Talk:Cliff Richard

Archive 1

Christianity

The introduction states Cliff converted to Christianity, but this conversion is never mentioned in the article itself? When did it take place? I always thought he was Christian all his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.95.4 (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

was he jewish?, converted to christianity from what? atheism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.202.232.89 (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

So, if it's not correct, change it! Which I just did Santamoly (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no citable evidence to hand but it's my understanding that Richard had no strong beliefs as a young man and was converted to being a Jehovah's Witness early in his career, possibly by Hank Marvin. It was only after he left the JW that he started professing to be a Christian. Does anybody have any corroboratng evidence for this? Mrstonky (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking

There is definitely overlinking in this article, in the form of repeated links.

WP:OVERLINK states:

In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including the following:

• where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first.
• where the first link was in an infobox or a navbox, or some similar meta-content.
• tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own.
• where a link to a significant related topic occurs embedded in the text of an article it may be useful to have a duplicate link in a "see also" section to make it easier to find.

I know the article has the "wikification" tag, but that doesn't mean people should go crazy with linking! Wwwhatsup (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1958–1963: Success and stardom

I have two comments on this section.:

1. Much of it is unreferenced. It is well researched and documented in Pete Frame's excellent "The Restless Generation" ISBN 9780952954071

2. I'm surprised there is no mention of Expresso Bongo in the feature film paragraph. Wwwhatsup (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"the Shadows" or "The Shadows"?

What's the view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.115.202 (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be on The Beatles that since they were never called "Beatles", without "The", that it should be capitalised as a mass noun. However, much blood has been shed in this process, and I wouldn't be keen on rehashing the same old arguments. The problems is that editors will point to sources for both capitalisations, so that doesn't help. It's really a standards issue. Rodhullandemu 01:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: The debate on "the" versus "The", although having merits, is now included in WP:LAME. Rodhullandemu 01:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

The bottom part of this article is shocking. Swathes of info needs to be reorganised or thrown out. Personnel? Line ups? Is this really needed - it looks a mess. Not to mention the random TV appearances - hardly notable and with unsourced viewing figures. Also the videography section could be moved to his discography. The first half of the article is pretty good though, so it's a shame.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Weeks or days?

Someone made this edit without any explanation. The original had been in place for many months. I suppose it should be obvious, but I'm not sure which is right. Is this vandalism or a needed correction? 86.134.43.126 (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC).

Archiving

This page was getting unwieldy, so I've archived discussions from before the beginning of 2010 ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits in the last month

Many of the recent edits of 86.158.30.31 [1] and 86.138.29.250 [2]- one can safely assume they are one and the same editor - appear to be single-minded and opinionated. This includes the entire "Allegations of bias against Cliff Richard & The Shadows" section, which one would imagine which is surely for the chop via WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Further edits include changing the middle name in the infobox to "Roderic". In fact - if one looks at the history of the last month[3] there is practically nothing of value or sourced except an improved ref in the "personal life" section. Is there any good reason not to revert? Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not only soapboxing, but WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violations, so I have removed the whole section pending negotiation here of what it should contain (if anything). Since auto-confirmed editors are involved, this has to be full protection, but will be for a week in the first instance until sources are provided, along with neutral tone. If this continues thereafter, I will extend the protection until agreement is reached. If agreement can't be reached here, you have various forms of dispute resolution open to you. Rodhullandemu 23:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not really involved myself with this article, until I read this section, which seems to be very problematic. I did try to neutralise some of it, and tag it, which was then reverted. I cannot say I am moved towards doing what it would take to address the problems, as it does seem as you say, and while there might be some point in saying something in one sentence that would cover this, a whole section is WP:UNDUE. I started watching a couple of the BBC documentaries referred to, but TBH they were dull, and nobody of any significance seemed to be featured (not just the Shads). So, I fully endorse your actions, and feel this section has no place in a BLP (especially as it focusses mostly on The Shadows).

I also tried to rework some of the synthesis about Richard's sexuality. I have noticed that some of the text I did needs slight correction; nothing substantial.Mish (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

{{Editrequest}}

Both in Personal life:

Change one (minor correction) in paragraph one, clarify this is about 'him' being gay quote needs closing:

• For some time there has been speculation about his sexuality in the media, and in response to rumours about being homosexual, Richard has said: "I am sick to death of the media’s speculation about it.

Should read:

• For some time there has been speculation about his sexuality in the media, and in response to rumours about him being homosexual, Richard has said: "I am sick to death of the media’s speculation about it".

To be pedantically grammatical it should read:

• For some time there has been speculation about his sexuality in the media, and in response to rumours about his being homosexual, Richard has said: "I am sick to death of the media’s speculation about it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.174.7 (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Change two (minor correction) in paragraph two, syntax:

• Richard has called on the Church of England should affirm people's commitment in same-sex marriage.

'should' ought to read 'to':

• Richard has called on the Church of England to affirm people's commitment in same-sex marriage.

Thanks.Mish (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mish, I think your first correction should read:

For some time there has been speculation in the media about his sexuality, and in response to rumours about him being homosexual, Richard has said: "I am sick to death of the media’s speculation about it".

or even (as "for some time" is a bit weaselly)

There has often been speculation in the media about his sexuality, and in response to rumours about him being homosexual, Richard has said: "I am sick to death of the media’s speculation about it".

—User:MDCollins (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although the often seems unnecessary qualification.

There has often been speculation in the media about his sexuality, and in response to rumours about him being homosexual, Richard has said: "I am sick to death of the media’s speculation about it".

Asked about rumours in the media about him being homosexual, Richard has said: "I am sick to death of the media’s speculation about it".

Thanks. Could somebody with the necessary rights make these amendments please. Mish (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

New batch of edits

Presumably the same anon editor has been back at work, adding a long list of countries and other details.diff. There is just too much information in the article. It should be split off into sub articles - like the existing Cliff Richard discography. Every single songwriting credit ? C'mon now! Show me another major artist on Wikipedia that gets similar treatment! Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Songs

So far, this is an unsourced list of songs written or co-written by Richard. The material should already be covered in Cliff Richard discography, or in individual articles for the singles and albums. Whatever the outcome, it just bloats this article and duplicates information available elsewhere. At best, it should be spun off into List of songs written by Cliff Richard, and sourced. Rodhullandemu 23:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged this, as it's currently an unsourced mess. If it isn't fixed pronto, I'll delete this, since nobody is discussing the proposed merge, or adding sources. Seven days. Rodhullandemu 01:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not know much about Cliff Richard. I needed to know whether he was just a singer or whether he also wrote music or lyrics (not a list of such music or lyrics). I was unable to get that basic information from this long wikipedia article. I did not take the time to read it in detail, but this kind of information should be available at the very beginning. He is presented as a singer ... not as a song writer or a composer. I think that is a lot more important than most details to be found in the article. The article starts with "Sir Cliff Richard, OBE (born Harry Rodger Webb; 14 October 1940)[1] is a British pop singer, musician, performer, actor, entrepreneur and philanthropist" ... why not simply add composer and song writer, if that is the case. Or make it clear that he was not. Bernard Lang (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Clean up (continued)

The whole second half of the article is a mess and resembles a fan's collection of whatever they can think of next. This whole page needs to be pulled into line with wikipedia and the second half needs major sourcing - if not, get rid of everything beyond the main body of the biography. This is pretty much what I said above, but it seems to be getting worse rather than better.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Mish (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a go at cleaning up the article. I've removed the following sections for the following reasons:

• Recordings released worldwide/by decade/format - Totally unnecessary, almost every artist has had their recording released in several countries worldwide and in various formats
• Chart accomplishments/Christmas songs - Should already be in the main body of the article and in individual articles for songs/albums - doesn't need to be repeated yet again
• Tours and concerts - Kept the headline with a link to the appropriate article
• All time top 50 - Again, should be mentioned in the main article, a list of the whole top 10 is unnecessary
• TV appearances - His own TV shows are fine, but a list of every TV show he's ever appeared in (over 50 years!) is totally ridiculous - and the list is woefully incomplete anyway
• Career line-ups - A list of all his backing musicians is unimportant
• Songs written by Cliff Richard - has no place in any article really, the songs themselves are unnotable and any that are will have an article
• Personnel - seems to be heading towards a list of everyone who's worked with him (recording engineers?)
• Further reading - seems excessive, have cut it down to completely credited works

Other sections; Videography and duets have been shipped out to his Discography page where they seem more appropriate. I'm thinking the list of awards won is OK, although needs to be sourced, or perhaps given its own page? Perhaps not. I've kept that anyway, and I'm a bit unsure about the list of his homes and properties.

I do apologise to the editor who added in all this information, but unfortunately Wikipedia isn't the place for a list of miscellaneous or trivial information.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work! Keep it up! Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, decided that the list of his homes wasn't really important either, so moved some of the information to the Personal life section. I've done probably most I will with it now and removed my tag, although perhaps the article needs more sourcing.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rodger or Harry ?

Early paragraphs of this article refer to him variously as "Harry Webb" or "Rodger Webb". Unless this changed at some point in his childhood, there needs to be consistency here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any inconsistency. Harry Rodger Webb is Cliff, and Rodger Webb is his father. This is clear to me when reading the article.Eastclif (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bhattacharjee or Dazely ?

In the section 1940-58, Cliff's mother's maiden name is given as Bhattacharjee with no citation. However in [4] the maiden name is given as Dazely. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murfas (talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

length of career

at the start of the third paragraph there is a stated length of career "Over a 52-year career", as his career is still continuing (its now up to 55years) this would not be proper, i would suggest re-wording as "Over his career"

Pga1965 (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Earliest Career?

As a boy, circa 1960, I remember seeing a dated British 'B' film based on Kipling's 'Kim' - "Sabhu" at a childrens matinee. Even then it was obvious to me that the lead juvenile was Cliff and his boyish Anglo-Indian good looks were very appropriate for the part. When I pointed this out to friends they said I was mistaken; when we checked the Credits it stated Sabhu was a certain 'Harry Webb', so we agreed it wasn't Cliff!! Later I learnt of his bith-name. I find it strange that this early acting career is never mentioned. It also explains his ease in his early pop-rock films, much more natural than, say, the Beatles or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.226.86 (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no evidence on www.imdb.com or on the web that such a film existed, let alone Cliff Richard starred in it. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Sabu" was an Indian actor. His first film (Elephant Boy, 1937) was written by Kipling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.144.143 (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Karlekens Sprak protests

This article says they happened in 1979, but since the film came out in 1969, might this be a typo? The reference is for a print book I don't have access to and I couldn't find any info online. Anyone feel like fact checking this? Tdimhcs (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

1971. (U.S. Amazon has a "Look Inside" for it.) Changed. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of Anglo-Indian

Anglo-Indian can mean Eurasian people, or white people who whose families lived in India for many generations.

Which is Cliff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.170.148 (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.141.92 (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The former. His mother, at least, was Indian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.102.69 (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Philanthropist?? Source citation??

Cliff Richard philanthropist?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.23.58 (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The article cites several places about his charitable giving (though maybe not enough detail). It's one of the reasons why he was knighted. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If the article is to make a feature of his charitable giving (uncited) it should also reference his tax avoidance and campaigIng to extend copyright when the end of the 50 years of royalties from his early recordings was approaching. His accumulation of wealth and efforts to increase it still further is much more prominent than any claimed charitable giving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.102.69 (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

His charitable trust is sourced. You are free to add any well sourced info on his tax avoidance and his campaign on royalties.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Languages of Cliff

I think there should be mentioned the many languages which cliff sang like Japanes or German . MJ1982 (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

#1 singles, lead section

In the introductory section, it says the following: "He has achieved 14 UK No. 1 singles (or 18, depending on the counting methodology)" - shouldn't the bracketed section have a citation (or a "citation needed" link)? 86.132.183.123 (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

None of the other three?

The article says: 'None of the other three played with the later and better known Shadows, although Samwell wrote songs for Richard's later career.' Who out of the four did? It doesn't say.--78.146.175.69 (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)