Talk:Jonathan King/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Regular changes

Regular removals of links and apparent contradictions to facts included in linked articles corrected. Noelthai (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Says Noel, who appears to have an unusual interest in this article. Whatever happened to JK2006?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Apologies - got hooked into it by regular changes and originally linked through another artiste. But I notice you seem far more interested in this article than I.Noelthai (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

some points

no source at all that he produced the brits ever an interview where he himself says he met the beatles is not a reliable source, I could say the same, doesnt mean its true

Please dont add again unless reliable sources are added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.237.210 (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
We've discussed before which years Jonathan King hosted or presented the Brit Awards, and the online sourcing is not ideal. Also, some of the editng in recent days has been tiring. If this continues, a WP:SOCKPUPPET investigation is likely.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I've looked at the URLs and though similar they seem to be different.Noelthai (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
that is an interview with the subject, how is that a reliable source? This is better
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0454909/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.237.210 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
No. IMDb is not a reliable source... and their current version of his "biography", written by an IMDb contributor called "thejktruth", is definitely not a neutral perspective. The Independent is considered neutral and reliable, so is the BBC. Both state that he produced the Brits, so that should be mentioned. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

produced the brits once only

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0454909/

and he wasnt even the main producer then, so why does it keep getting changed to 3 years???86.135.237.210 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Link provided from Variety - US trade magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.52.156 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Did find this from 1991.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, there seems to be little online trace of the 1990 ceremony, at which King supposedly got Thatcher (yes, her) to sing a snatch of "How Much Is That Doggy In The Window?" Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, King's official biography says "By the '90s he was starting to concentrate more on behind the scenes roles. In 1990, 1991 and 1992 he also wrote & produced The Brits, taking over after the disastrous previous year (Mick Fleetwood and Sam Fox plus a load of mistakes) making hundreds of thousands for the Nordof Robbins industry charity." Is this wrong? I am well puzzled here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to remember that we should be reporting what reliable sources say... not necessarily what may be true. I would say that The Independent, Variety, and the BBC, are reliable on this - his own "official biography", and certainly IMDb, are not necessarily reliable. Incidentally, I hope the person who started this thread realises the big difference between presenting the Brits, and producing them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
We also know that King claims to have won the Ivor Novello Award for Una Paloma Blanca, despite BASCA having no recollection of this. Should King's official biography be filed under "fiction"?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that one of the problems with getting reliable information about King is that some of the organisations with which he was involved in the past would like to distance themselves from him - or at least not mention him - while King himself, and his friends, are perhaps more likely to over-state his triumphs. That all makes life more difficult for those of us trying to set out a balanced picture, and indeed makes life difficult for journalists who may sometimes be tempted to use information that is readily available from King himself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The other problem is that the "post-disgrace" media "profiles" (like the Independent piece usually open with a how-the-mighty-are-fallen list of his pre-disgrace achievements. The problem with them is that often the journalist has clearly got them from King himself via the profile interview and because the main focus is on his post-disgrace situation they don't bother to check. DeCausa (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

there were 4, why cant I put 4?

King entered the music industry with his 1965 single "Everyone's Gone to the Moon", which reached no 4 in the UK and no 17 in the USA. He followed this with several record releases, of which several made the UK Singles Chart Top 10 in the 1970s.86.135.237.210 (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It has been a long day already, but I'm pretty sure that King does the singing on It Only Takes a Minute and Loop di Love). These are not credited to King, he uses a pseudonym (a bit like some of the accounts here, oops). Which four do you have in mind?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

the brits again

the 3 sources listed:

One is a claim by the subject himself. And lets not forget all the other claims that have been removed from the article as there is never any proof. The next says he produced it in 1990, doesnt make clear what he did on the show in 1991 and even says he then quit, so cant be used to claim he produced the 1992 show. The third ref again is for 1991.

Unless anyone can put a link that shows he produced it in 1990 and then 1992 as well (even though it says he quit) then this should be changed surely? Empeorersclothes (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no, and it is a pity that it takes a new account to say this. The average person isn't spending all day worrying about which years Jonathan King hosted or produced the Brits, and it takes a special kind of genius to do this. I don't think that any of the online sourcing is reliable enough to say with any certainty which years JK produced or hosted the Brits. We seem to be agreed on him producing the show in 1991, but 1990 and 1992 - despite being quoted in King's own online bio - are disputed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
A further complication is what a producer does. There are executive producers, assistant producers etc. I'm not sure why this has become such an issue, and have to stress once again that a Wikipedia article is only as good as the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

King and Brian Epstein

Someone has a persistent problem with this, and it is becoming rather tiring. The Guardian cite says "While in Hawaii he bumped into The Beatles on tour, and turned not to John, Paul, Ringo or George for advice, but to their genius manager, Brian Epstein." Meanwhile, regarding this edit, King says in Chapter 7 of 65 My Life So Far "I still had a few grains of sense left. I’d not come all this way to skip the furthest cities of my adventure. But I was keen to reach Hawaii, and I did. I booked into the YMCA (my cash was running low – I’d spent more than enough keeping up with the stars), collected my new tape and music papers from the local Thomas Cook office, and phoned Brian Epstein at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. “I’m on the beach,” he said. “Come on over.” I arrived, breathless and excited. He shook my hand, spotted what was under my arm and grabbed the music papers. “Fantastic,” he said. “I’ve been missing these like crazy!” He combed the New Musical Express and chatted to me for hours, giving me advice on who to avoid and who to trust, and telling me to visit Tommy Lipuma (a Los Angeles friend of his) when I hit California and Dick James (the Beatles’ publisher) when I got back to London. He listened, with interest, to my tales of my first release ‘Gotta Tell’ and to my account of my experiences with Joe Meek. “You should keep well away from Joe Meek,” he said." Since both The Guardian and the man himself represent this as fact, there is no need to remove it or qualify it with wording such as "King claimed that..." I don't know whether King met Brian Epstein in Hawaii and that is not the real issue here. It is not the job of Wikipedians to override sources such as The Guardian or The Independent with their own personal analyses.

Since anyone can play this game, I am not sure if or when the Beatles were in Hawaii. This cite says that John and George were there around May 1964, but it is not ideal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • According to List of the Beatles' live performances, they never played a live concert in Hawaii. At best, they could have been there during a stopover. By 1964, it was pretty much impossible for the Beatles to go anywhere without massive media coverage, and there is no reliable sourcing online about them visiting Hawaii. There is a Royal Hawaiian Hotel though. If Jonathan King is reading this - and stranger things have happened - maybe he could give a date for the visit to Hawaii.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


lol, what Ian said. Empeorersclothes (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
as you have found out that this claim may be not true, as the Beatles werent actually there, I expect that there will be a update that he got the place wrong once he has seen where they actually where that year! Empeorersclothes (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
reading that chapter in his book he says he met their publicist Dereck Tailor in Melbourne Australia in 1964 who told him where Epstein was staying in Hawaii.Gary Bern (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've made various edits to restore reliably sourced material in the article. If any of these edits gets reverted - and that means any of them - I will request semi-protection and a sockpuppet investigation. We cannot keep going round in circles like this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite right. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed that in the last few months there's been a sporadic increase in SPAs making small changes "improving" the article from JK's perspective (often on longstanding themes) and now that seems to be joined by IPs from the "other side". I don't know if one activity provokes the other but it seems to be coming to a head. Agree that if this carries on some sort of protection should be sought. DeCausa (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
We have discussed the fact that he seems to have produced at least four tracks with the Bay City Rollers, two of which were released.Gary Bern (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the Bay City Rollers inaccuracy and also Epstein see below.Gary Bern (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Restored previous links 109.26.219.36 (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

It looks like the same circular edits are being made and reverted again. To prevent this from happening, please raise the issues on the talk page first. Also, please bear in mind that it is time consuming for other editors to check a long series of edits. Again, the page is close to having semi-protection and a sock puppet investigation, as the circular editing usually involves the same disputed edits made with little or no discussion on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please list which edits you object to and I will discuss? No-one seemed to mind when "world wide hit" for example was added, and that another band 20 years later had a hit with a song he also covered? Lets make this article fair, not biased towards the subject please109.148.27.222 (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to make a point by point rebuttal at the moment. Some of the edits have been discussed before.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick line of thanks to Ian and others who have taken this article on - it was always one of the worst examples on Wikipedia for aggrandisement (I hesitate to insert 'self' before that word, because of course there is the 0.0001% chance it would be an uncharitable observation) and I'm cheered to have returned to it for the first time in months to find the most obvious canards ('he ran Decca Records', and 'his appeal is being considered by the European Court of Human Rights') removed and the article seemingly rewritten in a far more accurate and appropriate style. Well done chaps, nice work. 92.21.205.29 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree except it has gone too far. There are many things missing that I'm sure I remember. And the above is also true. What was all that about "did he or didn't he meet Epstein" when it doesn't seem to matter anyway. Did they ever work together? I'm sure I read that his appeal WAS considered by Europe. 213.174.123.195 (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I read this in King's official biography, which says " In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights accepted his submission that, by changing the dates on the charges after his defence had been completed, his conviction was unsafe. The Court is still considering his evidence." However, I could not find any reference to this in a search on the ECHR/HUDOC website or other source. As ever, it is a non-starter without some reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
really hate to get involved again Ian but found this http://www.standard.co.uk/news/jonathan-king-wins-right-to-appeal-to-europe-over-his-convictions-for-sexual-assaults-on-teenage-boys-6646017.htmlGary Bern (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. 2007 is a long time ago, so did anything ever come of this? I know it takes a long time to hear cases in Europe, but it might not be notable enough to mention in the article unless something had come of it. As far as I can see, none of King's 2001 convictions have ever been appealed successfully.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
no idea and dont really care but comments like above saying it wasnt being considered arent right. like all the epstein stuff. seems to be some people who want to blur lines like the Rollers singles.Gary Bern (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no record whatsoever of it being listed for hearing at ECHR (records are available to the public online), nor any such listing taking place, nor any orders or judgement from any hearing. More likely someone filled in the ECHR Application form and sent it off, then nuanced this into 'his case is being considered'. Furthermore any prisoner released on parole is unlikely to achieve that release (certainly on first application) without admitting their crimes and agreeing some sort of plan to prevent re-offending. This is particularly true of those found guilty of sex offences against young children. 92.21.205.29 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. But if we assume the links are right and there's a copy of the ECHR letter on his site, should we assume he DIDN'T get first parole half way through his sentence? But there are enough links to show he did. So why? Agreed his never accepted the convictions and never said he was guilty so cannot have done any courses. Something very odd. 41.143.46.40 (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the current wording in the article, which says "He appealed his case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the European Court of Human Rights, but both upheld his convictions". There is no evidence that the ECHR has ever heard a case involving King, and the sourcing does not support the claim that the Criminal Cases Review Commission upheld the conviction, only that King's case was referred there. Some more detail on this and the parole here. It is worth noting that Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster) is now in prison himself, like Max Clifford.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see a problem. That sentence includes as an inline citation the Chalmers piece from 2012 which says "He has attempted to appeal in Brussels and elsewhere, without success." The other citations bring up the CCRC. To me the "and elsewhere" covers it. DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
IIRC, it used to say something more like "...but without success", as in the source you quoted. I don't think that, technically, either the CCRC or the ECHR ever uphold convictions - the most they do is uphold or reject complaints. Formerip (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, King may have filed appeals to these bodies that fizzled out for some reason. I am wary of giving the impression that the EHCR in Strasbourg ever heard a case in open court involving King, when there is no evidence that it has.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Eurovision

I attended the Swedish Embassy discussion which was very interesting. Many Eurovision fans regard the Gina G entry as the best ever UK contender. Something proved by the success globally. It was even a big hit in America. That's why I added the mention for it in the King main article here. The general feeling during the debate was that 1995 onwards was, during King's tenure, the golden age for not only the UK but Eurovision generally. As illustrated by the ratings. NewKingsRoad (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There is an element of subjective validation here, as wording along the lines of "many fans believe" is WP:WEASEL. King can rightly claim to be the last person to have overseen a UK win in the contest, which was in 1997.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
True enough. Can't speak for anyone else! NewKingsRoad (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Productions and Label Hits

Trying to compile a correct list of chart hits under this category. Any help would be appreciated.213.152.6.214 (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

What are "label hits"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
From this edit, it appears to be records that King produced but did not sing on them.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Those are his productions, but I don't know what his "label hits" might be. I'll remove those words from the heading. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I was at the Carol King musical then read the Jonathan King Spectator link. Thought of Mickie Most and Bob Crewe and Bert Berns and others like that and thought there are many King hits - some on his label - not listed. But "others" is a far better category. 213.152.6.214 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Top of the Pops

Watching the repeat of Top of the Pops from 1980 on the BBC last night, King appears with Rubik's Cube and mentions his Radio One show. I seem to remember he also did a Radio Four slot like Alistair Cook's Letter From America. None of these are in the Wikipedia article which seems to miss out an awful lot.Majestic2016 (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

One of the radio slots was A King in New York which was on Radio 1 circa 1980 on Saturdays at 2 PM. Unfortunately, this seems to have fallen off the radar of reliable sourcing. The Top of the Pops episode was from 18 September 1980 and was on BBC4 at 1:15 this morning. Thanks to the iPlayer link, here is a screen shot of King with Simon Bates and the Rubik's Cube, which was launched in 1980. Given what happened with the 1976 episode with It Only Takes a Minute, this shows that the BBC has kept its word not to remove King from future repeats of TOTP. I'm not sure if this is notable enough for the article in its current form. Maybe some eagle-eyed viewer will complain about King's appearance on BBC4. I remember from one episode of Entertainment USA, King tried to bring back an alarm clock in the shape of sticks of dynamite, but was stopped at the airport. Maybe this is in the BBC archive somewhere. ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes its the reliable sourcing problem that worries me about many Wikipedia articles which seems to disregard interesting events because of the lack of "reliable sourcing" except in Wikipedia itself! Majestic2016 (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Video

Here is an edited version of the video. The problem is that there is no online sourcing about A King in New York. It seems to have failed to attract the attention of historians. The video clip here is copyrighted, so it could not be used as a citation, per WP:YOUTUBE. King says that Rubik's Cube is "a new irritating American game" in the video, but Ernő Rubik is Hungarian.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

There was a piece in one of the British papers a couple of days ago about King and Elton John too. None of this 1980s information is much reflected in the main Wiki article. Majestic2016 (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything from a Google search, do you have a link? King did interview Elton John at least twice, as this YouTube video shows. It isn't practical for the article to list everything that King ever did, although it would be useful to mention A King in New York if some sourcing could be found. I don't think that the Rubik's Cube appearance on TOTP in 1980 is encyclopedically notable in itself, and while YouTube videos contain a lot of interesting archive material, they are generally banned as a source on Wikipedia because they were taped off the television and are copyright violations. King discusses the Rubik's Cube episode on TOTP on his website here. Simon Bates says at the start of the show that there are problems (a strike, so there were no live acts on the show that week) so JK was asked on and he brought back a Rubik's cube. King says that "as a direct result they became very popular later in the decade." This is something of a bold claim, although it may have been an early appearance on the television for the cube.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a good article about the launch of the Rubik's Cube in the UK here. Although they were launched in the UK in late 1980 and were intended to be popular in the 1980 Christmas market, a shortage meant that they did not take off until 1981. King's demo was probably one of the first times that it appeared on British television.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Good link Ian. It also mentions deely boppers which I'm sure King introduced on TV too. For the Elton story Google Mail Hardcastle Elton John Jonathan King. Found a photo on his site. I'm not sure any are worth individual mentions but the numerous items imply that the tone and coverage in the Wiki article are less than accurate. Majestic2016 (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The Elton John article is by Ephraim Hardcastle in the Daily Mail here on 8 July, while the blog piece it refers to on King's website is here. This is another example of a King anecdote which is based on personal recollection. Hardcastle's theory "Is this revenge for Sir Elton failing to support King when he was jailed for seven years in 2001 for sex with underage boys?" is speculative. The Mail did not mention the Rubik's Cube appearance, as it could have done. Some people on Twitter were very upset, and this person probably had to go and lie down afterwards.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan King and Edward Heath

Before anyone asks, this blog piece in The Spectator is not notable enough for a mention in the article. King offers his personal opinion that Edward Heath was not gay because he failed to seduce him on a flight from Scotland to London.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

His conviction

I edited the page to reflect that he is also known as a convicted child abuser , this was edited shortly after could anyone explain why please? I would state the case that he is more well known for his child abuse than a pop singer/promoter at this point in time. Darthbaz (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the latest in a long line of circular edits on this theme. I don't think that saying that he is a child abuser is suitable for the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
He is not a "child abuser". He is a gay man one or two of whose sexual partners were below the age of consent. There is a big difference. -- Alarics (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Below the age of consent? That would be child abuse and he was convicted and served a prison term .If they were girls he would have been charged with rape. Darthbaz (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes are for presenting a summary of information. Saying "he's a paedo" in the infobox is too tabloid and ignores all of the other things that King did in his career. This is better dealt with later on in the article. WP:BLP applies here, and unless the article is about a crime, there is no need to mention criminal convictions in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that for me. 

Darthbaz (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

weird minority impact of what ALL people consider stained his career.

We have people putting up pictures of certain folks with bars over them for tax fraud but not others for millions of dollars of tax fraud. And now this guy gets ONE line about sex-crime with children?!?! I'm beginning to think this wikipedia is curbing what it doesn't want to be seen. Found Genesis so he must remain spotless? is it that nonsense? or one of the NEUTRAL arbitrators just won't allow his perversion to be big in the way that tax crime is on pages realted to others. Messed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaSwavo (talk • contribs) 23:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

King arrested

In the news here. I wasn't sure about adding this on WP:NOTNEWS grounds. Given that some of these police operations seem to be becoming increasingly speculative, the acid test is whether any charges follow.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I might normally have waited, per WP:CRYSTAL, to see if it comes to anything substantial. However, no doubt, a myriad of IPs etc would soon come by trying to add non-NPOV wording so, pragmatically, it's probably best that you've added it now. DeCausa (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it just a co-incidence that just as he starts appearing in the media again - Spectator, Mail, Standard and so on, talking about false accusations specifically Heath and Proctor, this happens? Obviously not something for the main article but worth considering here?109.144.241.105 (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, perhaps. It is unclear why the Walton Hop claims have resurfaced in Operation Ravine, which has been running since late 2014, but presumably someone went to the police and started making complaints. Good coverage from getSurrey here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
King says on his website that the claims against him had nothing to do with the Walton Hop. Is he lying? In which case - why? 109.144.241.105 (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM here, we will have to wait to see how it turns out. King has posted on his website about the arrest here. The Surrey Police statement is here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Not for the article - as you say, WP:NOTAFORUM but I'm intrigued by the background to this. Read the Spectator piece plus the comments - fury he is allowed to write - and then this http://annaraccoon.com/2015/09/11/publish-and-be-damned/ 31.54.202.204 (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Joe Meek

Researching Joe Meek I find many mentions of Jonathan King but nothing here in his Wikipedia entry. Any reason for this? Was he recorded by Meek? Did he make tribute songs about him? 41.250.174.155 (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Not that I know of via reliable sources. King, however, has recorded a song about Meek, which is on YouTube here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
King's appearance in the 1991 BBC Arena documentary The Strange Story of Joe Meek is on YouTube here, but "This video previously contained a copyrighted audio track. Due to a claim by a copyright holder, the audio track has been muted" so we can't hear what he says.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • After some further searching on YouTube, here is King's appearance in the documentary and this time we can hear what he says about Meek.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
In Chapter 7 of his autobiography 65 My Life So Far King writes "“OK,” he [Meek] said, “I’ll give you a shot. We’ll do your song ‘All You’ve Gotta Do’ for the ‘A’ side and one of mine – ‘Every Time’ for the ‘B’. Here’s an acetate of that song. Take it away and learn it and come in with your group next week on Tuesday to record both tunes.” I was ecstatic! Brilliant! He could have raped me on the spot and I’d have thanked him profusely! His song was appalling – but, then, so was mine. I, of course, thought it was fantastic." and "We left to go home and prepare for the call to stardom. It never came. The songs were never released. My phone calls were politely brushed aside. Joe had obviously decided they weren’t that great. He was right, but there were kinder ways to let a kid down. Bluntness was not his way." King tells a less detailed version of this in the Arena documentary. So although King says that he was recorded by Meek, he also says that the songs were never released, which is why there is no record of it in reliable sources. Like other things raised on the talk page in the past, this comes back to material sourced to King.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jonathan King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Claimed innocence

I've reverted mention of his claimed innocence, which was added to the lede - [1]. He would, wouldn't he? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You asked for a source. No mention of it not being worthy of the lead then. One was provided. Then you state it's not good enough to be in the lead. Why ask for a source to back up the claim to be provided if you don't consider it worthy of mention in the first place? 82.45.239.158 (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I also fail to see what you mean by "he would, wouldn't he"... stating he claims his innocence (which he does) is not an endorsement. The reader will reach their own opinion on the matter. It is not up to Wikipedia to exclude such information because people (me included) doubt he is telling the truth 82.45.239.158 (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

No - but the important fact is that he was found guilty. His claims of innocence are covered in the section on 2000s-2010s. However, it's undue weight to include them in the introductory paragraphs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, I still fail to see why you asked for a source to be given if you were of the view it was not important enough to be part of the lead anyway. As for him being found guilty, all those wrongfully convicted had been found guilty (not that I'm saying I think he is innocent. Thankfully I wasn't part of the jury on this one though). Wikipedia is there to educate and allow the reader to form their own views on said matters. Not everyone is going to read the whole article, and thus equal balance should be given to introductions as well. 82.45.239.158 (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

We've been through this before, and there is an element of WP:RGW in saying in the lead section that King continues to protest his innocence. While this is true, journalists such as Lynn Barber have not questioned the guilty verdicts and King has never been able to appeal against them successfully. It is appropriate for the main body of the article to point out that King has maintained that he is innocent, but it is undue weight for the lead section.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Well I'm not going to fight this any further (as I have no warm fuzzy feelings for the man myself). However, I must say I doubt any journalist would question the verdict even if they thought he may not be guilty, seeing as they probably don't have great love for King either. Also, it would be something of a taboo in society to even claim you consider the mere possibility he may not be guilty seeing as in this world you can't do that without many people saying you must be a child abuser yourself. 82.45.239.158 (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for a "Free the Bayswater One" campaign. This isn't like the Birmingham Six case, where numerous journalists questioned the reliability of the 1975 verdicts. King has never had any appeal on these charges, because he was refused permission to appeal in January 2003 [2] and that appears to have been the end of the matter as far as the English courts were concerned. The case has never been heard in Europe, although King may have applied to do this. King has denied that some of the boys were 14 or 15 at the time, but has also said that the allegations against him were false. It was a man called K who set all of this off by going to Max Clifford, but K's allegations were never tested in court because they were due to be part of the third trial which was dropped. The article cannot say his due to a combination of legal issues and lack of sourcing. King insists that he never met K, who claims that he was abused by King at the age of 15.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I already said I wasn't going to challenge this further. That said, stating King denies he is guilty is hardly the "Free the Bayswater One Campaign" is it? 82.45.239.158 (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Just a bit of light hearted language. If King was going to challenge the convictions successfully, it would probably have happened by now. The Court of Appeal refused even to give permission to appeal in January 2003, which some people might find strange. The judge in the appeal court case was Sir Christopher Holland and he appeared to be dead set against the concept of the appeal. King had Giovanni Di Stefano as his lawyer at one point during the campaign to prove his innocence; like Max Clifford, he is now also in prison.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see it as lighthearted as it actually implies I believe in Kings innocence a hundred percent and want to see him exonerated, which I am not out to prove. If I was I would be spending my time taking to social media and setting up groups for that. Couldn't care less about that, it's not my fight, or my belief. As for everything else in your last comment I knew all of it. Thanks anyway. 82.45.239.158 (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I apologise if this was found offensive, as it wasn't meant to be. It was based on something that Lynn Barber said in the October 2002 piece in The Observer, where she wrote "I told him from the outset that I was not going to write 'Free The JK One'. I believe he is guilty and quite rightly in prison. But I do think it's legitimate to worry about how he got there, when it seems that the whole case was an unholy stitch-up between the police and the tabloids." Like Lynn Barber, I do have some concerns about the trial and the refusal to allow an appeal in 2003, but that is the way it is. Overall, the Wikipedia article is a good deal fairer and more detailed than the usual coverage of the case in the UK tabloids.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
That it is, although that is not much of a compliment in itself. However, I do think the article is very well written overall and (as I said) am not challenging the removal of my edit 82.45.239.158 (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I would have thought it obvious that claiming his innocence clearly should not be in the lead but I do find it odd that his acquittal in the second trial is not there when the conviction is. Of course a conviction is a better media story especially for the tabloids but the acquittal is just as important in history, isn't it? Acquaduct (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it was "obvious" but as I had stated a few times now, I am not challenging this after the dialog on this page. That said, I do agree that his acquittal on the second round of claims is just as important as his conviction for the first lot. 82.45.239.158 (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
After reading the chapter on him mentioned here by another editor it seems his claims deserve examining. And glib comments like "he would, wouldn't he?" above tar that editor with the same brush as the Sun editor on Hillsborough. 109.26.219.36 (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

New book in the news

There is a new book featured in the news today, which casts doubt on King's 2001 convictions.[3] It is billed as new evidence, although King has said before that he was in New York in September 1985 with documents to prove it, and therefore could not have been in the UK at the time.[4] At the trial of Rolf Harris, one of the victims got the date of the Star Games incident wrong by a margin of three years.[5] Giving exact dates for incidents of historic sexual abuse can easily lead to this type of error.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is very disturbing. Is it a coincidence it runs the same week as the revelations about police behaviour at Hillsborough? And very strange that none of the information has made it into the media before, even social media or here on Wikipedia. It seems police control over available detail runs very deep. As you say above it seems quite common and surely not only here that observers wonder how many victims get dates wrong and other evidence wrong too. From the article it appears large sums of money were involved. Wonder if any of the police stories about Hillsborough were paid for too? 31.53.52.240 (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
During the trial of Jeremy Thorpe, Peter Bessell's credibility as a witness was undermined by a newspaper deal which would have benefited him financially if Thorpe was found guilty. Newspapers should in theory be careful not to offer this kind of deal before a trial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
That Mail article from the book really does indicate some of the King article here should be rewritten IMO. 109.26.219.36 (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I thought about adding this, but some people just hate the Mail as a source. There is also a somewhat misleading impression in the Mail article, because it gives the impression that Bob Woffinden's book is new evidence, although the claim that King was in New York in September 1985 first surfaced in 2006 at the time of the Criminal Cases Review Commission hearing of the case. As we know, none of the legal avenues has ever overturned any of King's convictions. On his website King of Hits, JK2006 (the man himself) comments: "Incidentally for anybody wondering why the CCRC (Criminal Case Review Commission) explained why they did not refer my case to the Court of Appeal, they said it is not when something happened but whether which matters. In a case where ONE SECOND was the difference between a serious crime (aged 15) or no crime at all (aged 16)."[6] Some of the people who commented on the Mail article pointed out that the receipt for the restaurant has an address in Clearwater, Florida, although the Mail has captioned it as New York. If Jonathan King is reading this (stranger things have been known) he might be able to explain this. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The £50K was more interesting I thought as you say above. I assume it was a chain restaurant like MacDonalds (Chicago). Good point about the one second ianmacm (Macdonalds???) 109.26.219.36 (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The £50,000 claim has WP:BLP and WP:RGW issues, as it hasn't been accepted by a court that this influenced what was said. The real problem is the dates, as King could not have been charged many years later if the accuser was over 16 at the time. Rolf Harris was found guilty on the Cambridge and Havant charges, even though the witness got the Cambridge date wrong by three years and it was not possible to pin down a date from contemporary records for the Havant incident, which was presumed to have happened in 1969.[7] However, a Wikipedia article cannot get involved in campaigning journalism and is constrained by the fact that the Criminal Cases Review Commission did not accept that King had been denied a fair trial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I tried to find what the Criminal Cases Review Commission said in detail about King's case but couldn't find any documentation online. There isn't anything on the CCRC website, http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/ . The CCRC did not refer the case back to the Court of Appeal, and that seems to be it as far as the UK courts were concerned; there has been no change in the status of any of the convictions.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
As the Mail said. I've ordered the book from Amazon. Telegraph today says only 612 out of 19,234 applications sent by CCRC to Appeal court. Something very wrong. 109.26.219.36 (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The book is incredible. Not just about King's case but many others. But someone should correct many of the glaring inaccuracies and mistakes in the main Wiki article here after reading the chapter on King. 109.26.219.36 (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Please name the "glaring inaccuracies". Every effort has been made to get things right within the limit of the sourcing available. As I've said, Bob Woffinden's 2016 book The Nicholas Cases: Casualties of Justice isn't really offering much new, as the Criminal Cases Review Commission looked at this evidence and King's convictions are still standing, much like Elton John. The Wikipedia article is constrained by WP:RGW.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
You've the advantage on us of having read the book. My copy is ordered. It seems this should be a good source as he appears to be a very respected journalist with his discoveries going deeper than both prosecution and defence lawyers. But I wonder about the Wikipedia constraints you refer to. Did Wikipedia continue to carry the press, police and court lies about Hillsborough until the Coroner finally found the truth? What are the rules regarding truth? Do we Wikipedians regard courts as always getting it right? Or should we reflect loudly proclaimed doubts and evidence to the contrary? Take the CCRC (above). Is their decision to be respected above Bob Woffinden's? And is Elton John still standing or sitting down whilst any court considers his privacy?Acquaduct (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Obviously I can't comment on Elton John and his privacy due to some strange form of memory loss which is occurring at the moment. WP:RGW makes clear that Wikipedia is not about campaigning journalism either for or against a particular person. Just a thought: Even if King succeeded in overturning some or all of the accusations, would it make much difference? It didn't for Jeremy Thorpe or Michael Barrymore. There is more to a situation like this than simple guilt or innocence in a court of law.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A good point (and Leslie) but to be honest I'm not too bothered in the careers of celebs or others; it is more - what is the point of Wikipedia unless it can reflect and illustrate the truth and reality as it happens. As with Hillsborough, the outcry against the behaviour of the police and media has, after 27 years, changed public opinion. I read Dominic Lawson in today's Mail. Quite astonishing in a right wing paper. Would Wikipedia 27 years ago have reflected that side of opinion? And should it not, now, reflect the changing court of public opinion? Acquaduct (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Missing details from the Woffinden book and other places

Missing from the Wiki article are several facts that I found interesting. Surely they should be included?

He ran Decca Records and persuaded Mick Jagger to record Honky Tonk Women and You Can’t Always Get What You Want.

He never took drugs but he guided John Lennon through LSD trips.

He gave Jimi Hendrix somewhere to stay when he arrived in London and played him the original US version of Hey Joe.

He sold over 40 million records as a singer and many more as a producer and label boss.

He broke the news about John Lennon’s shooting to the BBC.

He discovered and broke Who Let The Dogs Out?

King was about to take over as Chairman of EMI Records worldwide when police knocked on his door.

Should these not be a part of the article? Acquaduct (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I've seen some (but not all) of these things before, and they are largely traced back to things that King has said in the past. This leads to an element of WP:AUTO, as there may not be secondary sourcing for them.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jonathan King. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"Record Producer of the Year" claim

Added some missing info culled from Billboard and other sites. Acquaduct (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The information added is not supported by the cited source, so I have removed it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Apologies - added the Word SINGLES which is the correct wording in the source. Acquaduct (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Link to correct wording [1] Acquaduct (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
So the question now is whether "top singles producer in the Music Week 1971 chart survey" is sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned here. I don't think so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Not here perhaps but in the main article surely yes. If the track mentioned deserves a Wikipedia article, I think it should be in the King article. Acquaduct (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be difficult but since the track is worthy of listing in his productions below, surely it should be mentioned in the main article? And the credit for being the top singles producer in that year is enormously significant, isn't it? What am I missing? Acquaduct (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, there is absolutely no need to mention all his hits in the article text - only if sources suggest that they were particularly significant in some way. Secondly, there is no indication of the significance of being "top singles producer in the Music Week 1971 chart survey" - it certainly doesn't sound like it was a significant award. Thirdly, the source you provided doesn't mention sales figures for the St Cecilia record. There is no consensus to add that information, and you need to be aware of policy on edit-warring. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=-ycEAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA51&lpg=RA1-PA51&dq=record+producer+of+year+1971+music+week&source=bl&ots=6OiKhHrFWo&sig=Xg26ADBlrR2y569UynYb8K21ZHg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidr6CNt6TNAhVK6xoKHXK-Bp4Q6AEINjAF#v=onepage&q=record%20producer%20of%20year%201971%20music%20week&f=false
Fair enough I'll leave it to you. You obviously know more about editing and Wikipedia than I do. Sorry to interfere. Acquaduct (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_King/Archive_4&oldid=1027151038"