Talk:Jonathan King

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 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 can 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

"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)

"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)

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)