Talk:Jonathan King

lost its way

been reading all the archives on this page, very interesting. No-one has really looked at it for at least 2 years, in which time it has become, basically, a personally written love letter from the subject to himself. I will not bother with all the claims he makes for how important he is and all the wonderful things he has done and everyone loves him. I will not even alter all the claims he makes that he is innocent and the ECHR is looking at this miscarriage of justice personally, even though that was nearly 7 years ago! He really isnt that important, if you say his name now to anyone they ask who? Try it and see! I have simply added three words that show the boys he abused were under age. The way it is written looks like he simply had sex with men that were 18 or 19 and because of the wrong law re gay men he was convicted. He buggered, against their will, boys under 14. Only added 3 words, cant see any reason why they will be removed, and cant see why the fact they were teenagers should be listed either. The boys in question were under-age, he was convicted and went to prison for it. Please leave the edit as it is or discus? (17:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC))— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfc06 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

editors needed, HOW BIASED IS THIS ARTICLE

No, this article is so over the top for him I cant just leave it. But I am new here and am asking all experienced editors to look at this article and correct all the reverts please. Even the opening paragraph, why re his few, not well know, films listed? Its not like that for successful actors. Then all hos books are listed. Then all his "hits" and all other claims. "I ran Deca" for example, something that was removed many times in the history of the archives because its not true and it cant be verified. Can someone please make this article a balance truthful one? I have marked it NPOV, bit dont know what else to do?(Trfc06 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC))

links to Jimmy saville, help needed to set up new section

King classes veteran TV presenter Jimmy Savile as one of his closest friends - they have known each other for 25 years. Savile once said of him: "He's a sabra. A sabra is an Israeli fruit that's prickly on the outside and all soft and lovely inside. That's Jonathan King."http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/24/6 Lots of links confirming his links to him, this is in his own words. Due to his convictions for underage sex, and his many close links to other celebrity pesos, and what is now know re Jimmy and the interest in it I think this is relevant. Can anyone tell me how to add the section anfd links please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfc06 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Please do not remove the NPOV banner until it has been discussed and agreed upon by the community. Please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute

I have set this up the way Wiki says to and will add more NPOV opinions as we go. I have asked several well know editors to review the article and judge as well.

FIRST NPOV. Does not need the word teenage boys in what he was convicted for. This is done to imply that they were 16+ They were under 15. If the word teenager is left, then I suggest that we put the ages of the boys after that staement?

2nd King first came to prominence as an undergraduate at the University of Cambridge in 1965. Prominence is subjective, ask a person in Japn for example when did JK come to prominence and Im certain he would answer with this quote, or indeed any person anywhere in the world. This is put in to back up JKs claims that he is a prominent person. I will rewrite as" He when wrote and sang "Everyone's Gone to the Moon," which became an international best seller, while he was an undergraduate at Cambridge." Will change to this in 7 days unless anyone can tell me why its there?

Like I said, I will add every little npov on this page until it is a GOOD article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfc06 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I am removing the POV tag as I think this article comes across as fairly neutral overall. By all means challenge individual sentences if you think they are POV, but I do not think a POV tag for the whole article is justified. -- Alarics (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

According to the link i gave above I did it the right way. Im my opinion it is biased, you cant just decide that its not. I just wasnt a discussion on it please. I will add the npov tag again until the majority decide. No offence meant at all, just want it right. Thansk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfc06 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

need section for this please

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/JONATHAN+KING%3A+THE+VICTIMS+SPEAK%3A+Do+you+recognise+me%3F%3B+EXCLUSIVE%3A...-a080243027 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfc06 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will get reliable sources today and put the links here. will be as quick as I can. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trfc06 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have raised an issue at WP:BLP/Noticeboard. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Age of victims

There is contradictory information as to the ages of King's victims. The Guardian reports 14-16 and the Telegraph says 13-15. Does anyone know of a source that can be relied upon for the correct ages? Formerip (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

King faced a range of charges over a period of time, and the media may have reported them in different ways. I'm going through the sources and trying to make sense of it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The two sources are this and this, both relating to the case where King was convicted. It seems like one of them must have made an error. Formerip (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This BBC source, also in the article, says "King, 58, was found guilty in September 2001 of four indecent assaults and two serious sexual offences against boys aged 14 and 15, committed in the 1980s." It is all somewhat confused.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the most detailed and convincing description of the victims I've seen. They were all 14 or 15 when they met King - I would suggest that the reference to 13 was a straight error. The reference to 16 may be because some of the victims' involvement spanned several months during which they turned 16. I think therefore that either the current "14 to 16" or "14 to 15" are both ok, but referring to 13 is not. DeCausa (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

King has consistently claimed that some of the boys were older than the original tabloid newspaper stories which set off the court case. This does not alter the fact that he was convicted of sexual assault on teenagers. Men under 21 years old would have been illegal under the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which was the period when the offences occurred; men under 16 would still be illegal today. The best coverage of the case is by Lynn Barber in The King and I, in which she raises some concerns about how the case was driven by a tabloid agenda, pointing out that journalists from The Sun were at the scene within minutes of his arrest. The case also raises the question of whether people accused of sexual offences should be granted anonymity. As Lynn Barber points out, if this had happened with King, the additional witnesses might not have come forward, and he might have been acquitted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That may be all true, but I think that the ages of the 5 victims that were the subject of the 6 counts he was actually convicted of are a specific issue and different. The article I linked to was after the trial(i.e what King claimed about the age of the boys in the original tabloid stories which set off the case wouldn't be relevant) and specifically about the individuals who were the victims of the offences he was convicted of. There were a lot of others of course - 27 in all. Some of whom were outside the 14-15/16 age range. But there ages are not relevant to the conviction. DeCausa (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

whoever did the recent edit, thank you, very much better. I will list any more changes that are needed aswe go, but this reads quite well now! Thanks again.(Trfc06 (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC))

On that basis, I will remove the tag. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Trfc06 for drawing attention to a problem on this article. I think it's in a much better state now - although, it still rather reads like a CV in places. It's clear from looking at the edit history that there has been a long-term filleting of the article by IPs and SPAs and there needs to be greater scrutiny per WP:COI going forward. DeCausa (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

DeCausa, indeed it still does read like a CV a lot, but a much fairer CV thanks to your efforts. Much appreciated my friend. And thanks to Ghmyrtle as well for placing the message where he did so editors such as you saw it and helped.(Trfc06 (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

Trfc06 has added a {{POV}} tag to the section on "Early life and education". Why? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that it's something to do with the 40m discussion in the next thread and it's in the wrong section - should be the next one - (and he doesn't yet know when it's appropriate to tag.) DeCausa (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought as well, but I was hoping he'd clarify it before he's blocked (for edit warring on other articles). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tagging should be accompanied by an explanation on the talk page of what the problem is, and how to go about fixing it. Otherwise, WP:DRIVEBY applies and the tag is likely to be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Trfc06 is now indef blocked, so I suggest that we remove the tag. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

40 million

only a small point, but important. please read this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jonathan_King/Archive_1#40_million_records.3F

One article in one newspaper where king tells the person doing the interview that he sold 40 million records and its presented as a fact on here. Can we please see some agreement as to wether this should be included in the article please? (Trfc06 (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

Not as such, unless there is some independent verification somewhere. (Is there not a website for that sort of thing?) However, we can, if we wish, say that "he claims" this, the fact cited in the ref. being that he claims that this is so, not that it is necessarily so. I would not have thought the claim was particularly unlikely, myself, as he certainly had a lot of big hits, but what do I know. -- Alarics (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done Trfc06

Years ago I tried to get the balance corrected on this King article but editors kept bumping me off so I gave up. You've achieved most of the changes I attempted even the one about police saying thousands of others - millions more like. It seems all those old editors are dead or retired - Slim Virgin seems to have passed on. Now start on all the other BBC perverts. We've vanquished those Wiki Pedo apologists. Well done old friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedohater (talk • contribs) 17:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done DeCausa, Alarics, IanMacM, FormerIP

Brilliant hatchet job done on article removing facts about crap books, rubbish films and concentrating on his crimes with real investigative journo stuff. Reads like a great Mail article now. I gave up editing after consistent blocking by pedo apologist editors. Now let's work on some of those other celeb perverts... no names needed. Pedohater (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)