Talk:Cliff Richard

Canada Success Comments

This article claims Cliff had "moderate" success in Canada during the 1980s with "several platinum albums". Surely the word "moderate" is not needed or accurate. Platinum discs are awarded for top-selling records and to have several albums do this in a decade is quite an achievement for a recording star. 82.45.239.158 (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Richard has only had two Platinum albums in Canada ("I'm No Hero" and "Wired for Sound") so it should really be corrected to "two" after double-checking it. He has also had numerous hit singles. While this is an achievement of course, I would have to say it is only a relatively moderate proportion of his recordings that have had success compared to other countries where he has been very successful for extended periods of time. I think you will also find his Canadian success quite moderate compared to other similarly successful UK artists like Elton John or the Rolling Stones. AusChartMan (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

We could use this argument for every recording artist on the planet and call many who have sold millions of records "minor" successes because someone else sold a lot more than they did. There would certainly be a lot of minor stars compared to Cliff's status in the UK and world-wide sales! I agree if Cliff only had two platinum albums in Canada it should be corrected, as (like I stated previously) I want to see correct information included on Wikipedia. I'm not here to "big up" Cliff (or any act) with misleading information about their achievements. That said, his numerous hit singles that you mention (and also any albums that went gold) should also be mentioned to give a true picture of all the success he has had in that country. CliffordJones (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Cliff Richard discography lists I'm No Hero as Platinum in Canada, but Wired for Sound as Gold. Maybe that needs fixing first. Meanwhile it might be safer to change that sentence to ".. at least one album reaching platinum status." It needs still needs a source to support it. But it should not be the only location for that claim - the introductory section should only summarize material that already exists in the body of the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes it should summarize information and it should do it in the most accurate way possible, giving a true representation of what it talks about. The word "moderate" is not needed. The reader can make up their own mind if they think the success is moderate or not. Some may think just one platinum album is a great achievement and a huge success, others may not. Some may think numerous hit records over time (like Cliff did in Canada) is a bigger achievement having one really big one and then flopping and disappearing. That kind of thing is subjective. Indeed, most article I read about Abba state they never really hit the big time in the USA, while most the articles I read about The Bay City Rollers claim they were a huge success there. Yet Abba had twice the success in America than the Rollers! CliffordJones (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd guess that "moderate" would have to assume a comparison with the best-selling artists, who had sold many more albums in Canada, and thus had an overall accumulation of many more Platinum and Gold discs. But I don't think that "moderate success" is a term defined by the music industry so, yes, there is an element of subjectivity. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Again what about Cliff's success in the UK? Can we then say every act that sold less records than him in that country is therefore a "moderate" success there? If so there is going to be a lot of moderately successful artists that are hugely known. George Harrison as a solo artist for example? A superstar, yet many uncharted songs and less sales than Cliff. Or Cilla Black? She has also had tons of flops and has sold much less than Cliff too! Yet she too is considered a major star in music here. James Brown has only had one top ten single in the UK and never had a top 10 album. Yet he is a household name. He is certainly regarded as a star here, and yet his profile of chart hits, gold albums, etc is far behind many lesser known artists. All of this is proof positive that objectivity comes into play at how one views success or star status. As a result, the word "moderate" is not needed before the word "success" when describing Cliff's in Canada and should be removed. It's not like I'm asking for the word to be replaced with "huge". I'm saying if the reader believes the success to be moderate (or not) that's a conclusion they will reach themselves and we do not need to tell them one way or the other. CliffordJones (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I was actually agreeing with you? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet the word moderate is still in the article. No matter. I shall be removing it (and adding other sources about Cliff's success in Canada) once I have the editorial privileges to do so. CliffordJones (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed the word "moderate" earlier today (after I'd thought about it more since my previous post) to remove the subjectivity of it, as it was not based on any authoritative source. I instead clarified Cliff's Canadian success, to at least make the sentence accurate (although it still needs a good Canadian chart reference for the 1960s - anyone got a good one? There is at least RPM and CHUM chart history around that evidences it). AusChartMan (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, the summary should be a summary of the article and not contain Canada information only in the summary. So consideration is needed on either improving the article content to justify Canada being maintained in the summary, or relegating the Canada discussion to the article body. It is probably more significant to prioritise the countries where Richard is most successful, and that would leave Canada in the mix as noteworthy but not a stand-out from others as it currently is. The US obviously still needs mentioning as it is the most significant music market. AusChartMan (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edit is very well written and explained, which is in the vein of what I was going to do. CliffordJones (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Life with Johnny

Cliff recorded a six-part TV series for ITV in 1969 called Life with Johnny, a religious themed drama series featuring Una Stubbs, The Settlers and William Hartnell. It's missing from the TV section of the page. Not much is known about the series, but 2 episode survive. It should be added to the page. Some info here: http://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2454554.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.255.55.99 (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

OBE

The title given to Cliff in the heading of the page is incorrect. He is a KBE. He was once an OBE, but that was superceded by his knighthood. His correct address is Sir Cliff Richard, KBE, and the page should be amended accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.246.145.202 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The UK honours system is *very* complicated. The article Jimmy Savile has Sir and OBE and it would take an expert to say whether this is right or not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I suspect (but I'm certainly not an expert) that 162.246.145.202 is correct. This says: "Should a knight be promoted within the same order, he ceases to use the letters denoting his lower rank and uses instead the letters appropriate to his senior rank... The same applies to a knight of an order of chivalry who previously held the same order, but of a class which did not carry a knighthood." Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It isn't complicated at all, let alone *very*. It is quite simple. You get promoted, so you use the senior title once that's awarded. OBE is the second tier, KBE is the top tier, so you stop using OBE once you become CBE and you stop using CBE once you become KBE or DBE. Many people do not get more than one honour, many others jump a rank. If you receive any honour and then get promoted, you actually have to return the regalia of the lower honour when you accept the higher one. Ghmyrtle is absolutely correct. Simple. In the same way that Barack Obama will forever now be known as President Obama and not Senator Obama. I love that someone has pointed out that another wiki entry defines the answer. The wiki nazis never take into account that every instance where the incorrect format is in use means that all those pages are wrong. Heaven forfend. Wiki is always right after all. On a point of pedantry, since all UK honours are for the lifetime of the recipient only, Jimmy Savile is no longer a KBE, OBE or anything, as he's dead. That's why the petition to have his honours removed went nowhere. As HMQ's spokesperson said at the time, you can't strip a title from anyone who's deceased as their non-hereditary titles die with them. Cliff is a KBE not an OBE. Fact. Jimmy Savile is a former KBE. Fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.255.55.99 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No, not fact. Wrong. Both are/were Knights Bachelor. See below. And yes, it is complex. Take that from someone who's spent a lot of time studying the British honours system and has also spent a lot of time on Wikipedia correcting well-meaning edits by people who think these things are obvious but are actually wrong and should therefore leave well alone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Cliff is not an OBE. He is a KBE. Another analogy is the military. If you are a Sergeant and get promoted to Captain, you don't call yourself Sergeant any more. Same with the Order of the British Empire. A Knight supercedes an Officer. Doesn't look like anyone is going to take any notice and update the page. Typical. 72.245.246.219 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. Cliff Richard is a Knight Bachelor, not a KBE. Knights Bachelor use no postnominal letters. They therefore retain the postnominal letters they already had, whatever they may be. Richard was awarded the OBE and became Cliff Richard OBE. He was then knighted and is therefore Sir Cliff Richard OBE. Only had he been knighted as a KBE would he be Sir Cliff Richard KBE (with the higher rank superseding the lower). It is a common misconception that all British knighthoods are KBEs, but in fact the commonest form of knighthood by far (and also the oldest) is the Knight Bachelor. KBEs are actually quite rare. There is, however, no equivalent of Knight Bachelor for women, so Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) is the standard damehood and would supersede the lower ranks of the order. The page is therefore entirely correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

No. You're quite wrong. But still, the wiki psychos always get their way and since I don't want to be blocked or banned for disagreeing - which would be Necrothesp's next move - who cares if the page is wrong? It just adds to yet another incorrect wiki page. Happy dominating! 50.0.166.40 (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You’re both wrong. Sources are all that matter. Neither has provided one. You will not be blocked if you can provide sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

And here it is: Sir Cliff Richard OBE. There's nothing more official than the London Gazette. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I can think of several sources more official than a twenty-year-old newspaper. As was stated, it has been updated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was the first and last time he was ever awarded a knighthood. Sounds pretty official to me. If anyone can come up with proof of a later, and higher, knighthood, I'll happily eat my hat. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of this arguing by people who clearly have no clue what they're on about (although given their attitude, I'm assuming the IP is more than likely a troll). Want a current source? Try checking the 2016 Who's Who, which is published every year. Oh look, Sir Cliff Richard. Kt (note, not KBE) 1995. OBE 1980. Happy? No, you'll probably claim it's not valid because you can't see it online! Wrong (been claimed by many editors who don't know what they're talking about, been refuted every time). Or that WW isn't a reliable source. Wrong (been claimed by many editors who don't know what they're talking about, been refuted every time). Or that Kt and KBE are the same thing. Wrong (e.g. Sir Roger Moore. KBE 2003 (CBE 1999). Because he is a KBE and his KBE does supersede his CBE. Note his CBE is therefore parenthesised, whereas Cliff Richard's OBE is not.). I can quite understand this confusion between Knights Bachelor and KBEs and the fact that Knights Bachelors don't take any postnoms; what I can't understand is a refusal to accept the facts when they've been pointed out to you in detail by experienced editors who have written reams on the subject, calling said editors names (wiki nazis and wiki psychos so far), and claiming they are making Wikipedia incorrect because you insist with no evidence that you're right and everyone else is wrong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

My concern is not whether it was or was not online. My concern was using hyperbole to hype the source: "nothing more official". It's also patently untrue. There must be a registry of the honourifics or titles. That is certainly more official. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

My comments weren't aimed you. They were aimed at the troll. No, the official source is, as JackofOz says, the London Gazette. There is nothing more official than that. That's why honours are said to be "gazetted". But for an individual's current honours (without searching the LG for every honour) the best and most reliable source by far is Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting to see how many very helpful posts and contributions the "troll" has made to wiki. Yet you don't like being called a troll yourself. I suggest you refrain from further name calling as Walter suggests. 104.50.204.13 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What a nasty, petulant, vicious troll Necrothesp turns out to be. Their way or no way. Having always to be right and abusing all those who disagree. No wonder wikipedia is dying on it's feet. Well done on your spiteful post. 205.154.244.238 (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Name-calling is not appropriate anywhere, particularly not in a place where we are trying to operate as peers and be constructive.

I note that when Necrothesp called the earlier editor a troll you posted nothing. Interesting. The wiki gang sticking together as always. I also note that nobody has posted a reliable source that Cliff is NOT a KBE but merely an OBE. Live by your own demands.104.50.204.13 (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

At the crux of the matter is whether there is a reliable source to support a KBE or not. If you have it, please provide it and the matter will be closed. If you don't, then the matter should have never been broached. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no reliable source because he doesn't have a KBE. It's a simple case of confusion about British knighthoods, not realising the difference between a KBE and a Knight Bachelor, and wrongly assuming that all knighthoods carry postnominal letters. A very common problem, as I have said. And one that is usually amicably resolved once their mistake is pointed out to the OP ("I didn't know that. How interesting" is much more common than "I still know I'm right and you're wrong and by the way you're a nazi/psycho"). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Death pact

Cliff has a death pact with his sister, in case they develop dementia: [1]. Maybe this should be added to Personal life section. He also gave his backing to gay marriage. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Trimming the sexual assault allegations

Now Cliff has been formally declared as innocent, I think the allegation section needs a trim to keep it balanced with the rest of the article. I've cut it down to a bit more of a manageable length, and I see it's gone from the lead too. It really isn't that significant part of his career, all said and done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Not that Inspector Knacker of the Yard, would ever use the phrase "formally declared as innocent", of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It was always likely that this would turn out to be Paul Gambaccini Mark Two, but the allegations and the controversy surrounding them remain notable. Ever since someone from South Yorkshire Police tipped off BBC News about the raid on Sir Cliff's home, leading to live TV coverage like the Iranian Embassy siege, there has been criticism of how this was handled.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It's reported today that Cliff Richard will be taking legal action over this, but there is still an element of WP:FUTURE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Commercial success in Ireland

"In Ireland, he holds the record for the most hits — 70 of them — trumping the likes of Michael Jackson and Madonna." I think this should go in somewhere, but am uncertain as to the best place. Also, there might be other useful new info in that citation. Can I leave it with the experts who watch this page to follow up? Narky Blert (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ancestry ambiguity

'Richard is primarily of English heritage, but he has one great-grandmother who was of half Welsh and half Spanish descent, born of a Spanish great-great-grandmother named Emiline Joseph Rebeiro.[14]'

The below article states his 'great-great grandmother, Emeline Josephine Rebeiro, [was] the daughter of an Indian man from Goa, Vitriaus Rebeiro'. I've had a look at the source for the current sentence, and although from a published biography, the fact that the book says that they were both Spanish and Portuguese people in India seems odd (There were few Portuguese people in Portuguese India let alone Spanish people). It is more likely that he is indeed of Indian descent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2055932/Bigamy-Raj-scandal-buried-Cliffs-past.html

I think there needs to be an amendment sourcing the more recent article above.