Talk:Ken "Snakehips" Johnson

50 kg bomb?

This sounds suspect to me. 50 kg seems awfully small. 250 kg were the smallest bombs the Germans regularly used in this campaign, I thought. Where does the figure come from? John (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

From the sources. 50kg bombs were used in the Blitz, alongside a variety of others. - SchroCat (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

So the online Janes, Andrew (8 March 2013) source states: "A 50 kg high-explosive bomb hit the building, on Coventry Street, at about 21.45." Do we know exactly what's in Graves 1958, pp. 117–120? Not sure the size of the bomb matters. The significant consequence here was Johnson's death? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

p.s. I see that The Blitz article says this: "Then bombers carrying SC 1000 (1,000 kg (2,205 lb)), SC 1400 (1,400 kg (3,086 lb)), and SC 1800 (1,800 kg (3,968 lb)) "Satan" bombs were used to level streets and residential areas. By December, the SC 2500 (2,500 kg (5,512 lb)) "Max" bomb was used.]". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. A larger bomb would have caused many more fatalities and much more damage; the number of survivors from the CdP was quite surprising, including most of the band, so I think we're best off leaving the size of the bomb there at least to show it wasn't one of the 'Max' bombs the Germans also used to use. - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

So the 'Max' bombs were already being used by December 1940. The raid which killed Johnson was on 8 March 1941. A 50 kg looks quite puny compared to that list in The Blitz article? Indeed I can't see any mention of any "50 kg" bomb in that entire article. And we have no idea how accurate the bombing on the Café de Paris was? The single building would not have been allocated as a single target. Would still like to know what Graves (1958) says. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Then don't believe everything you read on WP! Here, here, here and here, are by way of examples from a 30-second search (of general use in the Blitz, rather than this specific event, although there are a lot more if you look for them). Feel free to search for other sources on the size of the one on the CdP if you wish too. The Germans mixed up the bomb loads quite a lot, and we have a good source that gives the size of bomb that hit the venue. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That's very useful context. Looks like The Blitz might need an update. I did see a map of "every bomb that was dropped in the Blitz". So that might reveal a size for "at least one" of the bombs that were dropped on the CdP. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I've read somewhere that pound for pound (or kilo for kilo), the smaller bombs caused more damage than the bigger ones, as the planes could carry more of them, and they therefore were spread over a wider area and caused more widespread damage. - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

p.s. Here's another online source that says "two 50 kg bombs". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It says the other bomb failed to explode and burst on the dancefloor. Given the degree of detail here, I'd say "50 kg" must be an accurate account. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is another source that says it was a 50kg bomb on the CdP. - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• How fascinating. I guess we're talking about an SC50 bomb then. I would have associated that size of ordnance with the previous war. This bomb even appeared in an episode of Dad's Army. One learns something new every day. Thanks. Fascinating article. John (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  "Don't panic, Captain Mainwaring! Don't panic!!" Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

British Spellings

Would it be inappropriate to change the British spelling of words like "Travelled" to the accepted American version? Pyrorocket (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would. - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Recordings

A number of his recordings (78s) are available on YouTube, such as this one, recorded on 29 January 1940. I'm not suggesting a wholescale addition of YT links, but I would be interested to know the copyright status of this and his other recordings. All seem to be from 1938 or 1940. I've assumed that YT uploads like this one have been made with the consent of the current copyright holder. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I always assume the opposite with YouTube, and I’m nearly always right with that stance. There’s no indication that this has been released by the copyright holder or that any permission has been given. - SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You may be right. What indication would you expect to see? But I was more interested to learn whether copyright has already expired. An alternative might be to add an External link just to this channel, similar to the existing Discogs and IMDb links. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ve taken the link out as I think it’s very probably a WP:LINKVIO. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. So what about a link just to the channel? Also, I'd be interested to know how you discover that you're "nearly always right". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Because every time I look at a YouTube link that people post, it’s often a copyright violation. I’d rather that link wasn’t added at the moment:it would still be linking to something that holds copyright violations. - SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was interested as to what shows you it's definitely a copyright violation. I'd be surprised if "IDOL", who provided that audio from the compilation album Black British Swing: The African Diaspora's Contribution To England's Own Jazz of the 1930s and 1940s (Discogs shows that album was issued on the Topic label) to YT, isn't the copyright holder. But that's assuming the recording is still in copyright (or was in 2017, when it was uploaded). I think it's unlikely that the recordings of Johnson's 78s are owned by a major label that would published them as official VEVO videos. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course, as the article is a WP:FA, we wouldn't want to start over-embellishing over-embellishing in any case. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)