Talk:Jonathan King/Archive 7

Source

This has been discussed before (see Archive). The Mail On Sunday is not generally considered a reliable source but the writer here has a section of his book The Nicholas Cases republished in it. He was a respected writer and his views should be included especially at this time when his other 2016 book Bad Show has been adapted for the ITV hit TV show Quiz. 86.165.59.88 (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, this article by Bob Woffinden, who was a serious writer, was in the Mail on Sunday, which is a different kettle of fish from Paul Dacre's WP:DAILYMAIL1, which is what led to the ban on using the Mail as a source. But who can ever forget [Porn really is bad for you! Lonely Japanese man who amassed a SIX-TON pile of dirty magazines died when it collapsed on top of him... and his body wasn't found for six months], which is the ultimate albatross around the neck of the Daily Mail. The serious point here is that if Bob Woffinden's article was in the Sunday Telegraph, it wouldn't be a problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Somewhere in the interminable discussions about whether to ban the Daily Mail are people, probably including me at some point, trying to argue that the "Mail on Sunday" should not have been included in the ban because it carries some respectable material and never had anything to do with Paul Dacre. (Actually neither did Mail Online -- or so Dacre always claimed -- and it was Mail Online, not the Daily Mail proper, that ran the story about the six-ton pile of pornographic magazines, and many similarly ludicrous items over the years.) It is admittedly rather confusiing that all three outlets share the same web domain, but people ought to have noticed these distinctions, which are noted in the byline of many articles, for instance the Woffinden article about Jonathan King is clearly bylined "By Bob Woffinden for the Mail on Sunday", while the piece about the porn magazines is bylined "By Gareth Davies for MailOnline". It was rash and sloppy of Wikipedia to embark on a blanket ban on anything and everything that appears at www.dailymail.co.uk. Personally, I would ban everything that has ever appeared under a "MailOnline" byline, plus anything from the Daily (Monday to Saturday) Mail during the Paul Dacre editorship (1992 to 2018) (but not pre-1992 when for decades it was a pefectly respectable middle-market broadsheet).

As for the Jonathan King article, I strongly think it should include mention of Woffinden's (and also Danny Finkelstein's) misgivings about King's conviction. -- Alarics (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think your emphasis on Dacre is well founded and your concerns about the blanket ban may have some merit. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Alarics, The main problem with this is not the source, but the collision between opinion and legal finding of fact. Guy (help!) 14:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that Wikipedia is not allowed to report on any questioning, even by respected writers, of a court decision? -- Alarics (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Woffinden spent a large part of his time questioning famous court verdicts, eg Charles Ingram, the coughing major.[1] It's not off limits to mention doubts about the verdicts against King in 2001. King has argued that he is not guilty at all, but the real problem is that some of the boys may have been over 16 at the time, not 14 or 15 as the prosecution insisted. However, King was denied an appeal in 2003 and all of the verdicts are still in place.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a rather staggering thing to say. Plenty of convictions for all sorts of things are open to dispute, many long before they are eventually over-turned. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your comment, Nick. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If this is a reprint in the MOS from a book, then reference the book, rather than bending over backwards to include what's actually a secondary reference to article text that is already completely cited by the existing text - I really don't see how this passes WP:WEIGHT. There is nothing in the article text that requires this severely questionable source (so I've removed it again), and I would challenge under WP:BURDEN that this questionable source would constitute a sourced opinion of sufficient WP:WEIGHT to add to the article text - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

♦IanMacM♦: Nobody is suggesting that our article on King should fail to make clear that "all of the verdicts are still in place". My question to Guy above was: why are we not allowed to add that at least two respected writers have expressed misgivings about those verdicts? As it stands, the Woffinden and Finkelstein articles are both mentioned in footnotes but only in passing.

David Gerard: I would be happy to cite the book instead of the MoS, if I had access to the book, which at present I don't. It is true that the citation isn't necessary to support the existing text. But I would like to add a couple of sentences to the text, briefly summarising the points made by Woffinden and Finkelstein. At the moment, the article doesn't make it clear that some reputable commentators have had doubts about whether the convictions are safe. I think it should do. -- Alarics (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Alarics, when third parties discuss it. So, if there was an article in a reliable source (the Guardian, say, or the Telegraph or BBC) that noted the reservations expressed in these books, then we could cover it. Otherwise it looks like WP:UNDUE. Regardless of how much we might want a conviction to be sound or unsound, our personal preference doesn't count, and we don't get to quote-mine in support of it. We are not allowed to blaze the trail in righting great wrongs. Guy (help!) 10:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

several sources have picked up on this - times change and sources not allowed three years ago are now acceptable. https://barristerblogger.com/2018/08/08/the-collapse-of-jonathan-kings-trial-raises-questions-about-surrey-police-that-go-beyond-disclosure-failures/ 81.154.2.120 (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Then find ones that aren't deprecated, instead of continuing to edit-war the deprecated one in - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

When Bob Woffinden wrote the article in the Mail on Sunday, he was basically quoting material which was in his then new May 2016 book The Nicholas Cases: Casualties of Justice (price £20 from all good bookshops). This isn't really about whether the Mail is a reliable source, because the news article is basically an extended advert for the book. Would it be a problem to quote from the book directly?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, but for some reason you can see that others above are resisting this obvious move. Whenever the Daily Mail purports to be quoting a book, it's always a good idea to check the original text - I've repeatedly been amazed by how badly they mangle what they claim to be the text. (One example.) Never, ever trust the DM - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"Others above are resisting this obvious move"? Well I'm not. I wrote here on 16 April: "I would be happy to cite the book instead of the MoS, if I had access to the book, which at present I don't." -- Alarics (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Alarics, as would I, if any reliable secondary source supports its significance. The Grauniad, for example. Or the Telegraph. Guy (help!) 20:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

CAPITULATION! Clearly the Editor's obsession with eradicating any links to the Mail or associated publications will never be stopped no matter how many disagree with his or her extreme attitude so I have removed the link and simply expressed the points as agreed above. We all find the Mail frequently appalling but it is also frequently the only publication to dare cover areas ignored by the rest of MSM. I find the equally obsessive feminist agenda in The Guardian infuriating but as a less easy target blinkered Editors would not dare question it. Nowhere is perfect as Wikipedia often illustrates. But obsessives have more time on their hands so let us allow this Editor who "never, ever trusts the DM" have his or her way. 81.154.2.120 (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You mean, the general RFC from 2017, upheld again in 2019, that a broad consensus of Wikipedia editors considered the Daily Mail generally prohibited and nor should it be used as a source in articles? That's cos it's trash. If you want to argue for the use of the DM, then WP:RSN is vastly more likely to convince than complaining on a talk page about feminists - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The claims can't be left without any source(s). I'd be surprised if no secondary source could be found for Woffinden's book. The Finkelstein article The Times is pay-walled I think? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources added. David Gerard many would agree with you that the Mail is often trash. Many would add so are the Mirror, Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Express. So can be the BBC. ITV. Sky News. Dare I say it - Wikipedia? But all also are sometimes correct. Sometimes brave. Sometimes crusading. A blank condemnation says more about the bias of the editor than the complexity of publications. 81.154.2.120 (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I have never found The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Times or the BBC to be anything even close to "trash". If you have any single example of where you think any of these have, I'd be interested to see it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a battle so there's no "capitulation". The standard remains as it always was: if the claims of unsoundness are reported in reliable independent secondary sources then we can cover them. The Daily Mail is unreliable and primary for these claims. Guy (help!) 16:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I thought Woffinden's book The Nicholas Cases: Casualties of Justice was the primary source and his summarizing article in the DM was sort of "primary-and-a-half-ish". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly Martinevans123 surely that has been the point of this Source section? 81.154.2.120 (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose someone could actually buy the book and read it directly, instead of having this circular argument about whether the Mail is a suitable source for quoting from it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"I didn't get where I am today at Wikipedia by buying books and reading them." CJ 123 (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes you can read inside a book with Amazon and Google Books, but you can't buy a book every time it is mentioned in a Wikipedia article. Even If I did buy The Nicholas Cases: Casualties of Justice, there wouldn't be much point if someone was going to say that it was not a notable/reliable source etc. Where are we on this issue?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ianmacm, it's primary and we can cover it when reliable independent secondary sources discuss it. It's not hard to find single books making claims of innocence for high profile figures, and we're not qualified to evaluate the significance of such claims. Guy (help!) 09:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ian, I'm sure you'd want to read the book, just to make sure any secondary source accurately reported it. [2] Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

King's removal from the sex offenders register

Re this edit: it's interesting, but as usual it cannot be sourced to a tweet, blog post etc per WP:SPS. The tweet is here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's worth including as it appears to be a legitimate copy of the letter. 81.159.137.160 (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This leads to a rerun of the sort of debate that we have had many times. There is also a thread about this on King's website, with the added bonus of a YouTube video where King discusses this (in front of a backwards clock). The letter is also shown at around 1:15 in the video. But as usual, blogs, tweets, YouTube videos etc are not considered to be a reliable source by WP:SPS. This is why I reverted but left it on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Point taken; have clarified accordingly. I think there is a need to adapt definitions as times change. 81.159.137.160 (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Sun article

Tried to add link to main article but failed. Help! https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12179094/bbc-tim-davie-jonathan-king-music/ 217.19.155.205 (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don’t try - no tabloid sources thanks. WP:BLPSOURCES applies.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It is generally agreed that nothing on Wikipedia should be sourced to The Sun. Although the headline is not "Jonathan King ate my hamster" it would be unsuitable if the only source was The Sun (for which King used to write a column). As ever, there is more detail on King's website, and the letter from Tim Davie is here. It's a rather bland and brief affair, and doesn't add much to what is already known. Davie says that there is no outright ban on King's music being played or his appearing on television, and that it will be judged on a case by case basis. However, we do know that King's inserts from the 1980s TOTP shows were dropped from the BBC4 repeats. He hasn't been seen since the Rubik cube insert with Simon Bates in July 2015, which produced one complaint from a viewer that was not upheld.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Very hard to know which sources should be included. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8835884/BBC-apology-to-Jonathan-King-after-he-is-cut-from-repeat.html 217.72.104.190 (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "on a case by case basis" was used in December 2015 after the BBC did not uphold a complaint about King's Rubik's Cube appearance on TOTP.[3] In this respect, Tim Davie's letter is not new because it uses the same phrase. The article mentions the 2011 apology from Mark Thompson, but it is harder to source the fact that King has not appeared in a repeat of TOTP since 2015.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Transcript of Judge comments at 2018 trial

Whilst searching this link is important. 81.154.229.28 (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

https://barristerblogger.com/2018/08/08/the-collapse-of-jonathan-kings-trial-raises-questions-about-surrey-police-that-go-beyond-disclosure-failures/

and http://www.chrissaltrese.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/King-Further-abuse-ruling-redactedapproved.pdf 81.154.229.28 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The first is a blog source and the link to the PDF doesn't work. As ever, we should stick to secondary sources and avoid rummaging around in blogs and primary documents.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, this was previously discussed here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Convicted sex offender

Why arent we including this in the opening sentence? Xiamatt (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Because he was famous, for very different reasons, long before he was convicted of anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but now that he is convicted dont you think it is kinda notable? Xiamatt (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly notable. That's why the lead section has a whole paragraph on it, with five sources. I guess the lead section is trying to maintain a chronological flow. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and it is about emphasis. As with Rolf Harris and Gary Glitter, King was famous for many years in the pop music industry before the sex offence convictions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Missing info

Have just seen the documentary on Who Let The Dogs Out - added a link and mention. https://variety.com/2019/film/news/who-let-dogs-out-documentary-director-interview-1203159482/ 86.140.208.157 (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

"He [King] features heavily in the award winning documentary about the song", says one of the edits. Yes, but the Variety source doesn't mention King by name at all, so it cannot be verified from the source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Strangely muted Wiki page

Just logged onto the page after hearing a track of King's on radio. Was astonished by how many hits he had. Then searched for some of the movies. Again, incredible view counts for almost every one. Is Wiki censored? And if so, by whom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.80.66.57 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The above is suspected of being JK himself, and of edits to the page itself to present the legal issues from his perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.215.42 (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia (note name) is edited by volunteers and a lot of people don't seem to understand that this means what they think might be censorship is just the volunteers priorities, knowledge or the information they have time to find sources for. If you know of sourced information that should go in, either edit the article or suggest it on the talk page. Signatures here are effected by typing four tildes (4x~) by the way. Britmax (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Nobody bothers with the washed-up ex-con any more. We're all busy editing Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos. Did someone say lukewarm? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It comes down to coverage in reliable sources. I don't think that King's self-produced movies are anything like as famous as he likes to claim on his website, but that's just me.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Certainly correct if you're judging views by cinema attendance. Were any of the films shown in cinemas? But these days some movies seem to be getting watched at home via online through You Tube, Vimeo and others and these appear to be viewed a lot that way. 81.154.207.14 (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what Branson and Bezos have to do with it but just watched his new movie on You Tube and heard his hit about the moon at the end of a Netflix film. Wikipedia seems strangely out of date or selective. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWhPcPA17Zw 81.159.137.208 (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It comes down to sourcing as usual. When I did a web search on "The Great ReSet (It's Good News Week) A 2022 Movie" the only result it brought up was the movie itself. In plain language, nobody else seems to have heard about it and written about it. But it does indeed feature Jonathan King right at the end, with his 1965 Top of the Pops appearance introduced by Jimmy Savile. And King has mentioned it on his Twitter account.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, the kiss of death for any film, I would think. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Only 24K views so far but it is on preview. 86.165.59.16 (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWhPcPA17Zw 86.165.59.16 (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a lot of film to sit through just to get to 1:59:06. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Troll edits

The main article had radical changes made to it by the above URL which have now been returned to their previous state.217.19.155.202 (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I've just removed a paragraph you restored as it had fake/ non-content sourced. All the other material you have restored needs to be checked. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The person complaining of about troll edits is suspected as being JK himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:BC00:9404:314E:8CAC (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

as requested

the link required

https://twitter.com/kingofhits/status/1302938849270693888 178.249.184.66 (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

That is a primary source, we need independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this topic here and not edit warring. Are you the same IP editor who started the thread immediately above? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

IP 178, here you are now edit warring. If you continue you'll be blocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Given it appears to be JK himself a block is warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:BC00:9404:314E:8CAC (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Addition to infobox

I propose the addition of "child sexual abuse" (or simiar) to the "known for" parameter in the infobox, because, who would've thought, that's what he is also known for. ---FMSky (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The "known for" field in Template:Infobox person is a bit of a disaster area in my view. King's primary source of notability - without which he would not have a Wikipedia article - is his work in the pop music industry. If Kenneth King from London had been convicted of sexual offences, he would not have a Wikipedia article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Quite so. His sex convictions are obviously not what he is *primarily* known for, except perhaps to those who are unduly obsessed with such matters. -- Alarics (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I would not deny that King is indeed "known for" his illegal penchant for teenage boys. Many Wikipedia readers may not have even heard of 10cc or the Bay City Rollers. But exactly how does one gauge what a celebrity is really "known for"? Trying to compare Google hits is not going to work here, as most of King's fame came long before the internet was invented? An info box entry of "Pop music, discovery of Genesis, early 10cc and Bay City Rollers hits, and child sexual abuse" might look a bit odd, for various reasons. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Visiting for the first time it seems that some editors are obsessed with the conviction more than with the two Not Guilty verdicts. I would have thought after the Sir Edward Heath police situation that aspect of his prosecution was as significant yet is hardly touched upon. Is he still appealing his conviction? Agreed many may not of heard of 10cc or the Bay City Rollers but his discovery of Genesis must rank him as far more important in the music of the past Century than this "illegal penchant for teenage boys" which is only illegal for 3 of the 7 teenage years surely? Comprenez (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

There have been 3 trials, and the results being 1 guilty, 1 not guilty and 1 abandoned. This is from legitimate references. The claim of 2 not guilty verdicts is false, and is unsupported because the references were inaccurately described. This article has suffered from such for many years. This distortion, misrepresentation and inaccuracies appears to be undertaken JK himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:BC00:9404:314E:8CAC (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the details but my suggestion was made in good faith. Comprenez (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Aside from misrepresented the outcome of criminal trials your earlier comment of his "illegal penchant for teenage boys" which is only illegal for 3 of the 7 teenage years" seriously downplays that he was found guilty of the sexual abuse of minors. The reports of his activities, including comments from a judge and his victims, should be clear evidence of his crimes and the long-term effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:BC00:9404:314E:8CAC (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutral point of view issues

The following has just been reverted: [4] by User:Gsquaredxc. This appears to follow a message on their user page by User:Comprenez, see [5].

Please note:

• My recent edits are all supported by appropriate references, and correctly reflect the content of the references.
• The content to which User:Comprenez appears to want either are unsupported, or have references which do not support the content.
• User:Comprenez has a history of claiming 'trolls', see above on this Talk page, for content which is accurate and supported by appropriate references, but is not supportive of the particular views held by Jonathan King.
• This page has a long history of edits which are unsupported, use references which do not support the content and support a very particular point of view.

Worth considering: [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.198.31 (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Reverts to the current fully supported version of the article are requested to cease until consensus is reached here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.198.31 (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP, I was just debating placing the WP:NPOV tag on the article so I have done so now. I also updated the section header to something more conducive to productive discussion. You are welcome to amend but please do not attack other editors. I also suggest posting a note at the NPOV and BLP noticeboards (linked) to get gain the attention of other editors. S0091 (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm worried that the POV tag may give the impression that there is more controversy than there actually is. There is a long history of possible WP:COI and WP:SOCK editing in this article, and it is impossible to please everyone, particularly if they have axes to grind. Also, a POV tag should be accompanied by specific suggestions for improvement on the talk page, rather than being a vague expression that "something needs to be done".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ianmacm I did that to encourage discussion rather than continuing the edit war but I see your point. In addition, the IPs causing most of the disruption were blocked as an LTA. Therefore, I will remove the tag. What a mess! S0091 (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not notice you already removed it but clearly I concur. S0091 (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Prose rewrite

reading over the various attempts to create an encyclopedic article regarding this dissolute entertainer, we were unable to find the word, "twee".

as this is a glaring omission and suggests a need for a rework of various other prosaics, we have decided to rewrite the entire article for prose and readability. thanks for helping us create an encyclopedia

any Saintstephen000 (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I assure you I am neither dissolute nor twee and many might equally comment I'm no entertainer. JK1944xx (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

from Jonathan King

I have received several boasts from trolls on my website KingOfHits.co.uk that they are removing social media accounts and accusing me of being Editors on this Wikipedia site including several of the identities above. Thank you genuine editors trying to keep the article accurate and fair. I assume I should only post here in the TALK section and not make corrections to the main article but most facts can be checked on my site which sometimes also includes links to other traditional media such as the BBC. Thank you all who try to keep it fair. JK1944xx (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

For FILMS could somebody add The Great ReSet (It's Good News Week) which can be seen online at www.thegreatresetx.com as well as on You Tube and most other streaming services. JK1944xx (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The article seems to me to be fairly accurate but an example of the failure of an Encyclopaedia edited by members of the public who get their information from trusted sources such as traditional media (excluding the subjects themselves - often dead - or those with an axe to grind - most of the troll edits seem to be from the same person using different URLs and names) is as follows. The "photos of teenage boys" found during the search of my home in 2000. Yes there were indeed photos - I was an early and prolific user of Polaroid. None were pornographic. Amongst the thousands were girls, elderly people, couples, celebrities - the ones of teenage boys were similar in quantity to those in the world around us. Only one was a black and white one of a child of about 10 or 11 in a swimming costume. Gleefully the police produced that and asked me who it was. "Me". Police, prosecution and media will twist facts to appear helpful. The reality is very different. The example is not important but illustrates the problems of a balanced report. Yes, it was mentioned in court - with no significance (or the photos would have been produced as evidence). But no Wikipedia editor could know the truth, and it was reported in one media article so is repeated here. I quite understand I cannot correct it, just as the boasting troll should not be allowed to make negative changes (the main one seems to be to add that I'm a Vile Pervert to the lead). But even balanced editors (dissolute - above - or MartinEvans' slightly dismissive asides) with best intentions can be hoodwinked. JK1944xx (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

JK editing again

Just noticed that JK had removed referenced content and returned unreferenced / distorted / inadequately supported claims .. all to present his version of the 'truth'. Some of this has been reverted but other may remain. But, undoubtedly he'll be back at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8E90:AE01:6CB5:494B:5978:CBC9 (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, he is so prolific that we may have to wait until he's deceased (or, at least, unable to fumble with a keyboard or mobile phone) before scrapping the article altogether and starting again with a far more succinct version. Little grape (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh Little Grape I only wish I was indeed as technically able as you say. JK1944xx (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

And checking on your TALK page I see you were blocked numerous times for Edit Warring (in 2009) and haven't used this name Little Grape since 2010. Welcome back. Unless, of course, you've popped up using other names.

JK1944xx (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Chart

I see on Twitter someone has put up today's chart from 1965 - I'd add it to the article but don't know how. If anyone does can they put it up? It shows King's first hit leapfrogging over the Beatles to Number One. https://www.radiolondon.co.uk/rl/scrap60/fabforty/65fabs/aug65/fab150865/fab150865.html 46.193.41.210 (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this leads back to King's Twitter account with the tweet here. We've also discussed this before. While "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" may have reached number one in some charts in August 1965, in the BBC charts which are the most commonly quoted and used by Top of the Pops, it reached only a highest position of number four.

This is a recurring theme for King. The very first thing that he says in Chapter One of Jonathan King 65: My Life So Far is that "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" is at number one in the charts: "It was a lovely afternoon on Saturday 21 August 1965 and the ocean was like glass... And then the current number one. A song which had leapfrogged the Beatles single, "Help", which had gone from three to two. Jumping over it from four to the top slot was a strange record by a young Cambridge University undergraduate: "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" by Jonathan King." The article does note that the pirate ship Wonderful Radio London gave the record its big break and helped to get it noticed. However, the charts used by a pirate radio station are not the same as the BBC charts. See also List of Fab 40 number-one singles, which is the chart in question.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

46.193.41.210 is NOT JK himself but indeed I did put up the info on my Twitter account; currently (after 14 years) taken down by Twitter. JK1944xx (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

46.193.41.210 may well be JK himself.