This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
