (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that the article today has seen wide ranging changes made by red user name accounts. This sort of thing has happened before and it often flags up concerns about why it is happening. Jacksonlegend seems to have a great interest in King for a new user, and a lot of today's edits were marked as minor when they obviously weren't.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

It seems suddenly a lot of changes were made to the article and I noticed they were made by someone who did the same to the Michael Jackson article. See your comment above - It would be better to come up with a proposed WP:SANDBOX version - I simply tried to revert them back to the former shape until any discussion here might agree them. I suggest the article is reverted by an administrator - I see it is semi protected anyway for legal reasons. What is a red name account? Jacksonlegend (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The article isn't currently under any form of protection so anyone can edit it, even IP addresses. Jacksonlegend turned up yesterday and immediately showed a great interest in all things related to Jonathan King. The username shows up in red because there there is nothing at User:Jacksonlegend. New users don't have to do this, but it is helpful for regular editors to say a bit about themselves.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in editing. I suggest someone simply reverts to edit by 72 before the vandals started.Jacksonlegend (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, today we have got something new, namely an audio clip of "Everyone's Gone to the Moon". Hopefully the performer/copyright holder doesn't mind this. It is in glorious Wall of Sound mono which was fashionable at the time. Unlike some of the Beatles' records which were released in mono and stereo, we can only have "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" in mono. Perhaps there is a four track studio master of it somewhere which could be used to produce a stereo version, like Pet Sounds.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

please discuss here before just reverting the changes please. As explained, all these claims have no soyrces at all apart from the subjects own blog, with is not suitable for wiki. If you have sources that are suitable please list them here for discussion?2A00:23C4:20E:2900:A424:6C83:13E2:D479 (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

As no-one has provided sources for the claim that his first job was as a MD of a company, I have removed it as explained above a few days ago. If you have relevant sources for this please list them here? Also, is this even relevant to the subject at all?Simply-the-truth (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

with respect this starts to look like vandalism. BemusedConfused (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

NEW EDITORS YET AGAIN!!

No surprise, we have lots of new editors that join and straight away edit this page and nothing else, lol. Wonder who all these new accounts really are? Please do not revert with just the subjects own blog as the only source for all the many many many wild claims on this page. That source is not allowed by wiki, please find relevant sources and post here for other editors to check if they are allowed I will report these new accounts as socks and see what is found. I need to check if prisoners have access to the internet while detained, will be useful to know in March next year. Lets start with a very easy one. Please provide sources for the following claims. That the awards dinner was held in Kings honour and just for him, should be easy for you to find this surely? In October 1997 King received a Music Industry Trusts Award at a dinner held in his honour at the Grosvenor House Hotel in London, where a video tribute to him featured Guy Mitchell, Ozzy Osbourne, The Moody Blues and Hanson.[1][99][100][101] Simply-the-truth (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

While some of the points you make about the use of blog sources may very well be justified, that is no excuse for trashing the article by removing clearly well-sourced information and disrupting conventional article formatting. I am reverting the article to its earlier state, so that there can be proper discussion here prior to any further major changes being made. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree here as things have been getting silly. While it is OK to make changes and discuss them on the talk page, removing sourced material isn't OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

proposed changes were mentioned in detail above weeks ago. No-one else commented at all so changes were made. Policy was followed to the letter??Simply-the-truth (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

All I have done is remove UNSOURCED claims re wikis policy about a living subject. I stated all planned changes for people to look at weeks ago and left it. I asked for sources for the removed claims weeks ago, none were provided. New editors joined and came straight to this page, and only this page a few days ago and added all the UNSOURCED claims again. This page has a history of these "new" editors! A unsourced claim on a page about a living subject is especially delicate, so unless there are any for the many claims on this page then they will be removed re wikis rules. BUT, if relevant sources are listed then they can be added back, I have no problem with that. But I will not accept over-the-top claims from the subjects own blog as the only source, im sure you would agree with that? I followed all the rules as you can seeSimply-the-truth (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way if I removed even ONE souced claim I would be surprized, and would apologise. But retty certain that I didnt do that, even onceSimply-the-truth (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

For a start, you have removed sourced information from the lead, which has unbalanced it, and you have trashed the formatting of the headings. Experienced editors here are quite prepared to discuss changes in line with guidance, but wholesale and major changes on the basis of your interpretation of policy and guidance are not acceptable. Much better and more collaborative to seek agreement on smaller changes, one section at a time. For a start, I'll reinstate a more balanced lead, and a proper headings structure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: There is no blanket ban on using published autobiographical sources in an article, per WP:BLP. There may, of course, be issues about whether King is a reliable source about the details of his own life - but, where uncontroversial information is contained in an autobiography, it can be used. Many of the claims you removed were not unsourced, they were self-sourced - not the same thing. Rather than removing them entirely, it would be better to use inline notes like , and if necessary placing a warning template for readers at the top of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

then what YOU think the lead should be should be discussed first surely? But no, you just did it by yourself, with many errors as you can see. Can we all please follow the same rules on this, ie we discuss it here first and then change if needed, no-one just does a big change such as you just did re their opinion of what it should say and structure without consensus?Simply-the-truth (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

this bit in the lead, no source at all that I can see, just claimed by the subject himself in a self published blog? "The Guardian reported Kings claims in 2002 that he had sold over 40 million records as a singer, many under different names"Simply-the-truth (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ghmyrtle, I need a spell-checker! Could you look at the 40 million sold claim please and let me know what you think re it being true please?Simply-the-truth (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

No. See WP:V. If a reputable source like the Guardian reports it, our default position is to accept it unless it has been publicly challenged elsewhere. We do not do original research or search for the truth ourselves. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

But they reported the subject making the claim himself, not any actual proof to the claim or any other sources? That doesnt make sense at all imho. So, for exampel, if a convicted killer is interviewed and states that he is innocent in the Guardian (for example again) and they print it. Then this claim can be added to the page as a sourced fact? Simply-the-truth (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the article saying, "According to King...", or "According to The Guardian....". Overall record sales are notoriously difficult to measure. I'm not opposed to every single one of your changes; I'm opposed to you making very substantial changes, removing uncontentious sourced information without reaching a consensus here first, and screwing up the formatting. It's much better to make small changes, step by step, and get agreement to each one first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It's depressing that we've been through nearly all of this before, eg the 40 million records. I'm also worried about the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality being shown here, and the username "Simply-the-truth" which goes against the key principle of "verifiability, not truth." I'm not an expert on Jonathan King, and even if I was (or Ghmyrtle for that matter) we would have to summarise what secondary reliable sources say. We are both getting tired of this sort of jiggery-pokery designed to slant the article in one direction or another.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

well then rather than assuming bad faith, read what I actually post and want to edit would be a better start? If the subject claims he has sold 40 million, then the page should say that. It doesnt, it says the guardian made the claim. They didnt, the subject did. All I want is the actual facts from the sources to be stated. I am adding nothing more, or removing anything that is correctly sourced. I will list every change on here before I make them to let others have an opinion. But I wont just allow the subject and his many fake accounts to publish what he wants on here when it is untrue. But the edidtors trying to make the page a proper wiki page such as me are getting the stick from you? That I dont understand?Simply-the-truth (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

1st proposal

This: Decca released "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" in August 1965. When the song made number 18 in the charts, King was invited onto the BBC's Top of the Pops, introduced by Jimmy Savile. It peaked at number three in the UK and 17 in the US, and was awarded a gold disc.[13][14][15][16][17] Nina Simone, Bette Midler, and Marlene Dietrich all covered it. Also in 1965 King began writing a column for Disc and Music Echo, a weekly magazine edited by Ray Coleman. [18] Michael Wale described him as "the butterfly who stamped its foot".[19]

Changed to " King performed the song on Top of the pops. It peaked at number three in the UK and 17 in the US, and was awarded a gold disc" There is no source for the TOTPs, or that Savile introduced the song. There are no sources at all for the following claims apart from the subjects own blog. All I want to do is make the article reflect what actually happened and that can be sourcedSimply-the-truth (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Now then, now then guys and gals, [1] --Egghead06 (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

and this needs changing:

" King produced their first three singles, including "The Silent Sun" (1968) and an album, From Genesis to Revelation (1969). Banks and Gabriel wrote "The Silent Sun" as a late-1960s Bee Gees "pastiche" to please King; Robin Gibb's voice was apparently King's favourite at the time.[26] The records made little impact; the album sold just 649 copies "and we knew all of those people personally," wrote Banks. King increasingly lost interest in the band. Their next demo was even less "poppy"; the more complicated the songs, the less King liked them.[27] Genesis left King in 1970 for Tony Stratton-Smith's Charisma Records, were joined by Phil Collins and Steve Hackett—and, after another two unsuccessful albums, released Foxtrot (1972) to critical acclaim.[28][29] King retained the rights to the first album and re-released it several times under different titles.[30] Rutherford said in 1985 that, "for all his faults", King had given the band an opportunity to record, which at that time was hard to come by.[a]"

To "" King produced their first three singles, including "The Silent Sun" (1968) and an album, From Genesis to Revelation (1969). Banks and Gabriel wrote "The Silent Sun" as a late-1960s Bee Gees "pastiche" to please King; Robin Gibb's voice was apparently King's favourite at the time.[26] The records made little impact; the album sold just 649 copies "and we knew all of those people personally," wrote Banks. None of the following releases were commercially successful and led to the band's split with King and their joiningTony Stratton-Smith's Charisma Records. There they were joined by Phil Collins and Steve Hackett—and, after another two albums, released Foxtrot (1972) to critical acclaim.[28][29] King retained the rights to the first album and re-released it several times under different titles.[30] Rutherford said in 1985 that, "for all his faults", King had given the band an opportunity to record, which at that time was hard to come by.[a]"

I will leave this here for a while for others to comment before making any changesSimply-the-truth (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It would save everyone a lot of time and effort in comparing versions if you could simply state which words you want to add or delete, and explain why, rather than copy-pasting entire sections. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This article now has six referencing errors (see reflist at bottom of article). This random slashing of material has caused these. More care is needed as the referencing for the article is in danger of becoming completely corrupted.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I tried a couple of changes and gave up. The entire article has been so corrupted it now hardly makes sense. Suggest some editor reverts to an August version before both sides started on it. And then protects it from vandals on both sides. 31.54.202.189 (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Like Ghmyrtle, I am sorely tempted to go back to this edit and pick up the pieces from there. I can't believe the number of edits to this article since early October, and they haven't really improved the article, if anything they have done the exact opposite.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

1st change again

Decca released "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" in August 1965. When the song made number 18 in the charts, King was invited onto the BBC's Top of the Pops, introduced by Jimmy Savile. It peaked at number three in the UK and 17 in the US, and was awarded a gold disc.[13][14][15][16][17] Nina Simone, Bette Midler, and Marlene Dietrich all covered it. Also in 1965 King began writing a column for Disc and Music Echo, a weekly magazine edited by Ray Coleman. [18] Michael Wale described him as "the butterfly who stamped its foot".[19]

This needs changing to Decca released "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" in August 1965. King performed it on the BBC's Top of the Pops.. It peaked at number three in the UK and 17 in the US, and was awarded a gold disc.[13][14][15][16][17]

He wasnt invited, he performed the song. There is no source that Saville presented it and its not relevant anyway. There are no sources for the cover versions, plus not relevant again as every song is covered many many times! Then the the writing a column bit and the strange review, there are no sources for. It really is as simple as this re what is actually relevant and cant be sourced and what isntSimply-the-truth (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Changes since August

They seemed to start with 2a00:23c4:23a:f600:e054:a86a:d8d5:73b0 - reverted by Egghead06 - then came back every few days with other editors sharing different names. Now totally corrupted - repetitions, broken links. 31.54.202.189 (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

An article is virtually impossible to edit if people are going to make major changes with little or no discussion. It also discourages regular editors from becoming involved, because a messy and extensive edit history is almost impossible to wade through. This is what is happening here, and it is why Ghmyrtle and I would prefer to go back to a stable version of the article and take it from there. I will also be annoyed if there are any more WP:BATTLEGROUND comments on the talk page and may request protection of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with ianmacm and Ghmyrtle. -- Alarics (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I too agree. This article has become too unstable after many rushed and poor quality edits.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted to this edit which was suggested by Ghmyrtle. While I don't consider this version of the article to be perfect by any means, we need a fresh start with proper discussion of the edits.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I moved away a couple of weeks ago when my comments on vandalising the article became equally valid for this Talk page. I thought both were protected from vandals anyway - aren't they subject to court proceedings? Looking back through archive, similar edits and language have been used for years. One or two people on both sides appear obsessed with this fairly minor subject. Likewise a very few editors seem willing to police it. I support ianmacm and his suggestion to protect both pages. BemusedConfused (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Lets discuss changes rather than undoing changes where the artcile has had unsourced claims removed and sourced claims added. Please can we just actually put on the page what the sources actually show pleaseSimply-the-truth (talk) 11

42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This is getting tiring, because you are claiming to be an echo chamber for "the truth" rather than listening to the views and wishes of other editors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the archive all simply's changes were made in 2014 by honest-john. BemusedConfused (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It's depressing, because someone obviously has an axe to grind here. This is leading to problems with WP:NPOV, along with the fact that the edits are not very good anyway and are spoiling the flow of the article. I'm convinced that some people have edited the article under more than one username in a manner that is not permitted by policy, but I am not going to start naming names.-♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. A good reason to protect the article at least until after the court case indicated on this talk page. I thought it was a good article until the massive changes started in August. In Archive I see it was once nominated for Good Article status. BemusedConfused (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

40 million records as a singer?

Obviously the gurdian has repeated what King often claims, he sold 40 million records as a vocalist. The guardian has not said where they got such information. Certainly the lack of a big number of high charting singles (anywhere in the world), no number 1 hits at all, minsicule album sales, and no back up certifications by anyone, calls this huge amount into immediate question. And if wikipedia is willing to accept such information included without such a disclaimer when all that is considered, so much for "the facts". Indeed, in the 1990s Take That "only" sold 25 million records worldwide, confrimed in an official BBC documentary with the band (more since they reformed, obviously) and they did that with a series of high charting records in the singles & album listings in a number of countries. Certainly, King never enjoyed that level of success! 04:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC) CliffordJones (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The talk page of this article is like Groundhog Day (film), because we have the same debates over and over again. There isn't much new to say here, beyond the obvious fact that Wikipedia is led by what reliable secondary sources say, and that sales estimates given by record companies should be taken with a pinch of salt.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia to find the truth - we simply report what reliable sources like The Guardian say. If there has been any published questioning of the claims in other reliable sources, we can report that as well - but we do not set out original research. By the way, the Jon Ronson article in The Guardian did not say that he had sold 40 million records as a vocalist - it said: "In fact, he has sold 40 million records. He's had a hand in almost every musical movement since the mid-1960s ...." That can reasonably be assumed to include records as a producer, or as an uncredited performer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well if such questionable data is going to continue to be included, then of course people are going to question it. Whatever your view of the guardian, unless they have kept global sales accounts of King's releases, or fail to say where the figures are obtained in such regard, their claims are no more valid than anyone pulling a figure out the air. Maybe they should run an article saying King's net worth is now £100 billion and he has suppassed Jeff Bezos. There is as much truth in that than him selling 40 million records as a singer. And while the guardian may have 'left the figure open' to included his various productions, compositions & other work for other artists, King does not & nor did this article. If it had done we wouldn't be debating such a high figure credited to such a minorly successful singer. Thus, I have just reworded the article accordingly to avoid any more confusion over the data. 09:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC) CliffordJones (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand what Wikipedia is. It does not claim to set out the truth - it sets out what has been reported to be the truth in reliable sources that are verifiable. See WP:V - "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it...." So, I have reverted you - what you believe to be true, and what I believe to be true, is not relevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand (by your own admittace) the source never mentions the figure "as a singer" therefore wikipedia has no business claiming it does! 20:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC) CliffordJones (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

That is true - thank you for pointing out the error. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Who Let The Dogs Out?

Only of interest to those intrigued by the history of this but now even included in a Museum in New York! Sherrybaby7 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

http://ew.com/article/2015/09/10/baha-men-who-let-dogs-out-oral-history/ Sherrybaby7 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC) http://www.bensisto.com/wlwltdoo/ http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/moca-exhibit-examines-who-really-let-the-dogs-out-20171030.htmlSherrybaby7 (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The philly.com article says "He’s been arrested and served jail time for sex with minors," Sisto said of King. "He’s a dicey character, to say the least. It was so weird to be face to face with his person who’s on the one hand, a music-industry legend, and on the other hand is this nefarious guy who doesn’t have a good relationship with the people of London." So it's not all good news, but as Oscar Wilde so wisely observed, "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Re this edit: the wording may give the impression that King performs on the Fat Jakk and his Pack of Pets version of "Who Let the Dogs Out?" This isn't clear from the citations. King does sing under some pseudonyms, eg he is Nemo on "The Sun Has Got His Hat On". On other King-linked records such as the legendary "Leap Up and Down (Wave Your Knickers in the Air)", King produced but does not perform on them. Does King actually perform on the Fat Jakk version of "Who Let the Dogs Out?"? Perhaps a knowledgeable reader could answer this. You can listen to the Fat Jakk version on Spotify here (requires a login).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It says in the Independent article he recorded it. Sherrybaby7 (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

So he is actually singing/rapping on it? Is he the person with a broad Caribbean accent?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Here it's credited to King himself. But whether he "recorded" it in the sense of singing on it, or merely pressing some buttons, seems to be unclear. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Changes due to links

Changes made due to inaccuracies from linked articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherrybaby7 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC) http://www.mondo2000.com/2017/08/28/klf-at-the-brit-awards-show-1992-machine-gunning-the-audience-and-a-dead-sheep/ Sherrybaby7 (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit made quite a few changes in a single edit, most of which are unrelated. It helps to split unrelated changes over several edits and explain them individually to prevent this from happening. Regarding the source here, I'm still confused about the link between KLF and Extreme Noise Terror.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Went into each link and saw the mistakes. thought the one pound a day detail interesting though one pound was probably more valuable back then. extreme noise terror was just a one off gimmick connection by klf. bill drummond says in his book he asked king to manage klf and was politely declined. Sherrybaby7 (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Ultra Quiz

Re this edit: King was a roving reporter on series 1 in 1983, but he never actually hosted the show. Saying that he co-hosted it is slightly misleading. The only extended clip of the UK version on YouTube is here and is from the 1984 series, which was hosted by David Frost and sans JK. The title sequence here appears to be from 1983 because it has Sally James at 39 seconds. I wondered if the person in the bowler hat jumping off the railway bridge at 34 seconds was meant to be JK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

this link says co hosts http://www.ukgameshows.com/ukgs/Ultra_Quiz Sherrybaby7 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

King's university qualifications

Re this edit: I didn't say that it was wrong, but I did say that it wasn't sourced in the article. Citation needed, or it gets removed again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Too late - I've already removed it! "Alma mater" means college attended, not degree achieved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The Harold Shipman song

The reason for this edit is that the BBC News article says that "King, 62, claims in the song that Shipman was a victim of the media." The full lyrics are here. According to King "The song was "not really about Harold Shipman... It's about the tendency of the media, the police and the CPS to inflate and exaggerate in order to get convictions and headlines and circulation and ratings increases." Bearing in mind what happened here, King is lucky that Plod did not come knocking on the door after the Shipman song was posted on YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The Count Dankula case has indeed raised freedom of expression points. But clearly in the song he sings "The Likely True Story..." and raises the possibility without claiming the man was innocent. Rather than make assumptions in the article I think it now reflects the reality, like him or not. 31.54.203.105 (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

My two cents is that Shipman was undoubtedly guilty on the 15 charges where he was found guilty. The figure of 250 given by The Shipman Inquiry is speculative, perhaps dangerously so, as many of the alleged victims were cremated. The Shipman Inquiry was published in January 2005, and it was Dame Janet Smith who created and popularised the idea that Shipman killed 250 people. Richard Henriques was careful at the trial, because he did not want a repeat of the screwup of the John Bodkin Adams case where the prosecution was unable to obtain any convictions. Anyway, King's song doesn't suggest that Shipman is completely innocent. He would have been notorious even if he had committed only 15 murders; the media demon who killed 250 people is largely the work of Dame Janet Smith.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and that's what I hear in the lyric. He is ranting against exaggeration and simplicity not saying the Doctor was innocent. 31.53.53.52 (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The 2018 trial is over, or is it?

The jury was discharged [2] but at the time of writing it is unclear whether the prosecution will want to enter round two with these allegations in a retrial. So I've left the sub judice template at the top of the page for the time being. Judge Deborah Taylor said: "Members of the jury, I am going to discharge you from this case because of reasons I am not going to go into at this stage." All rather cryptic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Criminal Status in Infobox?

Just as Stuart Hall jr. Page, Jonathan King most relevant activities had been related to his criminal conviction from 2001 and release on bail later in 2005, registered in VISOR as a sex offender and the appeareance of new charges in 2015 and 2017. Still this criminal status (wich is now an indelible part of his biography) does not appear in the infobox nor in the first lines of the resume, despite being a relevant part of his current life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FattoriXx (talk • contribs) 07:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There have been similar discussions at other articles. People have tried to change the infobox at Rolf Harris to Template:Infobox criminal because "he's a paedo™". This has been reverted because with people like Harris and King, the primary source of their notability is their showbiz careers, not the fact that they have been convicted of sex offences. Template:Infobox person doesn't have fields for criminal convictions, and Template:Infobox criminal says "Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies." I agree with this. As for the opening sentence, there have been similar discussions at Rolf Harris and other articles. It would be wrong to say "he's a paedo™" as the person's main source of notability as it doesn't establish proper context. There are plenty of people with sex offence convictions, but they are not automatically notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Sex offender

Re this edit: we have had this debate before and it shows little sense of historical perspective and is clumsy writing to say that Jonathan King is chiefly notable for being a sex offender. Plenty of people have sex offence convictions, but they are not automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Without his fame in the pop music industry, the convictions would not have happened in the first place. It is also unclear what "the most recent" is, as the June 2018 trial ended with the jury being discharged and no convictions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Nonetheless, he is a convicted sex offender, and back in the news for the same thing again. The reason he is an ex-presenter is that his convictions rule him out of any new TV or radio work. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

"This is the only reason my (adult) kids know his name, for example" must rate as an all time weird edit summary. This in no way establishes notability in itself. I'm not trying to hide King's convictions, which are obviously going to be mentioned, but it is clumsy wording to imply that this derives his main source of notability. This is similar to arguments that we have had with Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, where some people want to say "he is a sex offender" as though that is all a person needs to know. If you are old enough to remember Savile, Harris and King's showbiz careers in the 1970s (yes, I am one of them), it is too simplistic to go down the "he is a sex offender" road as a way of establishing notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) Let's look at MOS:OPENPARABIO, in particular: "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." (My emphasis). King's notability derives from his music business activities - his criminal offences are secondary to that. In my view that means that they should not be mentioned in the opening sentence, though obviously they should be mentioned in the article and the introduction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a great argument for not calling him seventy six kinds of music industry person, and a crap argument for not mentioning the fact that he is a convicted sex offender. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Experienced Wikipedians should know better than to shout "he's a paedo" in the opening sentence. This would never establish notability in itself. There is a consensus not to do this at Jimmy Savile or Rolf Harris, because they had long and notable careers before the sex controversies.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Er, but he is a paedo, and that is what he is currently best known for (as in: it's the primary subject of most current coverage). Wikipedia is not censored, and this is not an allegation or claim, it's a conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction. Same as Gary Glitter. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but not in the opening sentence. The WP:LEAD at Gary Glitter says "Paul Francis Gadd (born 8 May 1944), known by the stage name Gary Glitter, is an English former glam rock singer who achieved popular success in the 1970s and 80s." It doesn't say that he is "currently best known for being a paedo", as this would be too tabloid. The lead has to establish why he is notable enough to meet WP:GNG. Sex offence convictions on their own never do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

But it should be. Ask the man on the Clapham omnibus who Jonathan King or Gary Glitter are, the first answer will probably be "nonce". Guy (Help!) 10:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a very thin argument. Wikipedia policy is not driven by search results etc, see WP:GOOGLE. If Paul Gadd from Banbury had committed sex offences, it would have been in the local newspaper and nowhere else.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ian MacM is correct. Guy is mistaken in this case. -- Alarics (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Ian MacM is correct in this case. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

The outcome of the June 2018 trial is remarkable, because it led to stinging criticism from the judge and a grovelling apology from Surrey Police. I've removed the sub judice template because King is no longer the subject of active legal proceedings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/operation-yewtree-the-moral-panic-that-ruined-lives/21698 197.230.49.226 (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And now it seems that...

King's pathetic claims of innocence for this entire decade (and the one before) may be correct. In which case there is a great deal of correction to be made.160.176.232.18 (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

King's 2001 convictions are not affected by the 2018 collapsed trial. King tried long and hard to overturn these convictions but did not succeed. If he did succeed, I'm sure that it would be added to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

But see also Bob Woffinden's book "The Nicholas Cases" (2016). Oddly, our article currently includes a footnote reference to a Daily Mail article by Woffinden but doesn't actually mention Woffinden's main finding: that King's 2001 convictions are unsafe. This isn't just a piece of Daily Mail tabloid nonsense -- Woffinden was a highly respected "Miscarriages of justice" author. -- Alarics (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

He has no standing to produce "findings". That is the job of the courts. They disagree. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6051299/Child-sex-abuse-case-saw-pop-mogul-Jonathan-King-handed-seven-year-jail-sentence-reopened.html196.64.145.77 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that using the Daily Mail as a source is the best place to start, or even end, any discussion here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

↑ This. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree but the facts do appear verifiable and extraordinary. Just because the Daily Mail tends to be homophobic and Wikiphobic doesn't mean it should always be ignored - does it? 105.155.11.135 (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I was just suggesting that it's largely ignored in article mainspace as a matter of policy. Surely that list of failings is also published elsewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

And should not this be in the lede? Or is an acquittal less Wikiworthy than a conviction? 105.155.11.135 (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Only when there is a reliable source. The Daily mail is not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

... per WP:DAILYMAIL. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

nor the BBC? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-45134168 105.155.11.135 (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually that piece by David Rose (journalist) isn't from the Daily Mail, it's from the Mail on Sunday. Different paper, different editor, notoriously different editorial line, different policy. David Rose is a veteran investigative journalist and was named News Reporter of the Year in 2015. He doesn't write for the Daily Mail. Maybe Wikipedia needs to distinguish better between the daily and the Sunday when considering what is a reliable source. Confusion may arise because the contents of both papers are reproduced on MailOnline along with all the extra web-only garbage on that website. At all events, I don't see how we can justify not mentioning that King's conviction has been called into doubt by a judge and is being reconsidered by the CCRC. -- Alarics (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I wholly agree with all you say. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Judge Deborah Taylor was highly critical of Operation Ravine. This was a rehash of the Walton Hop allegations by Surrey Police, who made little or no attempt to cross check the facts, falling into the credible and true trap once again. Although the 2018 trial turned out to be a shambles, it does not directly affect King's 2001 convictions, which would have to be appealed separately.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Just so. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It may well prove to have far more impact than the previous conviction which was just another yewtree type witch hunt. This could affect police behaviour and the law. Should be in the introduction. 197.230.49.226 (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

User:ianmacm, you say "it does not directly affect King's 2001 convictions", but the Mail on Sunday article by David Rose 2 days ago says "The CCRC will now decide whether this casts doubt on all the evidence that convicted King in 2001". -- Alarics (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Nothing firm has happened yet. It's a long story which is in the talk page archive. A man with the initials KM, now 62 years old, made the initial allegations against King to Max Clifford, but never succeeded in getting King convicted. There is some overlap with the Walton Hop allegations and the 2001 trial, but it is too early to say if King will be granted a fresh appeal over the 2001 trial. King denies ever meeting KM.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Further doubt is cast on King's original conviction by Lord Daniel Finkelstein in today's The Times. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/trials-of-jonathan-king-should-worry-us-all-795ct8f79 (subscription required) -- Alarics (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Daniel Finkelstein. He's quite notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

And yet the Wikipedia article lead only mentions the 2001 convictions. Surely the 2018 result is far more noteworthy? And ianmacm - as you know from research, KM was one of the several Not Guilty verdicts pronounced by the 2018 jury before they were dismissed. 197.230.49.226 (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

KM is mentioned in this source, the dreaded Daily Mail. KM has been claiming all of this for years, but I wasn't sure from the source if it was one of the cases at the 2018 trial. It is still too early to say what the collapse of the 2018 trial means for the 2001 convictions. They may be looked at again, but there is a long way to go.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

But is King's acquittal less worthy of mention than his 2001 conviction? If so, why? 197.230.49.226 (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that the WP:LEAD could mention the 2018 trial. What it should be wary of doing is implying that the 2018 trial automatically invalidates the 2001 convictions, which it doesn't. It is clear that King has denied every single one of the allegations against him, therefore implying that each and every one of his accusers is a liar. This would be a long shot at appeal, but it is possible that some of the 2001 convictions might be looked at again. By the way, I think that the mainstream media coverage of the 2018 trial has been poor and lacking in detail. There is probably a lot more to say about the case, but the media coverage has not gone into sufficient depth about why the 2018 trial collapsed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

To expand, the main area where Daniel Finkelstein's article expresses concerns is whether some of the boys at the 2001 trial were 14 or 15 at the time. There is some evidence that the prosecution was tweaking the dates when the alleged offences occurred, due to the way that the Sexual Offences Act 1967 worked, which made it much harder to bring charges for a boy in the 16-21 age group. This is one possible avenue of appeal against the 2001 convictions. King goes further than this and says that all of the allegations against him are false, period. For example, we know that King flatly denies ever meeting KM, but it is unclear what would happen if he attempted a similar avenue when appealing the 2001 convictions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Re this edit: somebody with an IP address in Morocco seems to know a great deal about the trial and be very interested in it. Unfortunately, the UK media sourcing says that the jury was discharged and does not mention any not guilty verdicts at the trial. There doesn't seem to be any sourcing which says that "on 11 June 2018, the jury pronounced him not guilty of several charges" (such as the ones involving KM). The article has to stick to what can be reliably sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's rather frustrating because the media quote is clear - "CASE FOUR - In what legal experts say was a highly unusual move, two of the ‘on file’ charges were revived in 2015. King was also charged with crimes reported to police in 2001, but where they had taken no action. Facing claims he had abused a total of 10 further underage boys, he was found not guilty of two of the revived charges in June 2018. The whole case was aborted last week after the judge found the police had ‘misled’ her and so ‘undermined the integrity’ of the criminal justice system". But then Wikipedia, understandably not liking the Mail, dismisses it as not UK Media Sourcing. Chinese whispers are alive and well on the Internet; and China chooses to censor it. 197.230.49.226 (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Could an exception to the DM ban be argued here, based on the fact it's David Rose (journalist), as suggested by Alarics? Where would the appropriate forum be for such a proposal? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Also the fact that it wasn't the Daily Mail, it was the Mail on Sunday, which is a different paper with a different editor and a completely different editorial line. The Wikipedia ban apparently includes anything that appears on MailOnline (dailymail.co.uk), which I think carries everything from the 2 print newspapers as well as its own material (which is pretty well all celebrity gossip). Certainly the web-only stuff (which also has its own editor) is a pile of crap and absolutely not a reliable source for anything, and the daily paper has in recent years been full of lies and opinions masquerading as news (though this may be about to change with a new editor replacing Paul Dacre -- we shall have to wait and see). The Mail on Sunday, by contrast, is probably at least as reliable a source as any other popular newspaper. Its material is generally identified in the byline of the article (e.g. in the case in point it says "By David Rose for the Mail on Sunday"). -- Alarics (talk)

The David Rose piece is here, and it does give details about the charges at the 2018 trial that are lacking elsewhere. Unfortunately, during the famous WP:DAILYMAIL debate, some people made clear that they would not wipe their backsides on the Daily Mail, particularly the online version. The Mail on Sunday piece says "he was found not guilty of two of the revived charges in June 2018"; two isn't the same as several in the Oxford English Dictionary.[3] It doesn't say that KM was one of the two not guilty verdicts, but someone well placed seems to know this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The Finkelstein column in the Times mentions the police habit of bundling weak charges alongside stronger ones in order to influence judge, jury and media - is it not possible that one or both of the two Not Guilty complainants had more than one charge (making it "several")? And wasn't there a Mail story around the ruling actually naming KM as a Not Guilty possible future private prosecutor? 197.230.49.226 (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Can we use The Mail on Sunday or not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

If it was in The Daily Telegraph nobody would complain. There doesn't seem to be much wrong with the facts in David Rose's piece. It's not as if it is the latest piece of trivial gossip about Kim Kardashian. I wouldn't object to using Rose's piece as a source, as common sense is a key guideline in Wikipedia policy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I've gone easy on naming KM because it isn't entirely clear from the sourcing that he was one of the not guilty verdicts, although this may be correct. KM has also talked about suing King, so we may not have heard the last of this. The David Rose piece is the most informative about why the trial collapsed, and says "he was found not guilty of two of the revived charges in June 2018". Again, we have to go with what the sourcing says, although the Rose article shows that the situation is rather confusing. I don't have any more information than what was in the news, and a reader of the Wikipedia article will not have this either.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

http://www.chrissaltrese.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/King-Further-abuse-ruling-redactedapproved.pdf 196.92.4.77 (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No doubt this is a genuine legal document; King must have an extraordinary fan club in Morocco. It shows that the police did not check the facts properly or disclose significant facts to the defence, which we already know. It has also redacted the name of KM, so he should not be named here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• The document above comes from the website of Chris Saltrese Solicitors, who by the look of things may have represented King at his June 2018 trial. They have a blog piece about the trial. This isn't ideal as a source due to the use of primary documents, and it doesn't say much that isn't known already. The TL;DR is that the police didn't do their homework properly, which led to the collapse of the trial and criticism from the judge.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems Saltrese was not King's solicitor. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/26/ex-dj-jonathan-king-arrives-court-charged-historical-sex-attacks/ 196.92.4.77 (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup. King's proclivities, as documented in his conviction, are actually well known in the business. Plod fumbled it. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"Plod fumbled it" - a wonderfully forensic description which avoids the criticism in the judge's ruling and essentially implies he "got away with it". Comforting that belief in the purity of accuser intentions and police behaviour remains strong. Worth reading the full ruling though. Interesting about the list of KM mental institutions and rehab units eventually disclosed to defence and Court. 196.92.4.77 (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"a deplorable lack of seriousness and rigour" - "the integrity of the criminal justice system and processes have been undermined publicly in a fundamental way by the disclosure failures and persistent misleading of the court" - "Evidence has been ruled admissible, which would not have been. A trial has been aborted due to the failures. The time of the court and public money has been wasted, in a time of scarce resources. Undoubtedly the Jury, who were subjected to delays as the various disclosure issues unfolded, would have had their confidence in the system undermined on being discharged having heard the evidence they did" - rather more than a "fumble" wouldn't you say, despite "the business" (whatever that might be) knowing about his "proclivities". 196.92.4.77 (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, it was Steven Bird who represented King at the June 2018 trial. As for this revert, it isn't in dispute that Judge Deborah Taylor flayed the police for their sloppy paperwork in Operation Ravine, which led to a load of time and money being wasted. The article already says that the judge described the trial as a debacle, but the sourcing for the long quote is primary rather than secondary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"Sloppy paperwork"? Judges do not stop trials because of sloppy paperwork. The questions the jury asked of the "witnesses" in the few days of trial that did take place indicated they saw through the stories and spotted the huge amount of contradictions; that is clear from the Judge's comments. Suggest you read King's book GUILTY Ianmcm if you want to get your facts right - at least according to his version. More than sloppy paperwork; deliberate lies and behaviour on a par with other recent cases like Liam Allan and Oliver Mears. 196.92.4.38 (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't find the phrase "deliberate lies" in the transcript that was posted. It deals mainly with failures in disclosure and cross checking of the evidence. I haven't seen a full transcript of the trial. It does say of Witness A "The failure to inform any medical professional of his history of sexual abuse was clearly of relevance to his credibility, and relevant to the applications to add Counts to the Indictment, to exclude his statement as unreliable hearsay." The document also questions why there was no disclosure of the background of Mark Williams-Thomas. King's longstanding position is that all of the boys who accused him are liars. The June 2018 trial did not conclude this, although it did say that some of the evidence was unreliable and inadmissible. The judge said "I make clear that had full disclosure regarding Witness A and the involvement of Williams- Thomas been made known, those counts would not have been added to the Indictment. The fact that they had to be abandoned mid-trial undermines the public perception of justice being done even further. Had the woeful state of disclosure been known when the Defence applied to adjourn the trial, the application would have been treated in a different way." This shows that the judge was angry that these charges came to court, but does not show that Witness A was a liar. If the judge had used the word untruthful it would have opened the door to Witness A being charged with perjury. This did not happen, but she did say that Witness A's evidence was unreliable and should be excluded.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

King's new book on Amazon

There have been several attempts to add this, but as ever the sourcing is not ideal. According to King's website [4] "they don't expect to sell more than 600 in total" It was apparently at number one in the Pop Culture charts at one stage.[5]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Hey, the IP started a conversation on my talk page and we are working it out. They know now to cite the book and they found this source to prove it was #1 on Amazon. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned it here because it is article related. It is unsurprising that the cites come back to King's website and Twitter feed because this has happened many times before.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops sorry I didn't see you posted on my page. I'm trying to locate a better, secondary source. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It took me ages to find it and then it was on King's own Twitter page so you're probably right. 31.54.201.145 (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent events

Clearly this saga is far from finished so a new section is required. Get Surrey reports the Police and CRime Panel at Surrey Council have taken legal advice regarding their police force. 31.54.201.137 (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Note above - removed Amazon mention. 31.54.201.137 (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

There is plenty of material making clear that Surrey Police totally screwed up the June 2018 trial. As for King's formal complaint against the police, this could be mentioned but has an element of WP:CRYSTAL.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

And regardless, it would need to be stated in a neutral way. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Sales as a singer

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/jonathan-king-my-books-an-online-hit-millions-click-on-my-videos-how-about-lifting-the-media-ban-on-6268884.html

Take his hits as a singer and add in the millions of compilation albums using them and 40 million seems fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.92.4.66 (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In accordance with the principles of Groundhog Day, we have had this debate before, in July 2016, to be exact. Ghmyrtle pointed out that "What King says in his book 70FFFY - here - is: "I was told that the tracks which I sang on, under various pseudonyms, sold over 40 million copies over the 60s and 70s." So, it is not a reliable figure; it is not even a figure that King claims is reliable; it is simply a claim that someone (unspecified) gave him the figure at some unspecified date, without any indication that it has any reliability at all. In my view it should not be included in the article at all - it should certainly not be given the apparent weight of a claim made in the introductory paragraphs of the article."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Re this edit: I think what the various users who have edited the article are trying to say is that some of the charges that were dropped at the 2001 trial were revived at the 2018 trial, and King was not found guilty on some of them. It was not illegal to revive charges from the 2001 trial in 2018 but it was controversial, because King had been given to understand that these charges would not be pursued again after the 2001 trial. The revived charges included KM, who did not get his day in court in 2001. When KM did get his day in in court in 2018, the prosecution again failed to prove the allegations made by him. This source says "King yesterday taunted his accusers by claiming he had been cleared. In reality, the 23 sexual abuse charges he faced have been stayed, which means the case will not go ahead but the allegations have not been disproved." (Yes, I know it is the Daily Mail but it is the only source mentioning this.) The WP:PRIMARY document on King's website here is hard to interpret. It is unclear which acquittal it refers to, maybe one of King's friends could help. What we do know is that King has never successfully appealed against any of the five convictions from 2001. All of this should be linked to reliable secondary sourcing because primary documents are discouraged on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

REPLY: the link below may help. The illustration on King's website needs magnification; when it does so it shows that King was formally found NOT GUILTY of three of the most serious new charges, all of which referred to the original claims from 2001, brought back and rejected in the 2018 trial. As the jury had been formally sworn in, they had to declare those claims Not Guilty before they could be dismissed from further consideration of the remaining charges. So the Mail got it wrong. Surprise surprise. http://barristerblogger.com/2018/08/08/the-collapse-of-jonathan-kings-trial-raises-questions-about-surrey-police-that-go-beyond-disclosure-failures/ 217.19.155.204 (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, the article on barristerblogger.com is better but it is still a bit obtuse. We know that Surrey Police made serious mistakes in the area of disclosure and that the evidence of Complainant A was found to be unreliable. However, the barristerblogger.com article doesn't say explicitly that King was acquitted on this and other charges, unless I have missed it somehow. It says "The result was that the jury was discharged, and the Crown decided to try again, this time without A’s evidence." For a non legal expert like me, this is confusing. It may mean that King was acquitted but it isn't clear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Using the Daily Mail as a source... even on a Talk page?! Are you quite mad?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Re this edit: WP:OR says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." The Guardian story and the Scribd document do not mention King, so this should be removed or reworded.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

King and the Apollo 11 mission

Quincy Jones presents platinum copies of Frank Sinatra's album to Senator John Glenn and Apollo 11 Commander Neil Armstrong on 25 September 2008. Note the complete lack of Jonathan King in the photo.

Re this edit: as ever, the sourcing doesn't quite support the assertion that "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" was almost the first song played from the moon. It says that "The Apollo 11 crew had requested songs to bring along on the voyage, dubbed onto cassette tapes by Mickey Kapp, a record producer friendly with many astronauts. Michael Collins was partial to Jonathan King’s moody, folk-rock “Everyone’s Gone to the Moon.”" "Fly Me to the Moon" was the first music heard on the moon, played on a cassette by Buzz Aldrin. On 13 and 14 July 2019, NASA is airing a live show based on songs themed around the Moon and nominated by listeners, so who knows, King's song might be included. The BBC probably wouldn't play it, for obvious reasons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd very much like to see the full track listing of that tape. Is there one? Editors might also be interested in this article: Music Out of the Moon... "considered the best-selling theremin record of all time". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

There is further sourcing here, which says "According to astronaut Michael Collins of Apollo 11, he, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin listened to the song "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" on portable tape recorders while on their way to the first moon landing." Mickey Kapp died only a few days ago [6] and there is some further coverage of how he provided the music here. According to this article, the astronauts had a Sony TC-50 cassette recorder, "a sort of proto-Walkman. Its primary purpose was not to play music but, rather, to serve as a convenient way for the astronauts to log mission notes verbally instead of with a pen and paper."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• There is an Apollo 11 playlist on Spotify here, but it can't be complete because we know that Buzz Aldrin played Frank Sinatra's version of "Fly Me to the Moon".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Um. So is there any (even unverifiable and wholly implausible) explanation as to why that list is accurate, even if incomplete? Yes, I see the Apollo 11 Patch and I see a list of songs, two of which have a theremin and contain "Moon" in the title. But, that's it? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The music on the cassette was an unofficial part of the mission, so it may be that nobody bothered to write down the full list. Here is audio from Apollo 11, and at 5:52 Aldrin says "Let's get some music... how about these tapes?" Around the 20 to 50 minute mark, music can be heard playing faintly in the background.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The Observer in England just ran a piece on this entitled Everyone's Gone To The Moon 2 - it is surely worth mentioning and including, is it not? Several comments on the online page mention King. 37.26.185.130 (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you post a link to this, I'm stuck. If the mention of King is in the readers' comments underneath the article, it doesn't count as a reliable source. The best that can be said here is that the Apollo 11 astronauts had a cassette tape with various songs and Michael Collins said that "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" was one of them. It wasn't "almost the first song" to be played on the Moon, as all of the other songs on the tape could be described in this way. Buzz Aldrin decided to play Sinatra's 1964 recording of "Fly Me to the Moon" while the Apollo Lunar Module was actually on the Moon, [7] hence the platinum discs. It would undoubtedly have made King mega-famous if Aldrin had played "Everyone's Gone To The Moon", but he didn't. Close but no cigar, as the saying goes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree caution is needed (not like King to miss a photo opportunity, with or without a cigar!) I too cannot find anything like that online for The Observer. But no dedicated article yet on Apollo 11 music?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The sourcing is a bit thin, although it is probably enough to say that there was a tape with "Everyone's Gone To The Moon" on it. Aldrin's phrase "how about these tapes?" suggests that they may have had several cassettes on board. The music in the NASA audio plays for around 30 minutes, so I WP:OR guessed that they might have used a C60 cassette tape. I couldn't recognize "Everyone's Gone To The Moon" from any of the faint audio. Another point made by this source is that it is unknown what the recording of "Everyone's Gone To The Moon" was. It says "Collins and the mission transcripts don't specify which version of "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" they listened to, so we went with the original, released in 1965" For example, they might have played Percy Faith's 1966 instrumental version.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, probably not Marlene's (live performance available on YouTube). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Reworded to fit link; as on here https://humansofsiliconvalley.com/michael-collins-everyones-gone-moon/ - I don't understand your wording under the photo you've added here but perhaps not sufficiently informed - did King write the Sinatra song too? 90.80.66.57 (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, IP 90, I reverted your proposed change, as I don't think that was the main reason for the song's notability. Also that detail should not appear just in the lead section. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Moved it to later in the article. Should we add the Sinatra connection? 90.80.66.57 (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Um, as far as know Sinatra's 1964 recording of "Fly Me to the Moon" has no connection to Jonathan King, apart from coincidentally also being on the same cassette tape(s). Hence Ian's rather waspish image caption above? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It's useful to know that the part about Michael Collins liking the song comes from his 1974 autobiography Carrying the Fire. He writes "My favorite, which I’ve never heard before, is “Everyone’s Gone to the Moon,” or at least that’s the line the vocalist keeps repeating. It’s very restful.”" What is less clear is whether this cassette tape was in the lunar module when it landed on the Moon in July 1969. It may have been, but there isn't enough evidence to say for sure.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So the current statement, that it was just carried on the mission, is OK? I must admit I had assumed that when they actually landed on the moon they were too busy planting flags, collecting rocks and playing golf, to be lounging about, grooving out to hippy music or jazz standards. Martinevans123 (talk)

Just played on TV in Cape Town. Googled charts. It was 8. Also several other countries. 196.92.4.47 (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Marlene Dietrich video at YouTube

Dietrich's singing of "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" at the Golders Green Hippodrome in October 1966 (with an arrangement by Burt Bacharach) is linked to this YouTube video. Is MarleneDietrichVideo an "official channel"? Is it clear that the YouTube user holds the copyright to that performance? It sounds like an unofficial low-grade bootleg to me. How can we even be sure it's her? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Tim Walker’s 2011 piece in The Independent just says that the song was "covered by Dietrich", and he doesn’t go into any more detail. So I’m not sure where "After telephoning King to ask his permission" has come from. But I’ve found another source, from the The Guardian where King himself apparently confirms the performance. So I have added that. Looking over at the article for "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" itself, the only source for Dietrich is a blog-reposting of the same YouTube video, again with no additional detail at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

South African singles chart

This source, suggested by IP 196.92.4.47, says this: "The last song to go was ‘Everyone’s Gone To The Moon’ by Jonathan King. It had spent 6 weeks in the charts and peaked at 8 during that time. It would be King’s only solo hit in SA, but he would be back under the pseudonym Sakkarin." I think maybe this information should be mentioned in the article main body, in the "Early success" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

sent this to king's website http://www.kingofhits.co.uk/component/option,com_kunena/Itemid,65/func,view/catid,5/id,190977/ 196.92.4.47 (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

very odd changes in headings

Have tried to correct but why "Broadcasting" then a small section on his house moves? 41.137.97.234 (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Makes no sense to have 2018 under 2001 sub heading 105.158.192.93 (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I have adjusted further to try and keep the correct chronology. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

King and Leveson

• IanMacM I see you removed the link to the Leveson Inquiry in the main article; reading the transcript of King's evidence is interesting in the light of that.... here... https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121205140429/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-25-January-20121.pdf 41.248.134.60 (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The Leveson document here has a contribution from Jonathan King on pages 23-25, which is quite brief. King says that he is innocent and the victim of a media/police stitch-up. As Leveson points out, "the trouble is that the law has taken its course", ie King was found guilty at the trial in 2001 and it was not part of the remit of the Leveson Inquiry to act as a review of the safety of the convictions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

IanMacM but the point of King's testimony appears NOT to be that he claims innocence but that the way he was prosecuted throws light on the police and media relationship - the subject of the upcoming Inquiry part, for which he suggests he could provide valuable evidence. In the light of the Cliff Richard and other fiascos this seems now, seven years later, to have been highly appropriate, as is the strange cancellation of that part of Leveson. Admittedly these are rather too complex for tabloid or even broadsheet examination but one of the points of Wikipedia is that it can show directions ignored by traditional media. And illustrate matters ignored at the time but latterly indicated by such as the Beech trial. When police collude with media to provide stories, tragic consequences can occur. 41.140.76.38 (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

King says this: "No, just that I'm -- I'm perfectly happy, and obviously I feel it is necessary, as far as the Inquiry is concerned, you are not going to say that I am innocent. You have to assume that I'm guilty because I was found guilty. But I would say that my experiences, which go through a great deal more than just that, than just the prosecution and the first trial, as you've seen from the submission, there was a second trial in which I was considered not guilty, and there were further experiences I had, such as at the Court of Appeal and so on, which all, I think, would be interesting to the Inquiry regarding the relationship between the police and the media." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Like many previous arguments we've had on the talk page, it ends up relying on a WP:PRIMARY source. The lack of secondary sourcing leads to more WP:OR problems. Leveson did not have the authority to reexamine King's 2001 convictions, and he didn't know in 2012 that Max Clifford was going to end up in prison himself in 2014. If King was giving evidence to Leveson today, things would be different, but this was all in the pre-Operation Yewtree era. On the day that King gave evidence to Leveson, 25 January 2012, Jimmy Savile was still a national treasure. Yes, it was that long ago.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes long ago but all the more apt in the light of subsequent events and as a thoroughly reputable source surely worth including in the article. Isn't one of the advantages of Wikipedia that it can be updated as circumstances develop? I clicked onto it because of hearing his song on TV and wanting to find out more about the one hit wonder. Interesting how much is missing. That song was a huge hit in Canada for example. Knowing little about the Leveson Inquiry I was intrigued by this. And finding several mentions about him in Toronto where, a few months ago, he was mentioned in articles about a totally different song and a documentary which won an award here. 41.140.76.38 (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

"Former DJ King calls for Munro to step down"

This source looks pretty clear to me. Where is the "clear speculation and WP:OR interpretation of the sourcing"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

King did call for Surrey’s Police and Crime Commissioner David Munro and Chief Constable Nick Ephgrave to resign, but the remaining part, which says "which, in due course and perhaps coincidentally, they both did" has clear problems with speculation and WP:OR because the sourcing does not say this. It looks like a classic attempt at introducing post hoc ergo propter hoc analysis. Ephgrave stepped down in December 2018 [8] but the source does not state or imply that it was directly because of the shambles of King's June 2018 trial. Munro lost his job as crime commissioner in March 2019 and the source does not mention King at all.[9] Saying that they both went "perhaps coincidentally" is a bit too WP:WEASEL. King was rightly critical of the performance of Surrey Police over the 2018 trial collapse, but Ephgrave left to take up a new position as an assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Unless the sourcing clearly says that Ephgrave and Munro went because of the trial collapse, it is OR/SYNTH to imply that they did.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Happy to remove "which, in due course and perhaps coincidentally, they both did"". I had one of those "post hoc ergo propter hocs" in a pot, but I think I must have killed it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

A global hit

A hit in Thailand and Switzerland too. https://www.bangkokpost.com/life/social-and-lifestyle/1730555/to-the-moon 37.26.185.130 (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This is yet more WP:OR. The article in the Bangkok Post is basically an advertorial for an Omega watch (Buzz Aldrin wore a Omega Speedmaster Professional Chronograph on the Moon). But the Bangkok Post article mentions King's song only in passing and does not say that the song was a hit in Thailand, or discuss it in any detail. Does it take hours in front of a keyboard to find these things, I wonder.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

After the South Africa and New Zealand charts from 1965 it seemed to indicate it was a hit in more than just two territories but if you know better, apologies. 37.26.185.130 (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

see October 21st 1965 https://charts.nz/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=47551&pages= 37.26.185.130 (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

and https://sacharts.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/22-october-1965/ it's a small and silly detail and wikipedia is not known for accuracy but seems worth pointing out. 37.26.185.130 (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

not hours in front of a keyboard - seconds. finished now! 37.26.185.130 (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Checking the Tunecaster charts for around the world King's record is at Number 9 so it seems to have been a hit in more than just two territories.BemusedConfused (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be a concerted effort to prove that "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" was a global hit. The limiting factor is that it is easy to find the chart positions for the UK and US, but after that it starts to get rather obscure. It never reached number one in any major chart (it did apparently do this on a UK pirate radio station, according to JK).--♦IanMac M♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It clearly was a global hit as the links above show. So many people have noticed this; I cannot quite see why it is in dispute. BemusedConfused (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The charts FAQ at Tunecaster says various things, but it doesn't support the theory that it proves that a record was a global hit. More problems with WP:OR here. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed but neither do any of the links above show it was only a hit in the USA and UK so a more general comment is appropriate. 37.26.185.130 (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The specific "many countries" claim here is not supported by the Tunecaster website. It is not clear how Tunecaster arrives at its chart positions, the explanation they give is so vague that it doesn't mean very much.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm no expert on methodolgy but the links provided above seem to indicate it was a hit in several countries. That may be wrong but is no reason to specify it was only a hit in two territories. That looks like an implication. 37.26.185.130 (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably should add Ireland 6th Sept 1965 Number 8. https://www.ukmix.org/showthread.php?117653-Irish-Charts-1965-(Unofficial-Billboard-amp-Herald-Top-10s)90.80.66.57 (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Added and should it not be methodolOgy?90.80.66.57 (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute that it was a hit in countries other than Britain and the USA. The problem is using WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to reach the conclusion. This edit also has problems with WP:HIJACK because it has altered the content supported by a reference. Perhaps Osric has been editing the article to show that it was a hit, a very palpable hit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This seems to have become complex and confused. I'm not being Shakespeare and am not familiar. I'm simply saying that if it was a global hit it was not just a local hit and misquoting a source by specifying certain territories seems odd. Why do it? Whether it was a small hit or a big hit, everywhere or somewhere, is irrelevant unless some implication is needed. Just say, as cite, it was a hit. Not a tiny hit, not a palpable hit, just a hit.37.26.185.130 (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

BBC story August 2019

King is mentioned in this story which indicates that the debacle of his trial and acquittal has meant many fewer convictions in the year since he was declared Not Guilty - good news for the falsely accused and comes after the Carl Beech trial but equally bad news for genuine abuse victims who may now be disinclined to report rapes and other offences. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-49350013 83.206.236.228 (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a passing mention, which says "Failings with Surrey Police's disclosure process involving a case against former DJ Jonathan King led to an independent review last August. The outcome of the review has still not been concluded." It will be interesting to see what the outcome of this review is, but the BBC story does not say much that is not known already.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

On King's website he says he was informed in July that the review had been concluded but publication witheld as in Beech case. 109.26.219.36 (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find this on King's website so maybe you could give a direct link. Does this mean that although concluded, the independent review will not be published? Also, I still think that this edit is trying to make a point about Surrey Police rather than adding biographical material about King.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Took ages but searched Hydrant and found this which could be the mention you were looking for. Suspect this is not the end of the matter. Report certain not to be published and odd that a Chief Constable lies about it. http://www.kingofhits.co.uk/component/option,com_kunena/Itemid,65/func,view/id,191721/catid,2/#191721 81.154.207.90 (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, the key part is a letter that King received on 8 July 2019 from Richard Fewkes from Operation Hydrant, which says that the report relating to Operation Ravine (ie King's 2018 trial) "is now complete" and there will be a decision on "whether and how the report will be published." This is interesting because it contradicts the BBC News story on 14 August 2019 which says "The outcome of the review has still not been concluded." This is slightly vague wording but King has been told that the review is complete, but not if and when it will be published. Perhaps the Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies here WP:IANAL. As ever, there is a problem with using King's website as a primary source, but I don't doubt that this letter is genuine.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

In the Shadow of the Moon (2019 film)

Re this edit: at first sight this is not a major piece of news per WP:POPCULTURE, but given the fuss over including a Gary Glitter song in Joker, it is interesting. King will receive royalties for this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Publication of independent review into the collapse of King's June 2018 trial

News coverage here, full review document here. This was previously discussed here but was archived too quickly because threads older than 28 days were removed. I've changed the archiving to 180 days to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

King's response to the review is here. It says "To the layman, that is lying on oath." Judge Deborah Taylor came very close to accusing the lead police officer involved of lying on oath, but stopped short. Nevertheless, she used very strong language which made clear that she had no confidence in how Surrey Police had handled the investigation and presented the evidence in court.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

This should be added to the article especially the part where Taylor says there was "persistent misleading of the Court". There is BBC coverage which carries quotes from King. Is his appeal of the 2001 conviction still ongoing? Criticism in this review by Merseyside Police seems to be solid evidence that his conviction then was unsafe. After Carl Beech this takes on greater importance. 86.174.214.214 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Judge Deborah Taylor stopped just short of accusing the lead police officer of lying on oath, which would have led to perjury charges or similar. Nevertheless, Taylor made clear that she was not at all happy with some of the things that the officer concerned had said while on oath. The current version of the article includes the phrase "the failures and misleading of the Court". "Is his appeal of the 2001 conviction still ongoing?" I don't know, and thought that this had been dropped some time back.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Found this https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6051299/Child-sex-abuse-case-saw-pop-mogul-Jonathan-King-handed-seven-year-jail-sentence-reopened.html 86.174.214.214 (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

But did anything come of this? It looks like WP:CRYSTAL ball gazing. The news story is from August 2018, and says "Fresh evidence is being considered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which will decide whether to order a new appeal." If a new appeal against the 2001 convictions took place, it would be notable enough for the article, but the possibility that this might happen is not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed I was just answering my own question and your answer. 86.174.214.214 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

January 2020 - Cyprus rape case

King is in the news after comparing the British woman in the Cyprus rape case to Carl Beech. Also in The Sun here. It all started with a string of tweets that King made on 31 December. Also here on King's website. Since there no non-tabloid coverage, this isn't suitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

King's website: To archive, or not to archive

Whether 'tis nobler to give the archived version, as in this edit, or to give the direct link to the site which is http://www.kingofhits.co.uk/ . Since this site is usually online and is not subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous downtime, it should be OK to give the link directly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so that date at the top of "Tuesday, 30 November 1999", is not the last time it was updated? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It's generally better to give the live version of the website if it is actually working. Then readers can explore the other links in it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

No objection. For some reason I must have assumed it had been abandoned. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. King's Danish output includes such classics as "Let It All Hang Out", "I Don't Want To Be Gay" and "Colloquial Sex (Legend Of Today)".