Talk:Roy Harper (singer)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

More about Charges

I can find absolutely nothing about the charges. Case set for May 2014, now November 2014.

I know this may not be the best place to ask, but has anybody got any news? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.234.68 (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Charges

I would be v. careful about how to include this, but... [1]  Tigerboy1966  00:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article. He has vigorously denied the allegations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

So why leave this here? The matter has been dealt with and all this is just repetition... no? Stephenjh (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy to the editor concerned, and the fact that other editors may be interested in past discussions - WP:TPO. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Should this Charges section not be edited? He was acquitted and it seems to have undue prominence. I'm a fan but a fair fan. MicheleFloyd (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Source for DOB

Does this article have a source that gives the DOB? As this is key factual information it should be sourced.

• "Today in history". The New York Times. Associated Press. June 12, 2014.

If one of the other sources already gives his DOB, nevermind. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• • As I read it, the link you have included is simply a list of random things that happened on that date at some point in history - mostly from an American perspective (obviously NYT) - but has no direct reference to Harper or to his DOB. Therefore, in itself, it's just a link to coincidental trivia that adds nothing to the article. Please enlighten me if I am missing something, or this is now Wiki policy, or in any guideline. ATB - Stephenjh (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The article gives Harper's birthday as June 12 and his age as 73 in 2014, thus providing a high quality source for his date of birth. It is clearly WP policy on BLP's that key facts require sources. Being published in a major newspaper that has a solid reputation for fact checking provides a source for his DOB. The current source is Allmusic which has moderate reliability and the bio is not attributed to an author. It's really no big deal to me either way. If consensus is that the Allmusic source is reliable and adequate for his DOB then there is no need for any additional sourcing. Whatever involved editors decide is fine by me. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh crap! It seems the link points to the wrong day, and the article for that day has disapeared, nevermind. I will try and find the other articles I have added the wrong link to. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's the fix:

• "Today in history". ABC News. Associated Press. June 12, 2014.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. I appreciate the need to reference things, it's just the first link you provided didn't even mention Harper, so it was hard to see the point. The ABC link does - though I suspect they've mined the data from here - I'll dump the All Music link and exchange. Hopefully that works out for all of us. Thanks for your assistance and time. Stephenjh (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No thank you for pointing out my mistake. I am now fixing a whole series of edits I made that day. It seems really weird to me the link now points to the June 13 "Today in history" as my edit history clearly shows I made the edits on June 12 before 0200. The June 13 piece isn't cleared for release until the 13th, also other dates are available by tweaking the url but the June 12 piece isn't accessible at NYT. By the way the piece is a daily feature straight from Associated Press, NYT and others publish it verbatim, the NYT theoretically fact checks it. I wonder if that's behind the unavailable day?

Do you really think the AP is pulling the data from WP? - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Black Cloud of Islam

I have carefully created the following section. It is a matter of contraversy but I think it is useful for people to know and of interest in an encyclopedic entry about Roy Harper. However it keeps being deleted without proper explanation being given.

• I have deleted the section for reasons given previously, and on your talk page. Namely: BLP / lack of references justifying a "controversy", undue weight given to one song on a Bio page, a singular YouTube video clip given as reference and not supporting of the statement in the text, overly leaning on a self published blog for reference Etc... As has been pointed out before, this section may be best placed on the album page - when it (the controversy) can be referenced properly. Or you may choose to re-write the text according to the references you have provided. HTH Stephenjh (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Further. "I'll do whatever I think is necessary and according to the rules. I'm fine with others looking into this too. As for the Telegraph, I didn't mention it because it's mostly irrelevant to that which you have written - it mentions no controversy at all, just that Harper has at times tried to remove the song from certain sites to prevent it being abused, anyway more than enough reasons have been given already. Self published blogs are permitted as references and sources but only under certain circumstances and I don't believe the way in which the text is written now justifies its use. This has nothing to do with censorship, it's more about following the rules.

• If the entry didn't sound so sensationalist, was written according to the references given, located on the correct page I might no be so opposed to it. I would suggest that the impact of the song on SOME of Harper's fans - at the time - be the angle from which the subject matter is tackled and I can envisage the use of his blog to support that. Further, the situation today could be mentioned and supported with the references given. But using terms like "provoked controversy" is a broad generalisation and unsupported, he never 'released the track' that reads as if it was a single but it was only ever an album track. "eponymous "Black Cloud" ? "Criticism... from some political quarters" - What political quarters? - again, unsourced and unreferenced. I'd prefer it if you were less sensationalist, improved the text and supported it with correctly sourced and valid references - then I wont need to edit it." Stephenjh (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have moved the section almost verbatim to the album page where I think it's best suited. What remains is, I hope, a reasonable synopsis of the track, what provoked Harper to write it, and the effect it had upon a section of his fan-base... which I wouldn't describe as "predictable" or a "backlash"... and I don't think anyone else has used those terms either. Never-the-less, I believe, considering this one song, bothered a few fans, at one point in time 25 years ago (in a 50 year career), then that which is written on the article page is sufficient and correctly 'weighted'. Stephenjh (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is the section:

The Black Cloud of Islam

Harper provoked controversy in 1990 with the release of the track, The Black Cloud of Islam, which appeared on the album Once (Roy Harper album). The lyrics of the song are a despairing castigation of radical Islam and makes reference to the "kidnapping, murder and war" of people living under "jihad the obscene" and the eponymous "black cloud".

"I'm sick to the teeth of the news on the screen
Of hisbollah scum and jihad the obscene
Whose men plant the bombs and then live feeling free
To watch women and children be killed on T. V.
Which satan delivers a child a death curse
In the name of a worn out collection of verse
I've not read the book so I cannot recite
But I'd bet Salman Rushdie is just about right
Underneath the black cloud of islam."

In response to the criticism he received from some political quarters, in 2006 Roy Harper wrote, "I let my guard slip. I knew that I’d let it slip. I wanted it to slip. I was absolutely sick of being politically correct. I am not politically correct, I never have been..". His stated reason for penning the song was his "feelings of despair" about his "worst dreams coming true" about religion gaining ground. Religion, he stated, was something he regarded with the "deepest possible suspicion" and now, to his horror, he could see it "about to storm the world" and "take over whole swathes of humanity"; a thought that he detested and made him "want to die on the spot". In a later interview with the The Daily Telegraph, Harper asserted that he wrote the song in 1989 "as a liberal, not as a racist" and the motivation for writing it primarily came from the horror of the 1988 Lockerbie Bombing.

After its release there was a predictable backlash from some of his fans, which Harper describes on his blog:

"I was red-carded by a lot of my 1990 following. They seemed to have left in substantial numbers, but I was singularly unrepentant. I was ready to put my fist through a concrete wall. I kicked over the traces.. and I told myself that I didn’t give a shit. And in truth, I gave less than a shit about what people thought. I wasn’t interested in being correct, and I’m still not."

Many online sources deliberately omit this particular song.

please explain your reasons to objecting to this using the space below

• My view is that there should be something on the Black Cloud of Islam but it should be fairly small so we don't fall foul of WP:WEIGHT. The current version with about a paragraph seems to be about the right weighting to me.[2]--Salix alba (talk): 18:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Marriage

At the time of writing, the article says "In 1992, his second marriage ended" and has a November 2015 statment referring to "my wife", with no mention of any marriages taking place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• That's right, there's no reference to the next marriage date yet. Stephenjh (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Roy Harper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402224054/http://eccentricblog.livejournal.com/7822.html to http://eccentricblog.livejournal.com/7822.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012001721/http://www.musicomh.com/albums/roy-harper_0511.htm to http://www.musicomh.com/albums/roy-harper_0511.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)