Talk:Jonathan King
 | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
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)
- 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)
Isn't this bit "In the early 90s, he tried to stir up some controversy by writing some racist articles about Scots as his career appeared to be flagging. He considered these to be humour, not racist at all and very much tongue in cheek." a bit too non-NPOV?
If IP Address 86.139.184.244 isn't JK himself it's his PR guy! Nothing too blatent and non-NPOV, but in particular I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_King&diff=39236206&oldid=39111546 Milvinder 21:59, 19 March 2006 (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)
- For me, the entire article reads as if he wrote it! I've changed the claim re RHPS (backed and produced) to match that on WeDontDoSingles.com (one of his music sites) of having backed the show (albeit after it opened) and having produced the cast album. Lovingboth 12:53, 12 October 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 hisa 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)
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)