Talk:Cliff Richard/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

14 No1s NOT 18. Changes needed urgently

This page needs to have the 18 No1s part taken away as who ever decided to include that can't add up, when everyone knows in it is 14. Please get that changed and only put facts on Cliff's page. Also the page doesn't tell a true factual biography of Cliff's success and needs to have more things added to. My suspicions are that someone with basic Cliff knowledge has written this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldwoolley (talk • contribs) 16:55, 24 August 2014

You are totally correct Al and I have removed the text you are referring to: "(or 18, depending on the counting methodology)". For the benefit of other editors, I have removed this text because 18 is not the official number of Cliff's no. 1 UK singles and it is totally meaningless to readers without an explanation of the alternate method used to come to 18. Neither is it referenced, so it was simply diminishing the credibility of the article. AusChartMan (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

‎

Someone please correct the opening

With 21 million singles sold Cliff has actually sold more singles in the UK than anyone, even Elvis and The Beatles. The source actually states that Cliff is the third best selling at in CHART HISTORY. The article makes no claim exclusive to singles and thus includes albums too. Thus he is Britain's biggest selling act as far as singles go, and the third biggest ever seller based on all formats! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.239.158 (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Odd that someone took the time to move this to the bottom of the page, but not to put the correct information in the article. Wouldn't having correct information in the article have been more beneficial to the Wikipedia community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.239.158 (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not that odd, really, as it's "first things first". Feel free to register an account and make the correction yourself. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Other things take priority over factual information, do they? Another oddity, seeing as Wikipedia claims to be an Encyclopedia. Correct information should always be priority. Everything else is secondary! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.239.158 (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

So, do you agree with my correction in the article, or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Where did I disagree with your correction? It's obvious my disagreement was your claim that other things take priority over presenting facts to the reader. 82.45.239.158 (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe obvious to you. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite clearly I stated that was my disagreement and I did so using easily understandable words. Also I notice you have "reverted" the article again to false information. The source given makes no exclusive claim to the singles chart, there are also album charts in the UK, and thus the word should "singles" should be removed and read what the source clearly states. That Cliff is the third most successful artist in UK chart history, outsold only by Elvis and The Beatles! 82.45.239.158 (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

We have to reflect what the sources say. Perhaps you can find a better one? But I'm a bit fed up with your scolding, I'm afraid, so let's hope another editor, who is more knowledgeable about Cliff, comes along to help you. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not scolding. That's what you are doing. You're the one making accusations about me and claiming that you could not understand my wording which is very clear and that "other things" take priority to presenting facts in articles. You are not an authority figure here and do not have the right to do this. It's silly and ruins Wikipedia for others. Yes, we do have to reflect what the sources say so let me quote directly from the source used "(Cliff's) phenomenal chart success – outsold only by the Beatles and Elvis Presley in the UK". No mention of just "singles" is there? Thus that word should be removed! Are you so uptight and easily offended that you would rather have incorrect information on Wikipedia than do the decent thing and make sure it's correct. If so, it say's how much you actually care about Wikipedia in the first place. 82.45.239.158 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Just registered an account. I will most certainly be making the edit to best reflect the source used unless another editor does it before I can. 82.45.239.158 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Well done. So, everything’s alright, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The definitive, authoritative list of best-selling singles artists, which we should use as a source, is here - not in a newspaper. Cliff Richard is in third place, behind the Beatles and Presley. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I concur with Ghmyrtle. This Official Charts article is quite clear. It is also true that Cliff Richard was the top selling UK Singles artist in the UK until downloads were included in official sales, after which downloads took Elvis Presley and the Beatles past Richard to officially relegate him to third. AusChartMan (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And that's all fair enough seeing as good sources have been provided. However, Wikipedia has lists that give credit for both physical sales alone and download sales too. As a result (and by admittance of the above editors) Cliff should be credited for the major achievement as the biggest all-time seller of physical singles in the UK! CliffordJones (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a good source? Here's an old BBC source, from 2004, which says "Sir Cliff Richard has sold more singles in the UK than any other music artist, according to a Channel 4 TV show. ... The veteran star has sold 21 million singles since finding fame in 1958 - ahead of The Beatles with 20.8 million and Elvis Presley's 19.3 million." Note the qualification midway through. And, of course, it makes no mention of physical sales, as opposed to physical+downloads. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair comment. I can't find anything online at the moment. I will try to and if I can will link to it. I, however, know for a fact the current edition of The Virgin Book of British Hit Singles lists Cliff as the #1 all-time physical singles seller! CliffordJones (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

So you just need to use the {{cite book}} citation format, being sure to include a a page number. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'm new to Wikipedia so did not known this. I do not own a copy though so will have to go back to my local library. I will do this when I have time. Thank you CliffordJones (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion unrelated to improving the article

No worries. You seem so much nicer than that thoroughly rude and cantankerous anon ip editor we had to put up with earlier, whoever they were. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC) You know that was me. Another spiteful remark on your part, like several of your others before. You may be an established editor here, but all my comments were geared towards the betterment of the article (based on the sources it used) and Wikipedia as a whole. You just like to insult. Wikipedia should not be used as your avenue for this. CliffordJones (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Apologies. You said you were "new to Wikipedia". I must have mistaken you for someone with a sense of humour - which is why I put in the ironic links. But I'm not sure how my edits to the article could be seen as "elitist". Could you direct me to my "several other spiteful comments"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Your comments here show plenty of elitism. For example how you feel that you have the right to place other things above putting correct information into the article, how you (by your own admittance) refuse to act in the best interests of Wikipedia when someone makes a point you don't like, and how use this comments section to insult me. We could all act childish like this, but some of us actually do have the honour you just mentioned. 08:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)CliffordJones (talk) I moved your opening comment from the top of this Talk Page to the bottom, where it belongs. Sorry if you think that is "elitism". I only edited the article because of your suggestion. I'm only engaged in conversation with you here now because I think the article needs improvement. Can you please stop making personal attacks? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC) I'm not making personal attacks, I have not once made a comment about what I think of you as a person. However, you said that you "mistook" me for someone with honor, later re-edited to say humor. Either way that is a personal attack. Please refrain from such behavior. Thanks. CliffordJones (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC) I said "someone with a sense of honour" with a "u". Editors are generally allowed to correct their own spelling mistakes. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC) p.s. I'm not an elitist person. Not "uptight" and "easily offended". It's still a personal attack, something you claim to be against here. You stated earlier you would not help me make edits to the article because you took offence to my pointing out that correct information should be the primary objective before everything else. CliffordJones (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC) You need to read Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Just me? It takes more than one to battle. I notice that the section you just gave me to read mentions a something called "Good faith". Something you Wikipedia veterans must already be familiar with. Thanks. CliffordJones (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC) I don't think anyone doubts the sincerity of your motives. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Good. Because every edit I make to this page (when I am able to) and others shall be backed up with reliable sources and thus factual. You can't doubt the truth CliffordJones (talk) 10:13, 28 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)

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cliff Richard. 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/20161020080848/https://www.nachhaltigkeitspreis.de/category/preistraeger/006_ehrenpreistraeger/ to https://www.nachhaltigkeitspreis.de/category/preistraeger/006_ehrenpreistraeger/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 11:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cliff Richard. 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/20100123015242/http://www.brits.co.uk/artist/cliff-richard to http://www.brits.co.uk/artist/cliff-richard
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104205528/http://www.cliffchartsite.co.uk/cliff1.html to http://www.cliffchartsite.co.uk/cliff1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002093400/http://www.surreylife.co.uk/people/celebrity-interviews/sir_cliff_richard_why_i_ll_always_love_surrey_1_1632896 to http://www.surreylife.co.uk/people/celebrity-interviews/sir_cliff_richard_why_i_ll_always_love_surrey_1_1632896
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003073420/http://www.cliffchartsite.co.uk/trivia4.html to http://www.cliffchartsite.co.uk/trivia4.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 09:29, 11 December 2017 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Londoner90 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

We should be careful with WP:BLPPRIMARY issues here. If Cliff's (authorised?) biography makes one statement and we have a primary tabloid source of a cousin making a contradictory claim, we should at least quote the second in context, rather than have it flatly overwrite the first. The "daughter of an Indian man from Goa, Vitriaus Rebeiro" is the voice of the Daily Mail rather than the interviewed cousin, here? --McGeddon (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought that a primary tabloid source quoting the hearsay of a cousin was more likely to be completely unreliable and useless by comparison. Just a guess. Steve Turner is hardly an unknown, is he? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Although the Daily Mail article is an interesting read, we cannot rely on it as reliable and we should stick to the official (conventional) story about Cliff Richard's origin. The original should be reinstated immediately. If we want to keep the new so-called "revelations", it can be done in an elaborate explanatory footnote. werldwayd (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the history of British India and the fact that so many generations of his family were born there, it would surprise me if Cliff Richard didn't have Indian ancestry somewhere along the line. As one of the comments in that Daily Mail article mentions, Indians who converted to Christianity often took European names, which would explain how one of his ancestors ended up with the surname 'Rebeiro'. Alistair McGowan - who participated in the genealogy series 'Who Do You Think You Are' - came across a similar situation with one of his forebears, and it was explained to him that she was almost certainly Indian. In fact, relationships between British settlers and the indigenous Indian population were actually encouraged at one time. Not least because European women who tried to settle in India usually didn't live very long. It was only later that a racial backlash started and many people of mixed white/Indian heritage tried to hide their roots. The actress, Merle Oberon, actually used to pretend that her Indian mother was a servant. Boris Karloff's great aunt (the real Anna Leonowens from 'The King and I') not only falsely claimed that she had been born in Wales, but disowned her sister for marrying an Anglo-Indian. Even Freddie Mercury used to side-step the issue of his ethnicity. I'm not saying that this is also the case for Cliff Richard, but he does admit in his first autobiography ('Which One's Cliff?') to having been on the receiving end of racist abuse when he first moved to England following India's independence. This may explain why he seems somewhat reluctant to acknowledge that he has Indian ancestry - and instead, says that his skin was simply swarthy from constant exposure to the sun. Andromer (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2017 (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)

Certainly not WP:FUTURE any more, and article certainly needs another update. e.g. [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS still applies. Let's wait until something lasting has resulted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree we don't need a daily update. But I think we should at least have the date the High Court proceedings started and finished? The UK public hasn't seen so much TV and press coverage of Sir Cliff for quite a few years (in fact, for about 2 years and 9 months). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

First sentence, first footnote

I'm not disputing the record sales but suely there should be a better more direct more authoritative cited source than a newspaper article about sex assault allegations with one single unsourced sentence about it included down at the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:518D:8BA5:3B76:4BF3 (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and changed. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)