Talk:Jonathan King

Quote from the Independent on Sunday

I felt this edit to a paragraph that has been in the article for a while was potentially misleading, so expanded it it to this. But actually I thing it's all somewhat "undue", and was wondering whether the whole paragraph should be deleted. Any views? DeCausa (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd support taking the whole paragraph out. We don't usually include comments from people defending their moral stance, especially if they've been convicted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've taken it out. DeCausa (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Good. This is just really not good writing, jumbling facts and statements and giving a response to something that wasn't asked ("as a result" of what?). We need to tread carefully here, and often less is more in such cases. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

King's response

I posted on King's site about the crusade to denigrate him on Wikipedia - this was his response.

Wikipedia is a great example of how a superb idea can go wrong; terrific concept swiftly subverted by negative people who either think it's funny to add insults or chip away at reputations by sneering or removing anything positive. Nothing anyone can do about it; eventually an editor with scruples moves in and clears up the vandalism whereupon, in time, more destruction will occur. Think how terrible it must be for articles about dead people. I see, searching for Oscar Wilde, the last edit was changing his middle name from O'Flahertie to O'FartieHartie. That sums up Wikipedia editors. As for whether or not I won an Ivor Novello Award, a simple call to BASCA should verify it. But, really, who cares?Progrockerfan (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no "crusade to denigrate" him - well, one or two editors may wish to do that, but experienced ones are simply trying to present a balanced picture based on what reliable sources - not self-published ones - say. The vandalism at the Oscar Wilde article lasted for precisely four minutes before it was removed. What an amazing coincidence that he happened to look at the page at that moment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the article is now in a much better condition thanks to DeCausa's edits than it was a few weeks ago. As for the Ivor Novello Award, I had a good look for sourcing about this online but could not find any. Obviously, this does not mean that King never won an Ivor Novello Award. There doesn't seem to be a comprehensive list online, and phoning BASCA would be original research. If Jonathan King has any major issues with the article as it stands, there is the option of raising them at the BLP noticeboard. BTW, if Jonathan King is reading this, hopefully he likes the new article Entertainment USA. Link to Jonathan King's original post on his forum page here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

ianmacm, phoning anyone is not original research: what matters is how things are reported. If the organization would post a note on their website, for instance, then we can easily cite that. Does anyone care to email the organization? Drmies (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Jonathan_King#Ivor_Novello_Award_again below. DeCausa did e-mail BASCA and they replied that King did not win an Ivor Novello Award for Paloma Blanca. Since Jonathan King disagreed, I e-mailed BASCA again today and await a reply. The Ivor Novello Awards are for songwriting and composing. King did not write the song, it was written by George Baker (musician). Johannes Bouwens is Dutch not British, which seems to rule him out for an Ivor Novello Award.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• As most of the recent edits to the article are probably mine, I feel I should probably defend myself! Of course, I reject the claim that I'm on a "crusade to denigrate". My only aim has been to have a balanced, and, above all, accurate piece supported by WP:RS. In so doing I have several times removed what seemed to me to be problematic "negative" material (eg this edit). I'm not saying what I've done has always been right and the article is still far from perfect, but I have no interest in "denigrating" King.

This article was unbalanced, inaccurate in several respects, and often poorly sourced when I looked at it a few weeks ago and began comparing it with the available WP:RS. If one looks back over the article history, it can be seen that there has been a sustained and consistent interest from SPAs and IPs to add promotional style material to the article (and remove aspects that could be perceived as being "negative"). The likely WP:COI issues associated with these SPAs/IPs was discussed in this SPI thread. Attempts have been made to clean up the article from time to time, but, as I've said before, the SPA/IP interest has been long-term and sustained. Btw, it is only fair to note that the article has also been targetted by IPs, SPAs who do wish to denigrate the subject. The constant back and forth between the two groups has obviously not been helpful to producing an accurate and readable BLP, which I've also tried to improve. DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is much better now, with all credits recorded and sourced, no wild unfounded claims etc. It reads very well and shows all achievements and mistakes the man made. If JK is honest, he knows he likes to blow his own trumpet and over-egg what was achieved. Example: saying his book was going to be listed for the Booker prize when it never was etc! This article still reads like someone who did well for quite a few years and then fell from grace. Dave006 (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ivor Novello Award again

This was previously discussed here. This Guardian article describes Paloma Blanca as a winner of the award (The Guardian is OK as a source), while Songfacts says "King's version picked up an Ivor Novello Award for Record Of The Year." This may well be true, but Songfacts is similar to IMDb and is not considered an ideal reliable source. There should be another look for sourcing on this. We now live in a world where what can be found in a five minute Google search determines what people know about a subject. The lack of decent sourcing about this does not mean that it is untrue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• In the previous discussion, DeCausa said "*WP:OR I know, but, for the record, I emailed BASCA, who run the Ivor Novello Awards, and they replied that there is no publicly available list of winners but confirmed that Jonathan King did not win an Ivor for Paloma Blanca." Anway, I will e-mail them again, as this is now a puzzle of considerable proportions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I feel pretty confident that the Ivor Novello award should not be included, for the following reasons, apart from the email I received confirming that he did not win one. (1) can find no source of an "Ivor Novello Record of the Year Award" other than the one allegedly awarded to King. (2) It is clear that Ivors are only awarded for composition and song-writing not for performance. King did not write or compose Paloma Blanca. DeCausa (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems like there might have been at one time an Ivor Novello award for most played record of the year, although I can only find one recipient in the whole of Google [1]. I agree, though, that we need clear, trustworthy sourcing for the claim. Formerip (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a fresh debate about this at WP:BLPN#Jonathan King.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Without reliable evidence for the award, and with the perhaps original research from the organization denying the subject won the award, common sense dictates that we should not state in the article that the subject won the award. Thanks for those efforts. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

opening section

seems very cluttered to me. Looked at similar pages and it is usually one paragraph and the rest of the history/achievements later on? Whats in the open is repeated exactly again a little later? I suggest: "Jonathan King (born Kenneth George King; 6 December 1944) is an English singer-songwriter, impresario, record producer, and writer." Just a thought.Dave006 (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This is too short per WP:LEAD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As Ianmacm says - the lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article, so some duplication of material is to be expected. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

AfD

Well, this was weird. I was looking at The Pink Marble Egg, this version, which led me to the AfD, closed as "merge". So I merged the content and as I was typing up edit summaries I noticed that the AfD was actually for a different article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vile Pervert: The Musical (which somewhat inexplicably also has an alternate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vile Pervert: The Musical (2nd nomination)). How does this happen, you ask, besides my not looking carefully at the actual title of the AfD? This rather puzzling edit by User:Dave006 (there is no Pink mention in the AfD for the Pervert).

So the Pink Egg is gone, merged into the main article (same redirect as for Vile Pervert: The Musical), for better or for worse. I suppose one could argue that the Pink Egg ought to be reinstated, but I bought into the arguments at the other AfD which, in my opinion, apply to the Pink Egg as well: only scratching the surface of notability, coverage-wise (plus, no notable actors, no awards, etc.). So, if anyone disagrees, I suppose they can bring the article back from its current redirect, and then the next editor can nominate it for deletion--this time, I hope, properly. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the "weirdness" simply arose from Dave006 being new, and not precisely following the proper processes. But I don't really think it matters much - in my view The Pink Marble Egg is if anything less notable than Vile Pervert, and it should be a simple matter for someone to merge any relevant and noteworthy info from the old Egg article into this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits

It seemed odd to me that someone most know as the DJ and TV personality of the eighties didnt have that mentioned in the opening paragraph. There seem to be conflicting agendas so I've started an objective edit. It will take some time, going back to the sixties. As a music bore I've kept all archive copies of Melody Maker, NME, Sounds, Music Week and Billboard and will source all changes with dates and, where possible, writers. His autobiog is useful. Obviously his claims need not be taken as true but his featuring of cuttings from national papers must surely be valid. He can't have gone to the trouble of forging them. I shall avoid defending or attacking him. Simple things like the Ivor ought to be easily proven from the archive. I was around at the time he started and remember being impressed that a university student was canny enough NOT to work for companies but stayed at school and used monies earned from his first hit to independently produce his second (Its Good Newsweek) when he was only 20. As I'm sure old articles in Melody Maker will illustrate though I have no idea how to link them online if they exist here. Hopefully this will help produce an article even he will admit is fair. LudoVicar (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the article is a biography of a living person, you need to reference your changes when you make them. Please don't replace referenced content with unsourced content. Also, the lead should summarise only the key referenced points in the body of the article, and it's best to seek consensus here befoe changing the lead based on current content. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

King has not worked as a DJ or television presenter for some years. While the main text of the article says that he did these things, he is not currently working in these areas, so they do not need to be in the opening sentence. Also, the WP:LEAD should mention the convictions clearly, and avoid the pro-King denials which have been problematic in the past.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced the refs and sources. Surely his past occupation is crucial in the lead? Flat Out's point above is quite right "the lead should summarise only the key referenced points in the body of the article" which is why I trimmed down the lead and refer to later in the article. I genuinely do not feel it now has any "pro-King denials" - it simply states the basic facts.LudoVicar (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to correct some of the glaring errors but many still remain (Loop di Love was on UK Records as any basic Google search shows). I would personally suggest it's wrong to include negative comments on Genesis and not positive ones (I was at the Music Industry Trusts dinner for Peter Gabriel who opened his speech with a very generous tribute to King) but I'll leave that to other editors. I'll try to do more when I've dug out the old music magazine archives unless the majority would prefer me not to.LudoVicar (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you're yet another WP:SPA restoring many of the points previous SPA's were keen on in order to remove "the anti-King agenda". Your edits are still without sources and in some instances directly contradict the cited source. I find your changing of his graduation date particularly interesting. The cited source says 1966. You've changed it to 1967, but you haven't changed the source. In fact I haven't been able to find a source that says 1967, although I suspect 1967 is right. Tell me, why are you so sure it's 1967? DeCausa (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you've reversed all my edits so I assume you and the other editors are not interested in my contributions. I have no problem with that. The graduation date is clearly in Music Week (which was then Record Retailer) and all the other music papers; I was looking at Record Mirror which has a picture caption which says on Friday 23rd June 1967 "Jonathan King BA attends an awards ceremony at Cambridge University where he receives his honours degree in English - then rushes to Southampton to co-compere As You Like It" whatever that might be. Sorry if that doesn't meet your rules or agenda. LudoVicar (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you a professional music historian? It sounds like you have an impressively complete archive. It's even more impressive that you are able to spot such points of detail in it. DeCausa (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

LudoVicar, yes we do want the correct information and any correction to incorrect statements is most welcome. But you must cite your sources properly. So if you change his graduation date to 1967 you must also change the source to Record Mirror 23 June 1967 and give the title of the article and page number. -- Alarics (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Further on my edits

As I've explained I have all the old music magazines in archive here and will pull them out eventually and give similar specific source details but most of the edits I have done so far are off the top of my head as they are obvious - like why say a hit in UK and USA when it was a hit in several countries so either say "global" or just "a hit"? Why say "pseudonym groups" when he clearly recorded under many solo names too? Nemo for example. It's going to take ages but I'm sure I can find specific sources from the short periods but most of my edits are just common sense, literacy or fairness. I haven't researched his case at all but assume most of that applies later in the article but where a King supporter will only mention his acquittal, a King hater will only mention his conviction - am I being strange or balanced to say both trial results should get equal prominence in the lead? I'm simply suggesting good manners and sense. Should not each edit be examined in its own right before deletion? Or do editors always block remove? And when you accuse an editor of being a single issue editor, are you only looking at one day's edits? I've only edited twice and this article only today. I've said elsewhere - I couldn't believe Leap Up and Wave Your Knickers isn't mentioned - surely it was the low point in his career and known by millions? All that Decca and Bell stuff is quite simply wrong. Basic research shows all his hits on other labels. If you want me to continue I will but it is going to take hours of flipping the pages of old magazines and there's no point if they are all simply going to get erased. LudoVicar (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)