Talk:Jonathan King

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jonathan King article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 This is a heading to fix the TOC 2 Record Of The Year 3 Compensation 4 Current article violates LIVING policy 5 Is this true...? 6 thank you 7 Everyone's Gone to the Moon 8 Hello! 9 the conviction review thing..... 10 Opening section 11 "miscarriages of justice" 12 "over the age of consent" 13 discussion over lead 14 That's a good article.... 15 Re : Discussion Removed 16 Material from the History of the Page 17 we're after an honest record....... 18 The 'disgraced' reference 19 please don't put back broken references! 20 AVB very good points. 21 ...and here's a more philsophical wiki question..... 22 sorry 'bout the last edit summary..... 23 the veracity of King's campaign to quash convictions..... 24 'disgraced' in the lead.... 25 regarding recent bbc coverage 26 bbc and others 27 a collection of sources to consider when wording the lead...... 28 The Weight of careers.... 28.1 Press sources 29 quite serious... some analysis of the above and the page.... 30 Another go at the lead..... 31 Common Sense 32 the lead.... 33 ...and out of curiosity..... 34 3RR 35 Too much detail... 36 another angle.... 37 the new section.... 38 Illiterate editing 39 Belmarsh or Broadmoor....? 40 Acquittal 41 ..if you're in touch with JK 42 the judge's comments..... 43 market research thing.... 44 Decca 45 King 46 Worried 47 don't be worried..... 48 RAN Decca Records 49 More suggetions 50 some musings on weight..... 51 having watched the Earth To King blogs..... 52 Song for Europe 53 let it all hang out..... 54 changes..... 55 Harry Potter CD 56 di Stefano 57 Note of Changes 58 Infobox 59 Admission on under-age sex partners 60 Presence on the internet

[edit] This is a heading to fix the TOC

Just wanted to record my reasons for removing the reference to sex offences from the first paragraph. I'm no fan of the man, and the offences were appalling, but Jonathan King is only famous for his involvement in pop music. The sex offences, while extremely serious, are not the most important thing to say about him. The first sentence as it stands has 5 words about his music and 25 about sex offences. This is disproportionate. I feel the article has fallen into the common trap of stressing recent events too much. There's the same problem with the external links: 5 out of 8 links concern his sex offences. --Auximines 11:22, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Auximines comments from three years ago needed reviving - he was quite right and it was getting out of shape again! Meelar 13:03, 16 Jun 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about the case. It's just that unless it's in the lead, it gets buried in the bottom, and I thought we should put all important details in the lead for people looking for a quick overview. Best, Meelar 13:03, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As a compromise, how about a little more pop and a little less sex? :) Something like this:

"Jonathan King is the stage name of Kenneth George King (born December 6, 1944, London), a major figure in UK pop music. He has been a pop producer, singer, publisher and writer since the mid-1960s. He is currently in prison for sexual offences against boys."

And reduce the 5 sex offence links to 1 or 2.

P.S. Just noticed: it seems most of the first sentence was plagiarised from the first external link, so it needs rewriting somehow.

--Auximines 14:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're rewrite seems acceptable (again, I don't know anything about the case), although I'd suggest a little more specificity, e.g. "He is currently in prison for sex offences against (X) underage boys". As far as the links, I'd say leave them in--we have 3 pop and five molestation. If anything needs to be done, add another music link or 3--maybe some from his bands? Just my thoughts. Best wishes, Meelar 20:36, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

He's guilty, right? [posted 31/3/05 by anon IP - please sign your comments]

Look, wikipedia is not The Sun. We must keep NPOV, and not make any assumptions. These "He is guilty" comments in the main article are vandalism. If you want to masturbate over his presumed guilt then go and read the rhetoric in the tabloids. The JPS 23:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I came for first time to find out more about Entertainment in the USA - one of my cherished memories as a teen/twentysomething. It hardly mentions it but goes on about his convictions which we all know about anyway. Lots of biased commentary like "disgraced"; Oscar Wilde's Wiki concentrates on his brilliant plays, books and poems, noy on his being gay. For God's sake, Wikipedia is meant to be a balanced factual account, not a tabloid (see The JPS above). Jennifer

I don't understand the "presumed guilt". He was legally charged with the crime and served time, thus he's guilty.

I'm happy to concede that. It was a response to the sentence in the main article concerning an appeal, and also the amount of infantile 'he is guilty' comments. The JPS 10:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The only dodgy bit was the "delighted" adjectival phrase, which I've removed. The rest of it is absolutely fine. The JPS 22:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not. the line "to quash his convictions" is not needed and too non-NPOV. We already mentioned he claims to be innocent, so there is no need to add he is hoping his convictions will be quashed, all that's needed is a mention of a future appeal, unless (of course) any one can prove that JK will get his convctions quashed. 66.66.161.1 21:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious to know how he intends to quash them - as I understand it (and I can't find anything on on his site about this amongst the noise) he doesn't deny that sex happened, but says it was consensual. It may well have been, but at the time the age of consent for male homosexual acts was 21, and for indecent assault with someone under 16, there was also no defence of thinking that the person was, in fact, at least 16. Lovingboth 12:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The age of consent may have been higher in the past, but I don't think that is relevant to King's case. By the time King was convicted, the gay age of consent had been reduced to 16 - you cannot be convicted for doing something that's legal, even if it was illegal at the time that you did it. All of the charges King faced related to under-16s (specifically boys aged 14 and 15). As for his claims of innocence, at the time of his release he said: "I am not guilty of ever going with anyone who didn't want to go with me and I am not guilty of going with children." [1] Make of that what you will. 217.155.20.163 20:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore. Is the word "wealthy" needed? I haven't removed that yet, but unless anyone can prove he is wealthy (as of 2006) then I think this should be removed. JK himself has done nothing but moan and groan about how he's not got much money since he got out of jail. 66.66.161.1 21:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Record Of The Year

It's claimed here that King's "Una Paloma Blanca" was named "Record Of The Year" in 1975, yet later in the article the "Record Of The Year" phenomenon is credited to King himself! Did King's record "win" an award he himself invented?217.155.20.163 23:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think he won the 'Record of the Year' award at the Ivor Novellos in 1975. His 'Record of the Year' music awards started in 1998. Confusing!

like the idea above that he wrote this entry himself - wasnt he in prison when 99% of it was on here? or did he write it from prison? strikes me there are as many contributors with a negative agenda as there are positives.

JK has actually been out of the clink for quite some time. In any case, he is a bit of an internet fanatic - putting loads of video diaries onto YouTube, and you should look at the message boards on www.kingofhits.co.uk - loads of entries each day and at all hours of the night. I find it very difficult to imagine that somebody that internet-literate would not want to amend their Wikipedia entry. Anyway, wouldn't a solution to all of this suspicion be to lock amendment of his article to new/anonymous users? Milvinder 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Having said all of this, there are people who are anonymously editing the profile for the worse re: JK, although not so anonymously that they haven't discussed how they are doing it online at www.malesurvivor.org - one of the forums, couldn't find it on Google just now but you get a running commentary of how their edits get removed then they try putting them on again.

- - :Milvinder 17:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot stand JK or any of his music but Milvinder and 217 155 20 163 seem as biased against him as they claim the entry is possibly composed by his PR - so I spent some time checking the facts; for example, leaving the crimes aside, I found that ORSON were indeed ignored in Los Angeles where I happen to live and that it was JK who heard them after his release and raved about them on his Tipsheet Message Board..... here is an excerpt from another music site - the Record Of The Day in the UK.....

"Our music editor Joe Taylor first heard about Orson on a visit to the Tip Sheet messageboard. Joe tracked Orson down via MySpace and we took the decision to feature “No Tomorrow” as our daily soundclip on August 11. The response Orson received from being featured on RotD was phenomenal, though not surprising for a fully-rounded band who already had a completed album packed with hit songs. Crucially however, being featured as an RotD meant that our recommendation of Orson was sent to the inboxes of execs around the world, who were instantly able to hear the track, visit the band’s site and get their own feel for the group".

They seem to claim credit but admit it was JK who started it. I think the entry is reasonably fair and agree with The JPS above.

For the record, I'm not heavily biased against JK! I'm just being a bit of a devil's advocate, not to mention a bit of an anorak in trying to spot the signs of somebody editing their own profile, for example, if there is any positive news re: JK the profile is updated swiftly and anonymously, and any changes such as changing "boys" into "teenagers" are also anonymous. I don't suppose JK is the only celeb to edit their own profile but at least people shouldn't make it too obvious! If it were not for the likes of me then every celeb's profile would turn into a hagiography.

I'm not biased against King either - just wanted to point out some apparent anomalies in the article. I do like some of his music, for what it's worth! 217.155.20.163 23:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compensation

The Daily Mail on 19 February 2005 revealed £156,644 had been paid out in compensation to 14 men (he was only convicted of offences against five) by the Government compensation board (an indication of possible motive).

I'm curious to know how this compensation system operates, particularly in relation to the nine men that King was not convicted of offences against. How can one claim such compensation if it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt that a crime took place? 217.155.20.163 23:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that the system operates on the basis of proving liability on the balance of probabilities rather than guilt beyond reasonable doubt. OJ was sued by the relatives of the people he was acquitted of murdering, so I guess it's a bit like that. Milvinder 01:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current article violates LIVING policy

The last two sections have been removed in strict accordance with our WP:BLP policy. Please do not replace them until they've been fully referenced, citing reliable sources. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Constant vandalising by same user - suspect those noticed by Milvinder above; reverted.

If people really are trying to wreck JK's reputation by altering Wikipedia, I can't quite see the point as it's been given a pretty comprehensive kicking already and Wikipedia hardly has as much influence as The Sun.... Milvinder 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fed up with people trying to support King but even more those hiding their obsession behind bent logic. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. We give simple facts not emotive rubbish. All his career - good and bad - seems properly covered without playing silly games.

Wikipedia deals with facts not vendettas. The edits reverted by Milvinder, Clown, James and other admins show the intent of the changes and are childish and malicious.

I think this will probably be the last contribution I make to this debate or indeed the JK article. It's all turned into a running battle between anonymous users and those who try to delete their amendments, and I'm sure there are more interesting subjects covered on Wikipedia. Milvinder 10:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that some users' have made lots of edits to the JK page, mainly vandalism, but no other contribution to wikipedia. Is there not a policy of blocking further edits from the IP of users like this? DavidFarmbrough 09:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• This information is already in the introduction and from a neutral point of view. — ERcheck (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I said I wouldn't be joining the debate again but here goes... The contribution by Daveegan06 proves why this article is getting to be a good candidate for being protected by anti-vandalism measures. Contributions are supposed to be from a neutral point of view, and as ERcheck has said, it is already mentioned that he is a convicted paedophile. I don't see the point of these persistent subjective changes because as I've said before, his reputation is already pretty dire, if you asked people what word they most associated with 'Jonathan King' it would be 'paedophile'. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Milvinder 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's not really worth discussing the madness of the vandal; we might as well mention every individual member of Genesis and 10cc three or four times if we were to repeat endless items. I should write here that I was only inspired to look up this Wikipedia article after watching a TV show in which the accusers were clearly unreliable and I commented to my wife that it was extraordinary they had been believed and she said they hadn't; if I'd paid attention their allegations had been thrown out. I still cant stand King but the obsessive insanity of the vandals on here have made me (and my wife) far more sympathetic to the poor man. Or should I say the poor ugly man?

Well, as I said previously, it's not a matter of whether or not what you say is true. It's that Wikipedia isn't the right place to be making such attacks. If somebody has been convicted of something you are quite at liberty to set up your own website and say whatever you like there without the threat of libel. As for the victims being distraught on reading the Wikipedia entry, I wouldn't think they would be any more distraught than on seeing an advert with one of JK's tunes in it in which the word "NONCE" failed to appear in huge flashing letters all over the screen. The guy's been convicted so that should be the end of the matter really. Although some might take issue with the harshness of the penalty, the fact that he is guilty has already been proved (at least pending an appeal) so no need to keep highlighting the fact. Milvinder 18:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting how King's critics emphasise his "ugliness", as if that makes his crimes somehow worse. I suppose if he was a hunky 20-something male model, it would be perfectly alright for him to diddle around with younger boys? 217.34.39.123 11:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It already states that he has been convicted of sexual offences against teenagers, then in the second paragraph specifies exactly how old those teenagers were. A pretty unambiguous statement of fact which, along with other statements, means that the article is hardly a glowing testimonial. And whatever his crimes, and whatever one might think of his music, he did have a global hit with 'Everybody's Gone to the Moon', he was a top record producer etc. etc. So any neutral account would have to mention all of that as well. I believe that the article is pretty neutral in tone now (unlike when the subtle pro-King edits were being made). Milvinder 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this true...?

The article states "The convictions are currently being reviewed by the official Government body, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)." My concern is that this is a line that JK has given (like Jeffrey Archer's oft-mentioned appeal) and that it hasn't actually happened - I can't find a reference to a CCRC review on the BBC news website but if someone can source this it should remain - otherwise it should be modified to state that King intends to do this. DavidFarmbrough 15:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660558.stm

added to main article

If you check out the following hyperlink you will see his columns for Inside Time, the national newspaper for prisoners: http://www.insidetime.org/king.htm.

OK, so JK wrote it all but still it's from an independent publication so what appears there must be true. In his May 2006 column it says at the end that the matters were being referred to the CCRC, more recent columns haven't specifically mentioned about this, so what the exact state of play is, I don't know. I believe he is being represented by "lawyer" Giovanni di Stefano, so it may say something on his site. Things like this only tend to make headlines if the CCRC referral has been successful, if it hasn't or it's still work in progress they are hardly going to put out a press release. Milvinder 18:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"JK wrote it all but still it's from an independent publication so what appears there must be true" Sorry, but that isn't necessarily the case. The quote from King's May 2006 Inside Time column says in the third person (indicating that it was written by someone other than King, but not proving it) "He recently heard that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has decided to re-open their review into his convictions, as he discovered he was in America when one of the convictions was meant to have been committed in London". I don't have any axe to grind against him, but I think this article needs to be very carefully monitored to avoid POV. THE CCRC has a searchable database on its web site of those cases referred, and if this happened in May 2006, then seven months later, wouldn't this have happened by now? DavidFarmbrough 09:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont give a shit one way or the other and havent bothered to change it back but since there are dozens of links on Google (this taken from contact music) I think your axe is blunt David! Quote - "According to British newspaper The Mail On Sunday, CCRC commissioner TONY FOSTER has written a letter to King's lawyers, which reads, "I have decided that the Commission should accept your client's renewed application for review of conviction."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.7.244 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 21 December 2006(UTC)

It now seems to have gone the other way. I've adapted. Special:Contributions/Joneseyboy2007

Please, under no circumstances use the term "convicted paedophile", you are conflating two things (pedophilia, a mental affliction) with criminal behavior. Most pedophiles are not offenders (they are, rather, sad and lonely but law-abiding people) and most child sex offenders are not pedophiles (they are, rather, people who aren't picky about who they screw and have no character or impulse control). Use "child sex criminal" or something like that instead, thx. Herostratus 17:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• But, make absolutely sure that whatever you're saying is true and proven before saying it. 80.192.242.187 19:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.

Please elaborate, im not sure if im intrigued or just confused. cheersEnglandtillidie 18:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dave, stop it. It's been explained to you. Stop this childish, simplistic, tabloidesque vendetta. Reviewing your contributions, some the edits you have made are embarrassingly immature. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be carefully worded so not make Wikipedia look like a tacky tabloid. If the word 'pedophile' has POV/accuracy issues, then we should use more encyclopedic accurate language. This article is lacking inline sources, which is dismal for such a controversial figure. Please see Chris Langham as a fairly decent model of how to handle sensitive issues. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

WHAT IS WIKIPEDIA FOR? from Arthur Grant

I came here looking for the answer to a pub question last night "Who sang The Sun Has Got His Hat On in the 1970s?" (Answer Jonathan King under the name NEMO - I've added this - found it elsewhere). My parents know Jonathan King for the Moon song. I know him for Genesis and hits in the Seventies. My kids know him from Entertainment USA which they watched religiously. A friend who is a Eurovision nut knows him for steering the UK to a WIN in 1997. "Dave" under many names but similar spelling here knows him as a convicted sex offender. The main page rightly reflects all these things.

But this discussion page reads like the letters page of the News Of The World! Crazy nitpicking and tabloid insanity.

We check Wikipedia for accurate information about Roman Polanski's films, not hysterical claims about whether we should describe him as a convicted paedophile!

Facts not malice. As a point of accuracy, surely nobody is convicted of paedophilia just as nobody is a convicted heterosexual. ARTHUR GRANT (172.200.219.46 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)) 3 January 2007

As an aside, sexual attraction to teenagers is called ephebophilia, so maybe JK's offences were really ephebophilic in nature. But that's just splitting hairs over terminology, doesn't make such offences any less serious. Milvinder 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As the article says, ephebophilia is sexual attraction to pubescent adolescents, not teenagers per se. Sexual attraction to a physically mature 18-year-old would not (I hope!) be called ephebophilia, and the phrase "splitting hairs" is a little unfortunate given what's being discussed... ;-)

Anyway, all of these semantics arise from confusing paedophilia (which is a sexual orientation, or a psychological state, or whatever you want to call it) with actual, physical, crimes such as child molestation and making child pornography. Such crimes may be motivated by paedophilia, but that's not the same as paedophilia itself being a crime.

Calling someone like King a "convicted paedophile" is akin to calling someone jailed for bank robbery a "convicted greedy person". Firstly, it's very sloppy, and secondly, it presupposes that greed was the motive for the robbery. The phrase "convicted paedophile" may be a tabloid convention in Britain and elsewhere, but I don't think that's a good reason to use it in a Wikipedia article. AdorableRuffian 15:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

thanks to whoever redid the opening paragraph, it reads a lot fairer, and saves me getting into trouble again, cheersDaveegan06 01:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everyone's Gone to the Moon

If he was born in 1944, King was not a teenage undergraduate in 1965. IXIA 21:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he sang and recorded it as a teenager, then it was released when he was 21 - and add on some further delay between it being released and becoming a hit. Not that I'm an expert on the music industry or anything, but that's just a guess. Milvinder 18:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Hi folks - and apologies that i didn't leave a note here before making some of the changes the other day.....

I'm going to put some of them back - here's some of the reasoning.....

1) The opening - let's just cut to the chase and describe what JK accurately and fairly - i would say that means he's a record producer and convicted sex offender - both of these aspects of his life / career are very well known i would say.....

2) I think it's a huge stretch to associate JK with Madonna via. Abba, don't you? - It just seems to be a clumsy attempt at claiming credit where none is due - i don't think anyone would claim that JK was behind Madonna's single (maybe they do!? maybe there's a source???) - so this doesn't belong in the article.....

...... Purples 23:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the conviction review thing.....

...I've taken it out for now, because it actually only seems to say that King claims that his case is under review (or was over a year ago...) - it only really makes sense to say that King claims this - but I think that it's probably better just left out... Purples 00:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening section

He continues to protest his innocence of these convictions, insisting that anything that did go on was consensual with persons over the age of 16 years.

This isn't really backed up by the cited source, namely a statement on King's website. No specific age is mentioned there, and he doesn't talk about things "that did go on", just things he claims didn't happen.

Actually, I'm struggling to follow the logic of his statement, and to be honest I would advise against citing it as a source. My interpretation of it is that he isn't denying that these people (the alleged victims, who he calls false accusers) visited his home "again and again", but he is denying that anything illegal happened. I can't be sure, however. AdorableRuffian 15:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point Adorable; I think perhaps it should read "Insisting that anything that did go on with other people was..." - he's saying his convictions were wrong, and nothing sexual went on at all with those men who continued to visit him again and again, but he admits to having had relations with both genders over 16 when it was illegal (though it is no longer) with one of those genders.

There is definitely a homophobic aspect to his prosecution.

No, he was convicted of assaulting 14 and 15 year olds. If he was straight, it would still be a crime, plus he was much older at the time. I won't go into the 'ins and outs' of speculating about people's reasoning on this, but it's not necessarily homophobic- it's paedophilophobic.:)

I think the point is - would any prosecutions have been proceeded with if the claimants had been female? Bill Wyman, for example, and many other pop stars with "groupies" in the 60's and 70's? The original allegations seem to be from people who were over 16 at the time (still illegal for male2male then). Those got dropped and replaced conveniently with 14/15 year olds. It does look suspiciously like disguised homophobia but "definitely" might be a bit strong.

[edit] "miscarriages of justice"

"He continues to campaign for his own convictions to be quashed, and for other similar but less high profile miscarriages of justice to be corrected."

This is POV, shouldn't this be "He continues to campaign for his own convictions to be quashed, and for other similar but less high profile cases he considers to be miscarriages of justice to be corrected." Because they are not all found to be miscarriages of justice, are they? It's just his belief/argument.Merkinsmum 18:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "over the age of consent"

The article when I found it said that King says on his website that the boys were over the age of consent. He doesn't. He denies it happened at all, and says he is a victim due to people wanting money from him due to his celebrity. This is what source (1) actually says

"No juror would have believed anyone would return again and again if they had not enjoyed themselves so, to avoid the obvious conclusion that nothing untoward had happened, the false accusers were told to say it had been with their consent.

In fact, it never happened. That was why they returned again and again. "

Note no claim that they were over 16.Merkinsmum 18:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been covered above Merkinsmum and was generally agreed that you are right, he says it never happened, but whatever DID happen with others was with over 16's.

We don't want to get into these same complicated issues again so I've reverted to the agreed version 217.155.20.163 16.50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] discussion over lead

hi again - i'm going to put the version back to the reworded lead, and having read the above would say that there's certainly not a clear consensus for an agreed version - there hasn't really been much debate. As i'm sure we're all aware - what we should be trying to do is write a balanced, fair article that reflects what various verifiable sources say about Jonathan King.

Off the bat, i would say that we would certainly need a source for the 40million record mark, probably one for the 'one of britain's top producers' line, and to reword the very beginning - for example i would say that while it's true he was a media personality, it seems his career in this regard has dwindled to the point where we can't really claim he is - also, virtually all of the post 2001 sources that my 'more than cursory, less than rigorous' search showed up refer to King as 'disgraced' or guilty of sexual offenses right at the outset.

That's my rationale for the lead as it is - thoughts? - Purples 00:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Much of the earlier discussion was removed as it turned into a battle between those simply determined to focus on his convictions and those looking to be balanced. Wiki philosophy was much covered. It was concluded that the successes of the first 40 years warranted more attention and the convictions less. So the rewording was decided. This went on throughout 2004 when King was in prison and 2005 after his release. User:Arthur/Arthur 06:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see where the earlier discussion was removed - do you know where it has gone? - There are notes above from 2004 onwards, but not much substantive debate.

At this point, i think we've got to examine the whole thing properly - I would say without prejudice that it doesn't hold much sway that a previous agreement may or may not have been reached - what matters is that we don't go round and round the same arguments (it shouldn't be too hard to provide links to issues that have been discussed).

I'm going to revert once again, mainly because you haven't addressed my comments directly above (sourcing, weight and balance etc.) - thanks! - Purples 06:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The last reversion also (accidently?) took out an edit of jossi's to refactor the page slightly in a way that made sense to me.... - Purples 06:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The earlier discussion was partly removed - the points by Milvinder, Clown, James, JPS and others indicate it though. General consensus was that the opening covers everything without using emotive POV words like "disgraced" and balances his career with the more recent scandal without getting into a tabloid approach. Sourcing and references to such points as "40 million records sold" should be found and inserted if possible (I've never seen any such claims actually specified with facts, for any artiste, even The Beatles, and suspect every boast is exaggerated). User:Arthur/Arthur 18:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just found this in The Guardian article by Jon Ronson...

It was a remarkable career path: a lovely, plaintive debut, followed by a string of silly, deliberately irritating hits.

One of King's friends later suggests to me that it was his look - the big nose, the glasses, the weird lop-sided grin - that determined this career path, as if he somehow came to realise that it was his aesthetic destiny to play the clown. But one cannot categorise his career as a downward spiral from Everyone's Gone To The Moon onwards. In fact, he has sold 40 million records. He's had a hand in almost every musical movement since the mid-1960s - psychedelic, novelty bubblegum pop, alternative pop, Eurovision, the Bay City Rollers, 10CC, the Rocky Horror Show, Genesis, Carter The Unstoppable Sex Machine, the Brit awards, and so on.

Within two years of leaving Cambridge, he was running Decca Records for Sir Edward Lewis, with his own West End offices and a Rolls-Royce parked outside. "Genesis," he once said, "would have become accountants and lawyers if I hadn't heard their concealed and budding musical talent when they were 15 years old."

He is at once seen to be the quintessential Broadway Danny Rose - the buffoonish loser who was forever nearly making it - and also a powerful multi-millionaire whose influence is as incalculable as it is overlooked. He's hosted radio shows in New York and London, presented the successful and long-running Entertainment USA TV series for the BBC, written two novels, created a political party - the Royalists - and published The Tip Sheet, an influential online industry magazine that, he claims, is responsible for bringing the Spice Girls, Oasis, Blur, Prodigy, R Kelly, and others "exploding on to musical success. We find and help break new stars around the world."

In 1997, he was honoured with a lifetime achievement award by the Music Industry Trust. In a letter read out at the ceremony, Tony Blair acknowledged King's "important contribution to one of this country's great success stories". A galaxy of stars - Peter Gabriel, Ozzy Osbourne, Simon Bates - came out to praise him.

It's at http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,609185,00.html User:Arthur/Arthur 18:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That's a good article....

Thanks for the link above ( [2] ) - and i rather think that the article itself goes someway to explaining my perspective - because it's one of the more detailed, and honest explorations of King's character and behaviour (i think - complete with quotes from JK about his respect for Jon Ronson!) - and almost all of the 10,000 words are to do with King's sexual behaviour and conviction for sexual offenses.

The 40 million reference from that article is good - but it's also pretty evident to me that the article also acts as a reference for the balance of the article as it was.

I think jossi's movement of the second paragraph in the lead describing the conviction to a separate section was fair, so am putting the whole lot back...

I'm also trying to get some extra eyes on this article to make sure that i'm not reading this one wrong.... Purples 23:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re : Discussion Removed

About the discussion removed thing - i've looked through the history of the page (you can browse every revision ever using the history tab at the top) and can't find any substantive discussion removed / archived anywhere - you're probably aware that if material is removed, then the wiki keeps an open record of its deletion.

I'd like to consider this point moot though - it's probably best not to refer to previous agreements as a means of argument or persuasion, particularly when we can't find them! - thanks, Purples 23:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Material from the History of the Page

The Guardian article found by Arthur above also acts as a good source for the material relating to King's convictions removed here by Can't Sleep Clown person - i'm going to hold with the re-insertion of the material for now, because i'm not sure about the weighting of the article... but it would all be sourced at least.... hmmmm.... Purples 00:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point but Wikipedia is surely intended as a factual overview not a detailed biography; there must be hundreds of other articles about other aspects of his career which could be referenced. Why simply pick on the latest? On the other hand he is disgraced in most peoples' eyes. Perhaps we should forget the earlier stuff and just concentrate on that. Point taken about earlier discussion - I must have imagined that protected stuff. getting bored - signing off and moving on to more interesting topics! User:Arthur/Arthur 04.54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Arthur - I'm sure there are other great articles and sources out there - i was just talking about the one that you found (that I quite liked!) - and I know it can get boring when you feel a bit stuck on particular issues - come back here anytime for more chit chat - hopefully not too dull! - Purples 00:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

THANK GOD FOR PURPLES at last someone ready to see KIng as the pervert he is and ignore the apologists. Daveegan06 09:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good for you Purples and Dave - got the fucker now!

[edit] we're after an honest record.......

so i'm neither out to be an apologist, or a member of a mob - this article needs to reflect fairly and neutrally the balance of what reliable, verified sources have written about JK to date.

Examples of poor arguments would be 'i remember this, so that's what the article should say', or 'fuck the fucking fucker' (!) - we just need to be calm and neutral.

There are reams and reams of published, reliable sources detailing much information from King's sexual behaviour, (and crimes) - which I've not included ( / restored from the history) because i'm not sure that 4 or 5 long paragraphs detailing everything serves an encyclopedic purpose.

However, research from cursory to in-depth reveals that clearly this is now one the defining aspects of the man (the balance of what has been written / published / reported) and as such has to be mentioned in the opening.

It's my belief that this is now done in a fair way, and that there is an appropriate amount of detail in the article - it's also my belief that editors merely removing it based on memories of 20 year old telly, without engaging in discussion here, are harming the quality of the article - stop it! - Purples 00:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Words like "disgraced" are POV - I've added it to the "convictions" section so it doesn't seem tabloid. Your point about memories is taken but if I remember that series so well it must be of importance to others - still, I've taken it out on your advice. The Oscar Wilde entry seems far better balanced because, I think, it has the benefit of a century of hindsight. My complaint about allowing the recent scandal to dominate this page is because it overshadows the achievements. Jennifer

Hi Jennifer - thanks for coming here to discuss changes etc. You're right that the word 'disgraced' is reasonably strong - but you're wrong to say that it's 'POV' because it is actually a fair and calm description of what the reliable sources say about JK (in fact, as you'd be aware, the tabloids are far worse, but 'disgraced' is how the BBC refer to JK - which for me is a good source...)

Re : Memories of tv - memory is a great starting point for looking for info. - there's nothing wrong with it, but it has to be backed up with reference to a reliable source - for example an article from a newspaper citing JK's show as one of the most successful of the 80s - as you're no doubt aware, our individual memories are often found to be fallible!

You say you have a complaint about the recent scandal dominating the page, and overshadowing achievements, and I'm afraid i can't agree with you that the mention in the lead (as explained above), and the small 'Convictions' paragraph constitute dominance - in fact, i think they're appropriately weighted, and veering on the side of too little information (again, which i've supported, and explained above.....)

cheers - Purples 04:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

points taken Jennifer

added refs now off to work!

[edit] The 'disgraced' reference

...hi folks - please don't move the reference to 'disgraced' to a reference for JK's convictions - it really isn't the best for that job, and doesn't make much sense! - and I'd really appreciate editors rolling back to older revisions coming here as well to discuss their changes - otherwise it seems a bit unilateral... thanks - Purples 00:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference was left in but the "disgraced" removed for the reason stated in the edit summary. The rest of the sentence was moved to the bottom of the lead for the reason stated in the edit summary. Both edits were reverted without addressing the reasons given. So I have reinstated them, adding more detail in the place of the unencyclopedic "disgraced" (I mean, we don't do that even in the Hitler article; see WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves). The readers don't need editors to tell them how to think about what King did. I have also removed the reference for "disgraced" since your edit summary indicates you do not want to use it without "disgraced" being in the sentence. Please discuss instead of reverting. At the very least, if we reach a consensus that "disgraced" is to be used here, it should be made clear that it's a quote, not a statement of fact (adding a reference does not make that clear at all) by attributing it. Avb 07:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

PS I see Jheald just added how the prison sentence worked out in practice -- good one, IMO. Perhaps we could add something like "widely reported (in the UK)" to put across a good argument I saw in one of Purples' comments above: that it has become one of the defining aspects of the man. I should add that's probably UK only; I don't live in the UK and first heard about the sexual abuse when I noticed this article at WP:BLPN. All I knew about the man was from the early history of Genesis. Avb 08:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

..a small point - i find it a little strange to be invited to discuss, not revert, given the balance of this page! - i quite agree!!! - Purples 13:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

After checking out some of what went before, I fully understand your original response. I think we are pretty much on the same page here, figuratively speaking. Avb 13:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please don't put back broken references!

....and please don't mark substantial edits as 'minor' - it's a little unhelpful - we can talk about rewording / improving the article in detail here - so please please please make comments here before (preferably) or at the very least after making reversions......

thanks.. Purples 07:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I have not reviewed the edits this is about, I do note that edit summaries can be perfectly adequate for the purpose of making comments/explaining the edit. You can respond to the edit summaries in your own edit summary when reverting, or here on the talk page, for example if you prefer to follow WP:BRD. Avb 07:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

edit summaries are great for summing up - i was just pointing out that it's incorrect to mark an edit where you change portions of text as minor - and i was just requesting that people join in here, because i think it's helpful. I was trying to avoid the situation where action precludes discussion, that's all! - Purples 13:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Avb 13:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AVB very good points.

The difference between Wikipedia being a factual encyclopedic site and a gossip one. Vandals start in small ways ("disgraced"... "children"...) but their intentions are clear. Let's keep this simple and informative, not emotive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Germing (talk • contribs).

..well i don't like the connotation that to say JK is disgraced is vandalism - it's fairly obviously not - we're just trying to be honest and calm in this article, and it doesn't help to throw words like 'vandal' around. To accuse the BBC and the Guardian of being 'gossip' in nature is just plain wrong - Purples 13:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...and here's a more philsophical wiki question.....

..is it wrong for wikipedia to describe anyone as 'disgraced'? - Purples 13:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As a statement of fact in a BLP, it's inherently POV in most cases (as it is here). As a fully sourced, clearly attributed statement ("according to ...") it might be used if there are no other concerns such as WP:WEIGHT. The question here would be whether or not the referenced sources make it clear that the word has (1) sufficient weight in the context of the subject's life to appear in the article body and (2) sufficient (additional) weight in the context of the subject's life to be used in the introduction. A related problem is that attributing one word may result in ugly or misleading prose. Avb 13:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

..i suppose what i read from that is that it is your contention that it is not possible for JK to be 'disgraced' fundamentally - that it would only be encyclopedic to refer to JK as 'disgraced according to.... (for example, The BBC, the British Press etc.)'.

The arguments of Weight I understand, and have discussed above (ie. all sources I have found in the research i've been doing over the last little while have made a similar reference) - and of course the prose has to be acceptably coherant.

I just popped a note on your talk page asking what you thought about my editing of the page in the last few hours, because I was surprised to find quite such a volume of slightly ambiguous / unsourced claims in the body of the text. Purples 14:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

See our talk pages; your recent edits look good to me. By the way, I've warned Germing not to cross WP:3RR. Avb 14:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sorry 'bout the last edit summary.....

might not have been that clear if you look at the consecutive edits....

basically i had just made a whole bunch of edits to remove claims that didn't seem to have sources, and all of those edits were reverted - please don't do that, it's really not helpful, and seems to indicate a refusal to engage in productive discussion about this article - seriously - stop! Purples 14:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the veracity of King's campaign to quash convictions.....

here's the bit from the article;

'He still maintains that anything that did go on with other people was consensual with persons over the age of 16 years and continues to campaign for his own convictions to be quashed.[6][7]'

to take a look at the two references given, this one (which is a mirror of this article) describes King putting new evidence to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in early 2006 - the BBC takes a bit more of a pragmatic line here describing the case as it was then, and also detailing how 5% of cases go forward, two thirds of which result in an acquittal. I can't find any source since then indicating whether or not the matter is still being considered.

The second ref links to two statements on his website - more recent, but not particularly substantive (here is King's riposte for the Judge's exact words when giving sentence, and the other link here is just a bio / synopsis of King's career.

Do these constitute a suitable ref for the statement '..continues to campaign for his own convictions to be quashed.'? - i'm undecided, but certainly not sure (which i guess is why i removed them!) - just thought i'd spell out my thinking here.... Purples 15:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to view his massively posting stuff like this on his own (presumably well-read) website as campaigning, so I didn't look any further. Avb 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Having mulled this over a bit, I'd say you have a point regarding veracity. Maybe we can say something like "on his website he regularly posts opinions regarding what he views as miscarriages of justice"?

By the way, I found a source for the Shipman song: [3]

Avb 14:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'disgraced' in the lead....

here's another one as a ref. for the adjective (describes JK as 'disgraced music producer') - here - Purples 16:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I searched Wikipedia for "disgraced" and found it enlightening. Avb 16:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good clean revisions by Purples and AVB. Ooopsie poopsie 08:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] regarding recent bbc coverage

reading the article on the BBC about the Harold Shipman song King's released {here) - I note that they've gone for "convicted paedophile Jonathan King" - per this, and the above, and further consideration I'm going to put 'disgraced' back in the lead as a softer, more netural phrase than 'convicted paedophile' - which would of course be justifiable as a matter of fact, and sourcing..... thoughts here are welcome - thanks... Purples 01:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bbc and others

agreed years ago when bbc was impartial; times have changed (The Queens "storming out" - Wikipedia prides itself on being impartial. (this comment left by IP editor 81.48.20.140)

Wikipedia aims to reflect the balance of verifiable, reliable sources. What you seem to be saying is that the BBC is somehow not impartial concerning Jonathan King. That argument might be stronger if we can point to the BBC as holding a particularly atypical point of view. The fact is however that almost all reliable, verifiable sources now reflect the weight of JK's convictions with descriptors - one of the mildest of which is 'disgraced'. This word is not out of place, and per discussion here, and above, I'm going to return it to the article..... - Purples 12:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

read all this and must say I agree with the POV point so took out the word but left ref. As in Article comments: 17:37, 17 July 2007 Liquidfinale (Talk | contribs) (7,062 bytes) (You are right about the POV and release stuff of course. I yield. However, the Guardian link is still not of use.) (undo)... Helen

Mmmm? Wassa? Someone mentioned my name? Ah, yes, there it is. To elaborate, my comment (reproduced above) about the Guardian related to a statement someone put in about the Mercury nominations. The link to an opinion piece on CiF by Charlie Brooker barely mentioned JK, and contained nothing about his consideration for the award. As proof of "controversy" it didn't stand up either, being as it was a glorified blog entry, but that wasn't why it was there in the first place. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 08:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Helen - thanks for coming here. It's not really going to work to leave a reference hanging out by itself, we'll need to resolve whether or not 'disgraced' or other moniker should be there at all. We should be aiming to reflect the balance of reliable, verifiable sources in the article, and my thought was that 'convicted paedophile' was perhaps too aggressive - would you see that as less POV however, being after all a statement of fact backed up with a reliable source? - i'm going to pop 'disgraced' back in for now to fix up the ref pending further discussion..... Purples 08:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm here, I will say I have no particular problem with the word disgraced as long as the ref is hanging on the word itself. However, as there is disagreement, how about "convicted sex offender"? Steve ^{T • C} 08:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with either really too.... Purples 08:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde (October 16, 1854 – November 30, 1900) was an Irish playwright, novelist, poet, and author of short stories. Known for his barbed wit, he was one of the most successful playwrights of late Victorian London, and one of the greatest celebrities of his day. As the result of a famous trial, he suffered a dramatic downfall and was imprisoned for two years of hard labour after being convicted of the offence of "gross indecency". "Disgraced"??? Helen

In 2001 he was convicted of sexual abuse of boys aged 14 and 15 in the 1980s[3] for which he served three and a half years in jail.... says it fine for me; no replication needed surely? Helen

Look, by all means edit the article as you see fit, remove the word disgraced, I don't really care. However, when you revert to a previous version willy-nilly, what you actually do is revert lots of other good edits which were subsequently made to the article (grammar, refs, etc). So my advice is: if you want to make the changes, at least do it properly. Otherwise it'll just keep getting undone. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 19:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a collection of sources to consider when wording the lead......

ok folks - edits from several different IP addresses have removed references to 'convicted sex offender' and 'disgraced' from the lead. It's my contention that we need to have some such description there, because that will properly reflect the balance of the reliable, verifiable sources available - here's a collection;

• The BBC open with "Convicted paedophile Jonathan King" - here

• there is also of course the BBC reference that keeps being removed, describing King as 'disgraced' and collating many more vituperative British press opinions here

• The Daily Telegraph goes for "Jonathan King, the convicted paedophile and music producer" here

• The Guardian open with "The fall of a pop impresario. Jonathan King was last week exposed as a serial abuser of young boys." in Jon Ronson's article from 2001 here

• Jon Ronson elaborates further - describing "....a show business paedophile ring... and of the now infamous Walton Hop disco, where King would pick up many of the boy" here

there are also many less reliable sources, not to be used as primary sources, but indicative of the coverage out there - eg;

• The Register go for "Convicted paedophile Jonathan King " - here

These sources, and the reasoning explained above indicate why i don't consider it acceptable to remove a description from the opening sentence of this article. I'm not really persuaded by comparisons with Oscar Wilde, and there's certainly no problem with 'replication' - the text is not in any way confusing, just being written in a way that balances the article fairly when related to the reliable sources.

I'm going to put the word back... Purples 03:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

See Dominique below and Auximines and others above - "disgraced" is an opinion and no matter which media sources use it, it remains an opinion. The man achieved so much before his downfall... let's stay factual (including recent events as now covered). Helen

One small point I'd add is that "disgraced" was in the BBC story on the day that King's "disgrace" was the big story about him. In that context it was appropriate, because it was namechecking the big current story of the moment in line 1. But today I think it makes us sound a bit shrill.

What matters here is the hard information "In 2001 he was convicted of sexual abuse of boys aged 14 and 15 in the 1980s, for which he served three and a half years in jail". The more shrill we sound, actually, the weaker that information comes over. It is serious, and should be seen as such. The more authoritative and dispassionate we sound, the more seriously our readers will take us. Jheald 09:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point, and well made! Dominique 11:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Weight of careers....

I've removed writer and TV personality for now from the lead as placing undue weight on those aspects (notable within the text) of his career. JK seems to be referred to mainly as a 'pop mogul', 'producer', or 'impresario', and it's wrong to present his writing career (for example) as on a par with his pop industry contributions. I'd be happy to replace producer with any of the descriptions just given, but to have a longish list of different careers comes across as clunky, and perhaps reads too much like a puff piece.... Purples 03:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It may also be worth noting that the reference used for JKs career/s really only supports the singer / music producer description also.... Purples 05:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Press sources

If I may refer back to the earlier debate, it cannot be denied that even 'respectable' newspapers cater for the reading public at large, and indeed rely on their support and approval (and consequent sales), and for that reason one cannot assume that the 'collective' or 'editorial' views that they express are always disinterested or neutral. The situation in the U.K. today regarding 'child' sex offenders is arguably more hysterical than in many other countries, and there have been a number of recent cases involving prominent men being brought down by middle-aged accusers reliving the 'horrors' of alleged childhood sexual attacks. I do not know the details of this particular case, but I would suggest that any serious biographer would do well to avoid emotional and/or judgmental terms so typical of press coverage (tabloid or not) of such cases. The matter of J.K.'s arrest and conviction has of course to be mentioned, but this (unpalatable) fact should not be allowed to affect the tone of article as a whole - and certainly not the opening lines - unless it is the intention of the author to present the subject as a felon rather than a musician etc. I believe 'controversial' is less destructive as an opening epithet, while still opening the way for negative commentary later. Dominique 18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

With thanks to the anonymous helper re technical issue. Dominique 11:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem open to suggestion Purples, then defiantly go back to a POV "disgraced". Shouldn't you then go through all the others... was he a "brilliant" or "awful" singer, a "wonderful" or "dreadful" producer, a "good" or "bad" TV host? Come off it, this is Wikipedia, not the Mirror! Helen

Oh i'm not really defiant - I'm just trying to explain why i hold the opinion/s that i do. I don't really think it follows that if we say 'disgraced' then we'd have to go for all those other adjectives - that would be silly, no?! - Also, as I've explained above, i think JK's crimes have become part of the defining aspects of his life, and I've backed up why i feel this with the links to the sources above which support that perspective. cheers, Purples 08:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't think any of us disagree with the defining aspect Purples, nor seek to lessen the crimes, but any POV about anything (quality of talent, behaviour) should be avoided if Wikipedia is to remain a great factual source of information and I think including the facts, as we do, in the intro is sufficient without qualifying it. After all there must be some who think his prosecution was suspect, just as some actually liked - and bought - his awful music! Helen

[edit] quite serious... some analysis of the above and the page....

I've just revisted some of the above discussion, and had a look through the article page history and recent-ish edits, and there's a few things i've noticed that worry me, and I wanted to put my concerns on the record here.

First of all - I bit my tongue at the time, but must record here my disgust for the impression I have taken from Dominique's comments above - it really is truly offensive to discuss sexual offences against children in general terms using apostrophes that undermine or trivialise the seriousness and horrific nature of these offences - writing 'child' sex offenders, and 'horrors' of alleged childhood sexual attacks at very best portrays ignorance and insensitivity, and at worst is paedophile apologetics - in short, it's repulsive.

Also, I feel we're now at the point where we must highlight some of the editing patterns emerging on this page. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but when there seems to be a collection of accounts created for a single purpose - ie. editing this page in a similar way - we are encouraged to apply 'gentle scrutiny' - this is my intention in highlighting to the interested editor the following accounts who have in common the lack of a userpage, and edits to this article;

• Oopsie poopsie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Germing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Joneseyboy2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Pottersham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

A perusal through the history will also highlight a collection of anonymous (eg. 196.217.243.10) editors whose edits to this page represent all, most, or some of their contributions.....

This information may be useful when weighing consensus - thanks.... Purples 00:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on Purples - so everyone else is involved in a conspiracy theory?! We are real people here (I assume) - Dominique Blanc and JHeald and Helen and all the other recent commentators... all just trying to help be fair. "Gentle scrutiny"? How about the recent "subtle" revivals of the "disgraced" word from an anonymous editor? Oopsie Poopsie 10:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, User:Pottersham has made exactly one edit to this page, concerning spelling; none of their other contributions appear even remotely related to King. User:Joneseyboy2007 has made a fair number of edits to this page, yes, but not only to this page. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

hey ho folks - no, there's no conspiracy.. and i'm sorry if you feel there have been inappropriate aspersions - the observations above are honest, and not intended to prejudice, just to be laid out for the record - I also meant to mention the habit of Arthur, Jennifer and Helen above to sign their anonymous posts in the same idiosyncratic way, and am happy to have done that now.... meanwhile while i do still feel 'disgraced' is suitable for the lead, I haven't added it as an anon - purples isn't shy at all, and would be proud to repeat that edit! - so I do stand by my words above. Also, I've (once again) sought further impartial input to help with this article - cheers all.... Purples 12:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a case for Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, SqueakBox 12:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another go at the lead.....

I've reworded the lead with an attributed description of King, reflecting the balance of sources out there. It's my estimation that we need some description of King's convictions in the lead per due weight, and this will suffice - thoughts? - Purples 12:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it was fine as it was - on all levels it then expands in the main body. Oopsie Poopsie 19:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Purples. It should be covered in the opening as highly notable. We think of King not as merely an entertainer but as a convicted criminal too, SqueakBox 16:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that already the case? The version I'm looking at has three sentences, the third of which is as follows:

In 2001 he was convicted of sexual abuse of boys aged 14 and 15 in the 1980s[3] for which he served three and a half years in jail.

As far as I can see, that's a pretty clear and prominent statement about his crimes. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Sense

Ok - Oopsie has reverted all of my edits. It seems common sense to me that these events are part of the defining aspect of the man, the expanded section for example now approximately the same length as the detail of his time with Decca and UK records.

Please discuss rationale for further edits below - that's probably the best way to move this article forward, thanks.....! Purples 21:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

....and as a direct reply to Mark above - could I ask you how you feel about the extra information in the conviction section - does that fit ok? - I hope we can discuss this sensibly! - thanks, Purples 21:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly more detailed than needed, given that it appears to rely heavily on one report. Moreover, some of the attribution and phrasing isn't quite what it should be: for example, we have that Ronson reported that some of those who came forward when King was charged with the offences said, "he cruised them in his Rolls-Royce in London." You've put that in as

"King would cruise the streets of London..."

which not only makes it sound as if he were on regular patrol (the source isn't sufficient to determine this), but it also doesn't make clear from whom this description comes (King? Court witnesses? Ronson?). --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 22:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a word on citing references: it's possible to give a single reference a name via the <ref> tag. For example, you could call one instance <ref name="Ronson"> and then use the single tag <ref name="Ronson"/> in other places, saving you the trouble of repeating the same URL (and any additional info) for each cite. Not that you quite need to cite after every sentence in what you've written. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mark - your comments are helpful, and I'll try to address some of them - let me know what you think...... Purples 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: the cite-itis that i may have caught - it just seems like such a sensitive topic that we need to be careful to highlight exactly where our sources for various statements are. I've emphasized the Ronson report partly because of King's own praise for him as a journalist, and partly because it's appropriate for the content written - you're probably aware that there are other reliable sources out there reporting the same information (eg. the BBC articles already referenced) , and there is also the primary source of the court documents which support the whole section also.

Your point about 'cruising' is well taken - it's important that we get facts like this straight to be fair, so thanks - I can't see any other info. currently there which is materially controversial - ie. it is now fairly indisputably on the record - is that a fair assessment of the status quo? - thanks.... Purples 23:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the lead....

we definitely need something in the lead (as in first sentence) to comply properly with weighting policies - how's this version? - thanks, Purples 06:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How about the seperation idea? - one quick sentence, then two para.s with more detail on the aspects of his career, then on to the main body.....(see it here Purples 06:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...and out of curiosity.....

i wonder if JK himself has ever edited this article? - Apparently he is fairly active online, and it would be interesting if he had edited this article? - say hello if you're there JK!

....Purples 06:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I take you back to the start of this discussion page by Auximines in 2004. The opinions and thoughts of contributors, editors or journalists should not be a part of a factual page. Ronson admits to liking King and being on his side - even if he were negative his views should not be a part of the main body but a reference for separate consumption and examination. We are not a tabloid (as TheJPS points out above). Clever disguising of agenda and motive and polite manners cannot replace FACT. Adding emotive words like "exposed" and "disgraced" simply illustrate the real motive. Don't muddy the water with suggestions Purples - vandalism comes in many disguises.

...Oopsie Poopsie 08:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ooopsie - almost all that you removed was factual, and not reference to the opinion of a journalist, please stop removing the important, sourced information. Purples 08:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

It seems there's a bit of an edit war going on. Ought I to start making a count of how many reverts each editor has made and then send out warnings/make out 3RR reports accordingly? A brief look at the edit history tells me some people (and that's definitely plural) need to back away from the computer and allow things to settle for while.

And if any of you don't quite understand that genuine edit conflicts don't call for the use of vandalism templates, I suggest you stop handing out warnings for the time being. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey mark - i think oopsie was templated by an uninvolved editor using a javascript tool designed to show editors removing chunks of text - that's not to say that your advice to calm down a little isn't good... thanks.. Purples 08:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

...I would further add that I think that user was correct to do so - the template s/he received warned against blanking page contents, which is a fair assessment of oopsie's edit. Oopsie has justified this by saying that the text removed was 'POV additions' and (above) has compared it to vandalism. I don't agree (obviously!) - and I think it's disruptive to accuse editors of behaving like vandals (stop it please, oopsie...) - Purples 09:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Then your thinking is incorrect. Blanking templates are for the purposes of dealing with vandalism, this being defined as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Removing material from Wikipedia is not, in itself, a policy violation. In the case of a content dispute which results in a revert war — which this clearly was — an appropriate policy to invoke is WP:3RR, the rule which limits editors to three reverts on an article in a given 24 hour period. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your points Mark - I don't think we need to discuss the template thing further - could you help resolve the edits oopsie has made since? thanks...! UPDATE - sorry, I see that you already had done so - thanks... - Purples 09:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies Purples - your edits I'm sure are intended to be factual and not emotive. Shouldn't we change your words MASTURBATING to WANKING and BUGGERY to FUCKING - surely more tabloid and applicable? Hope this doesn't cause offence. ...Oopsie Poopsie 10:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

...um - not sure what to say about oopsie's last edit here - except that i hope s/he can calm down, maybe self revert, and not add silly sections to an article in an attempt to make a point - this is very much frowned upon here, culturally and in our policies. This very talk page is for making points, not the article...... Purples 09:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oopsie Poopsie, I'm afraid extensive use of quotation is neither encyclopaedic or good practice in terms of copyright. Perhaps you could bring the relevant article links to the page in order that people can discuss how they might be used? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much detail...

This article has too much detail about his sexual crimes and jail time. Causes the article to not be balanced. This is not the reason for his fame. The quotes from the judge and detailed description are far too much detail for a general encyclopedia. This needs to be trimmed back. I'll bring it here so we can discuss it. FloNight 11:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I support this trimmed back version. [4] Some one else did it but it is similar to the changes I was going to make. FloNight 12:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming by Flo - a couple of quick responses;

• I would argue that King's convictions are a defining aspect of the man, in terms of his notability, and character, the areas which I believe we should seek to encapsulate. I hope I've provided some sources that support this perspective at least a little

• The quotes from the judge are intended to illustrate and describe King and his behaviour, and my intention with the section as a whole was to stick to 'just the facts' - I see the facts of his behaviour and convictions as vital to the balance of the article.

• One of the interesting aspects of King is his absolute refusal to communicate any sense of guilt or shame, in fact quite the opposite. We have seen here (from a variety of pro-King editors, as discussed above) comparisons to Oscar Wilde (a comparison King has made on the record repeatedly), and the argument put forward that mention of detail of his crimes is either 'POV' or vandalism. I am sincere in my belief that it is important for us to fairly communicate the truth of King's behaviour and actions - the facts of the matter stand alone, and should be there.

• ...or to put it another way, King was found guilty of committing sexual offences during significant parts of his career, and that these offenses were intrinsically linked to that career.

• If your point is that the lurid nature of the section detracts from the quality of the article, then I think there is merit in that - but we may need to reach consensus about whether or not a section should exist before debating its content......

And most of all - a big thank you for coming and engaging here - i think the article will benefit massively from editors like yourself who may have time to help out.... thanks..... Purples 12:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the lead as it is now? - Purples 12:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me you haven't just performed a partial revert. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 12:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think i probably did..... please put it back if you think it's wrong... I'm not clear from the above that we weren't conflating discussion on the lead and the conviction section, so (in particular for Flo's attention) re-tried the reworked lead..... that was the intention. Purples 12:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"and convicted sex offender^[1]." does not belong in the lead sentence. The second paragraph of the lead as written is fine. We are not burying it at all. But the lead sentence needs to describe the reason for someone's fame. Stating why the person is in the encyclopedia. The next paragraph of the lead expands on other important details. FloNight 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion Purples, why don't you self revert your recent change of the lead and discuss here first. FloNight 12:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I hope you can see above, and throughout the article's recent history, that I've been constantly seeking to engage in discussion here, and i hope I didn't rankle you at all - I've really been trying to get conversation going here for quite a long time..... Secondly, I disagree that it doesn't belong, primarily because I believe that King is equally notable as a sex offender, and TV personality, and also because it has become a defining characteristic of the man. Clearly, if weighed on face value, the weight of consensus is against my position (I think only SqueakBox and I have expressed this opinion so far) - could I then ask your advice re. weighing the input of the various anonymous and rarely-used accounts that have consistently removed this info. (see above for more info....) - thanks, Purples 12:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you had the opportunity to take a look at some of the older revisions of the lead by any chance? - per. discussion above and revisions like this one - what do you think of the adjective 'disgraced' both fundamentally, and specifically in this article?

I've already noted this above, but descriptions of King's crimes feature in the lead of all the reliable sources out there, which perhaps is the corner stone of my opinion, that not to include such a descriptor is in fact the deviation from our policy ('disgraced' is the mildest of the descriptions of JK that I've seen, and I think it would work quite well here - thoughts?) - Purples 12:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I support this trimmed back version. [5] Some one else did it but it is similar to the changes I was going to make. Oddly enough, this was the version we had. I prefer it to the changes Purples was introducing: it doesn't shy away from the charges, it doesn't go into lurid detail, it apportions adequate space to each part of King's career. It may not be perfect, but then, no article is. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another angle....

I'm afraid I don't agree that the article as it stands is balanced... further reasoning;

• The section on King's crimes is currently roughly equal in weight to the coverage of a single Private Eye cover of 2001, and considerably less weighted than King's 1997 BMI Man of the Year award. This does not conform with our policies, given that the balance of reliable sources clearly places more emphasis on King's crimes and convictions.

• King's conviction is deemed important enough to be in the Lead (meaning we see it as one of the 'most important points' per our guidelines on leads) - yet the follow up in the main body is an almost direct repetition of the lead - thus we fail twice, once in detailing an 'important point' and once in avoiding repetition.

I shall endeavor to compose a less lurid section giving appropriate weight - thoughts? - thanks, Purples 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the new section....

I've tried to be less lurid! - thoughts welcomed... Purples 22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I shall obey the earlier suggestion to leave it for a while - it is no obsession of mine and if Purples believes one aspect needs far more coverage than the rest it is up to others to agree or disagree. Possibly this says more about Purples than King. I came here looking for a link between King and Chumbawamba on Tubthumping - I had heard he wrote the song or played a part in its success (seems not)... then I was interested in his other connections which I didn't know about (I've tinkered with the Who Let The Dogs Out info - I personally think most Wikipedia users would be far more interested in links to such global hits than in the parochial morality of England's laws). I simply felt the balance was far too biased towards recent tabloid news (now old news). I'd be interested in main body information of similar length about the other achievements but still feel Wikipedia should provide pocket facts not detailed information especially not opinion pieces - those are for links and references. How did he create Genesis? What part did he play in 10cc? Refs not lectures. It seems Purples is far more concerned with sex than with music or TV. Oopsie Poopsie 10:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

....um .. ok - have a good week! - yours, in parochial morality, Purples 13:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

...sorry, I just read this again and wanted to put on the record that the laws you refer to as embodying 'parochial morality' seem to be those prohibiting middle aged men from having sex with 14 and 15 year old boys - if that is the case then I'm afraid i find your choice of words revolting - Purples 01:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah - "revolting"... that puts your flag up nicely Purples... don't whatever you do go and live in many European or Asian countries. I agree; repulsive and nauseating. Mind you I feel the same way about the thought of sleeping with many fat, middle aged men - or women, come to that. Do continue to stamp your morality on Wikipedia. We need more subtle bigots on here. How about Jews and Homos - can you discreetly insert negatives on various pages about them too? Oopsie Poopsie 08:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

..that's pretty offensive stuff mr. poopsie - please retract it. - Purples 08:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illiterate editing

What the hell has been going on with this page? Just cleaned up a dozen basic spelling, punctuation, grammar and accuracy points. Shouldn't Editors be educated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.71.66 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry to sound snappy but this page and the discussion really does appear to have lost control. The pared down, factual original was much better. Why this obsession with sex? An entire section devoted to a simple conviction? Surely the Wkipedia readers would prefer expanded sections on Genesis and others if anything were to be expanded? And how an "editor" (I use the word lightly after an hour of correcting the most basic spelling and punctuation faults) can put "the 1980's" when the simplest Google tells him or her it was "28 years earlier than 2000" is beyond belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.71.66 (talk • contribs)

I think your edits are quite good - thanks! Your eye for the basics would be welcome around wikiepdia - idiot as I am, I fear I may not be the only one. Re : A whole section for the conviction - I think it's probably not accurate to relate this to an obsession with sex - I think in fact that it's both encyclopedic and appropriate... Purples 23:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belmarsh or Broadmoor....?

i've changed the reference to food back from belmarsh to broadmoor beacause that's what the source says here - but I suspect belmarsh could well be accurate - can anyone find a source? - Purples 23:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

...Thanks oopsie for fixing this one - Purples 08:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acquittal

Good solution to many problems - ask King on his website what is true and demand proof... I did that and got the certificate posted! Oopsie poopsie 15:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, but in future, don't remove the other reference unless you're sure it wasn't being used to support something else in the paragraph. In particular, when a reference is named (eg. <ref name="NameOfThisReference">), there's a chance it may be used elsewhere in the article; removing it would mess up the other cites. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 15:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ..if you're in touch with JK

... could you ask him for a picture to be released under a license compatible with wikipedia? - probably into the Public Domain would be easiest... cheers, Purples 00:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the judge's comments.....

This bit;

The presiding Judge, Judge Paget, addressed King directly describing the crimes as a serious breach of trust and saying "You used your fame and success to attract adolescent and impressionable boys".

has been removed a few times now as excess detail - my feeling is that it is useful detail, from an extremely reliable source, and is fundamentally interesting, pertinent information.. could we discuss why some editors feel it's not suitable? - thanks.... Purples 06:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's more detail than needed. All it adds to the article is lurid colour; which is hardly encyclopaedic.

Oh, and note that I'm far from being alone on this one. Please don't put it back in unless you think you're in danger of getting a consensus. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 06:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

totally agree about the consensus - but disagree that the comments are lurid ("horrible in fierceness or savagery" according to Princeton / Google) - a Judge's comments at the end of a trial constitute a reliable, useful source in this, and many other instances, so to write them off as lurid colour seems a little off to me..... Purples 07:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The tone of court theatrics are not really the concern of this article. The facts have been laid out. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes - but what i'm disagreeing with is us, as editors, writing off the Judges comments as 'lurid' and 'court theatrics' - a Judge's summing up is a world away from a Daily Mail hatchet job - are we really qualified to judge the Judge? - Purples 07:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You're clearly not familiar with the British Justice system. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true! - I think we can leave this one for now - I'll not return the info. unless support grows... cheers, Purples 07:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that it is appropriate to mention what the Judge said at the end of the trial. I do not think a Judges words could be called court theatrics and including the words of the Judge on King can help anyone reading the article get a clearer picture of circumstances. We could apply "not the concerns of this article" to just about any item on the site. My opinion is that the more accurate information on any article, the better. Michael1001 16:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] market research thing....

i'm thinking of adding some detail on King's use of market research - thoughts? - Purples 06:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can source it, knock yourself out, provided it doesn't verge on original research. It should probably go in s separate section to the biography. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 06:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

okey dokey.... I'll draft it and drop it here before the article for thoughts.... Purples 07:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decca

I've replaced 'ran' with 'was involved with' pending some sourcing / further info;

I just watched one of his video blogs where he mentions that the work for Decca was all unpaid - and the one source i've spotted for now here referes to him initially as 'chief talent scout' and 'assistant to the chairman' - and upon his return as 'effectively' running it..... i think we need something more concrete for this inclusion..... Purples 07:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"At 22 he became manager of Decca Records".[6] --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm... I suppose there are two issues, one being what the sources say, and one being what we present as truth - I note that nypress and The Guardian seem to disagree a little - it's also probably worth pointing out that JK's video blog probably isn't a reliable source for mentioning that this role was voluntary / upaid...

There's no doubt in my mind that JK and Sir Ed. were close, and that he was involved with Decca in various capacities, if we were to accept the fact that King was unpaid, then i don't really think it could be correct to state that he either 'ran' (or even 'managed') the label - I feel sure that people would misconstrue this as being paid employment..... though p'raps it doesn't matter.... thoughts? - Purples 07:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Ran" is a suitably vague term for his various capacities. Add both cites if you fear misleading the reader. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 12:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry Mark, but I can't agree here - to say someone 'Ran' something to me clearly implies that they ... er... 'ran' the place ie. were in charge. I would very surprised to learn that the person i thought was 'running' any company was in fact unpaid, and not formally contracted, thus I feel we're being somewhat deceptive.... Purples 12:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Involved in running", then. And please get the hang of indenting your comments. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 13:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

sure - "involved in running" would probably be ok.... sorry about the formatting - i'm not sure how you prefer your indentations (i'll happily keep the same indentation, or go one more, or whatever! - let me know....) cheers - Purples 13:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King

I don't intend to bother asking King for other things but suggest Purples does since he/she is clearly determined to get this accurate. Oopsie poopsie 08:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

...um - well, i'd love to hear from JK, but understand if you don't want to research further... Purples 13:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worried

There seems a mean spirited kind of approach by some editors to belittle and downgrade some of King's past achievements and inflate or colour up the sex area. Have others noticed this? For the moment I've simply done minor edits (replacing "ran" for example - the alternative seems pointless to mention, if he WASN'T running it, why put anything in?) but I think certain editors ought to examine their past changes - we might be noticing an agenda here. 62.189.71.66 11:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I'm merely trying to navigate through choppy waters. So if you're trying to include me in this, don't. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 12:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] don't be worried.....

what we're trying to achieve here is a fair, balanced article about JK - there are no mean spirits (honest!) - if you've got suggestions for the article, just drop them in here - or edit the article directly... you'll find that if you're willing to engage here, you'll go a long way! - cheers, Purples 13:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wishful Thinking: These were a Scandinavian 'Pop' outfit that were pushed pretty hard by manager and Decca guru, Jonathan King, but never managed the chart. from [here http://www.45-rpm.org.uk/artists-w.htm] - just one mention I found in 10 seconds Googling for Jonathan King and Decca - Decca Guru indeed! I expect if I (or any other "fair, balanced" editor) wanted to check they would find many more such allusions. Though I do agree looking for negative sex mentions would probably discover most. People do love a good sex scandal. 62.189.71.66 13:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RAN Decca Records

Took me forever (this is the video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoFdSwPRkFg) but I finally ran down the film you obviously watched Purples and it looks perfectly valid to me - he simply says "ran" twice without any boasting and goes on to tell detailed and informed stories - why on earth would he be lying? He clearly RAN Decca Records!!! Do you have an agenda Purples? If not, this is clear and RAN would be replaced by any independent editor. Oopsie poopsie 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A totally objective quote from 45-rpm... "His shrewdness and good commercial judgement had been noticed by the founder of Decca Records, Edward Lewis, and he was appointed Lewis' personal assistant. Within a few years Jonathan King was running the company. Although not all King's decisions were good ones, he probably got most things right and later launched his own record company 'UK Records'." http://www.45-rpm.org.uk/dirj/jonathank.htm Oopsie poopsie 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"King first came to prominence with hit song Everyone's Gone to the Moon, which he wrote as a 21-year-old undergraduate. By 22, he was MD of Decca records. He then made his fortune and secured the lifelong hatred of true music fans by naming and promoting pop group Genesis." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/11/24/poptastic_jonathan_king_charged_over/ Not hard if you understand Google. Oopsie poopsie 17:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is getting boring... from the BBC... "Six years later, while studying English at Cambridge, he had his first hit with Everyone's Gone To The Moon. The following year, he became manager of Decca Records, aged 22, and went on to set up his own label, UK Records, by 1970." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1038651.stm - shall we just say he ran Decca Records and stop buggering about (a very Purples word)? Oopsie poopsie 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And again "He did have an advisor to help him run the pop label for a time in producer Jonathan King, but King -- who was still a young man, and whose interests in music were more direct, and had also been a successful recording artist himself -- was unwilling to take on the responsibility of running an entire record label within the framework of a corporation." http://www.mp3.com/artist/sir-edward-lewis/summary/ What was that word again? RUN? RUN? RUN? Oopsie poopsie 18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I could go on forever but this is from another Web Encyclopedia... Purples seems just to search for negative sex references... Purples must be a very sad individual (and not a very honourable editor)... "He became assistant to Sir Edward Lewis at Decca Records, where he was embroiled in the controversy over the original sleeve of the Rolling Stones’ Beggars Banquet LP, and discovered Genesis"... http://www.musicweb-international.com/encyclopaedia/k/K125.HTM Oopsie poopsie 18:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is good stuff - says to me that clearly, in his first spell at Decca, King was an 'advisor' / 'assistant' ( / 'chief talent scout') - I'd prefer wording to that effect.

Secondly - could you please please please oopsie try and 'comment on the content, not the contributor' - your contributions have many useful aspects, but the stuff about having an agenda, being a sad individual (and the pretty odious bit about Jews and Homos) have no place here. Please retract such comments - Purples 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More suggetions

I think the following content: "King continues to deny all wrongdoing, stating that no such sexual contact took place, and also that no-one engaged in any activity that they did not enjoy. King has also drawn comparisons between his prosecution and the charges Oscar Wilde faced.[14] A Jon Ronson documentary on Channel 4 explored these issues, asking the question 'Is Jonathan King a dangerous predator, or a victim of the shifting sands of morality?'[15][16]" needs to be removed because it is not encyclopedic content and too much detail. Who is saying what about this topic does not need to be recorded here. The second paragraph of the conviction section is slightly better but I would prefer it be removed also. FloNight 18:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going ot take Digby's advice (form his edit summary) and let the article settle for a while - but reading the above, I see Flo's points and would support the removal of the third para. of 'that' section. - I also think that in the lead re: JKs crimes we should use the wording from the source, otherwise we're synthesising information (ie. it's original research) - thoughts? - Purples 22:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed second para. in agreement with Flo above..... Purples 01:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] some musings on weight.....

hi folks - after letting the article settle for a while, and removing some of the conviction section info. per discussion above, I've got some questions and thoughts about weighting and the article as a whole;

I'm not sure how we manage weighting to balance notable information, and trivia. For example the article currently has the same level of detail on King's involvement with Genesis (very notable IMO) as it does with his involvement with Orson (which seems tenuous and much less important to me) - another example would be that there's almost as much info. on his recent "Earth to King" release, as there is on his Decca hits - this seems odd....

I don't want to cull interesting info. like the Earth to King stuff, but feel that the article currently is a kinda strange blend of a quick summing up of King's notable achievements, then a side turn towards trivia...

thoughts anyone? - Purples 01:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few changes which I feel better balance the article, with appropriate weight being placed on King's notable achievements... thanks all! - Purples 06:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] having watched the Earth To King blogs.....

Various questions from above are answered due to the fact that he carries cuttings from newspapers in between his exhaustive (and exhausting) tales - for example the Record Producer boast is clearly archived. Suggest anyone wanting to verify some claims get this and watch it though I warn it may kill you through boredom! The Band Aid/Live Aid letter example (episode 60) is worth including - it was clearly a major news story at the time. I tend to agree with Purples (!!) that some stories warrant less coverage and think the only reason for carrying some (Shipman, Orson) is because they are recent. They will fade as years go by and be eliminated in due course. Oopsie poopsie 08:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought your edit to the Trivia section was good also, Ooopsie! I think we're getting on! - I'll check out the Band Aid stuff, and have a nice morning... Purples 08:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Song for Europe

The article states "In 1995, he spearheaded A Song For Europe, the BBC quest for a Eurovision Song Contest winner. The 1996 entrant by Gina G "Just A Little Bit" went to No.1 and the 1997 entrant Katrina and the Waves' "Love Shine a Light" won the contest."

Which begs the questions: What does 'spearheaded' mean? Was he producer? If so, was it in 1995, 1996, and 1997, and if it was just 1995, what's the relevance of the 1996 and 1997 successes?

If it is only the 1995 show he produced, then we should mention Love CIty Groove finishing 10th and reaching number 7 in the charts, but not Gina or Katrina. DavidFarmbrough 09:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] let it all hang out.....

i've removed the trivia thing about Let it All Hang out because the claim that JK bought the rights in the 70s needs sourcing, and also perhaps is of questionable encyclopedic interest. Also, the video that was linked to was not the music used in the advert, which is too confusing / possibly deceptive i think - Purples 22:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] changes.....

After watching the excellent Joe Meek tribute I came here and corrected his place of birth (he was born in London; went to school in Godalming) - reinstated the Producer credit (after watching episode 38 of his autobiography with cuttings from Music Week dated 1972 and 1973) - ditto his Decca connection. Leon 09:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that i have to disagree about the Decca sentence, per the discussion above. To paraphrase - I don't feel it's appropriate to say King 'ran Decca' when (certainly in his first stint, and possibly the second also) his role was unpaid and semi-formal (please check out the section above for more.....) - Purples 11:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter CD

I don't see why wikipedia should promote his cd with a link to it on Amazon!!! Teapotgeorge 21:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] di Stefano

I've examined all the info on this - King's legal team did not include di Stefano until late on as a part of his appeal and then only for a short time. His main team included Ronald Thwaites QC who represented the police in the de Menezes enquiry. But I don't think listing the dozens of his legal contacts is relevant in the article as it is not with other cases. Mention one and you really have to mention all.User:OopsiePoopsie 07.00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's quite possible that the most media savvy person isn't necessarily the most important. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note of Changes

I've reworded and reworked the following;

• European Court hearing - have moved down to section on current activity, as undue weight in lead
• I've returned 'the first studio version' to 'a version' pending a (WP:OR compliant) source
• I've reworded 'ran' Decca to 'involved in running' per longstanding discussions above
• I tightened the prose in the lead.

Comments are most welcome - and for openness and transparency, all editors should be aware that I used to edit (above) as Purples. Thanks! - Privatemusings 04:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Someone has put a reference to King's conviction under the "occupation" section of the infobox. That probably needs to be dealt with. Dan ad nauseam (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admission on under-age sex partners

Here's what the Sky News interview said:

King, who has legal bills of £750,000, freely admits he had sex with teenagers who were under the age of consent.

"Anyone who was around in the 1960s? All us pop stars were [hitting on] anything that moved.

"Loads of them were groupies who put on the face-paint and the bras and claimed to be 18 and we thought we'd be lucky if they were 16, but they probably weren't a day over 14.

"Everybody was doing it. That's the way it was back then.

"I was bi-sexual and had sex with both genders. I found it ludicrous that it was legal to have sex with a girl of 16 but not with a boy of the same age."

Interpolating this info with explanations about what the age of consent for males was at the time smacks of justification. He doesn't specifically say he had sex with under age males. So I've taken the reference back to the simplest facts in the article: (1) He admitted that in the 1960s he had sex with teenagers who were under the age of consent. (2) His sexual partners included both females and males. (3) He insists that he was not guilty of having sex with those men he was convicted over. Grimhim (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've examined this in full. The question mark is bizarre - does it imply he wasn't around in the 1960's? King's later comment makes it clear to me that he only broke the age of consent laws in regard to males so I feel the age of consent for males SHOULD be specified - which is why I've added it along with the quote when he refers to it. As far as I know he was only convicted of offences against males so surely this is worth including. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.26.233 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

King does not directly admit to having sex with underage girls. He freely admits that, during the 1960s or later, he had sex with boys who were under the then age of consent (21), but over the current age of consent (16). You can't be convicted for breaking the law 40 years ago if what you did is no longer against the law, so admitting this shouldn't harm his case in the way that the Sky News report implies.

Incidentally, the "anyone who was around in the 1960s?" line - I interpret this as "is there anyone here who was around in the 1960s?" - i.e. a question directed at a group of people. 217.155.20.163 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Presence on the internet

Inappropriate and not accurate it appears - also previously covered. Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandalwatcher 41.251.26.233 (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you make of this (I just got linked to it) but thought I'd add it in for source / something - a recent video of him singing about boys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qd_eCmZnBI (I tend to avoid editing pages themselves as I get told off :-() 144.32.155.188 (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

From the movie and therefore covered sufficiently in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandalwatcher (talk • contribs) 05:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)