Jump to content

Talk:K Foundation Burn a Million Quid/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Buddhism?

There is buddhist parable of a very virtuous layman who sank his vast wealth in a lake so it would not corrupt others, and I think there may be other parallels in Buddhism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.203.35.145 (talk • contribs) .

As far as that goes, I've seen a modern re-make of this story, in a Thai movie called "69". A heap of money is left accidentally in front of a girls door. She tries to claim it, but as more and more people involved with the money turn up and die, she eventually drops the whole suitcase of money into a lake.
Anyway, I'm not particularly convinced this K-foundation project had anything to do with Buddhism... I'd say its modern art at it's prime - if modern art aims to provoke, than burning a heap of money is about as provocative as it gets. This act stirs up more emotions and controversy than ten other modern art projects combined. --213.172.246.40 15:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting comments and some food for thought too. Thank you. --kingboyk 10:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
and of course there is the native north american tradition of the Potlatch, where rich people hold parties and give gifts so that wealth is spread around and jealousy is reduced and community harmony promoted. Although perhaps the Rites of Mu fits more in to that mould than the burning. - Drstuey 10:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

We have info about the burning across two articles. I wonder if this ought to become an article about the K Foundation burning a million pounds rather than an article about the film? Alternatively, we could start again with a blank page, and paste back in the non-editorialising material which is really about the film, move other good material to K Foundation, and discard the rest. Thoughts? --kingboyk 15:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep this article as about the film, i.e. including the screenings and film history. Move the analysis and reaction to the K Foundation page section. Update all the links on other pages that go to this page to go the K Foundation page section instead.  ?????
I seem to remember that I included so much info in this page because I was scared that someone would pull a 'this didn't happen' line, or a 'the analysis section is original research' line. By making the page about the film, I felt I could get that info in more easily. - Drstuey 10:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I dunno. It's quite hard. Whoever wrote these articles - you, presumably - has a tremendous knack for telling an interesting story, but didn't cite anything :) We also have to try and shape the material to fit into some sort of sensible structure, to give each stage of the KLF's career the best chance of becoming a Featured Article - quite a lot has changed in the organisation of the KLF articles since these were written. (There's for sure enough material to get at least one FA for the K Foundation, btw).
I've taken the knife to K Foundation art award today, but K Foundation still troubles me as does this article. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a great article but I've no idea how I can move it from being a great read to being a Featured Article on "burning era" K Foundation. More difficult still is what to do with K Foundation itself - I suppose that needs to become a summary piece.
Anyway, I'll plod on adding facts and juicy quotes from the sources and see what we get :) --kingboyk 20:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
hey hey, no, there was no citing done in those days, back in the mists of time. Yes large portions of the writing were copied from the KLF mailing list FAQ, which I wrote the first version and then others added to. And yes there are swathes and swathes of original research about the place which I had hoped would stay in there without refs, but hey ... I agree it is difficult what to call the article, since it is about more than the film itself, however The K Foundation burn a million quid is not exactly an encyclopedic title (much as, as a fan, I like it) - K Foundation money burning episode is more encyclopedic? cheers Drstuey 10:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's an acceptable title, because "burning a million quid" is invariably what they called it. Whatever name we choose, we have to keep "million" in there - otherwise they might have burnt a fiver which isn't quite as sensational :) Since we both like the title let's keep it this way for now, it's easy enough to change if anyone complains or comes up with something better?? --kingboyk 11:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Travel article

where can this new article be used - http://travel.guardian.co.uk/countries/story/1,,1842557,00.html - I have already used it in future screenings. - Drstuey 10:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice article, but not sure it adds much in the way of fact we haven't already covered. Anyway, leave the link here I'll see what use I can make of it when I next do some KLF work, if you don't do it in the meantime :) --kingboyk 10:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Lighter fluid

There's a link to Lighter fluid, which was a redirect to butane but is now a disambiguation to 4 types of lighter fluids. Which is the one referred to in this article? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No idea boss, no lighter fluid experts round here :) --kingboyk 13:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
presumably it is butane, as the compound in cigarette lighters, but it is not appropriate to link directly to Butane, that would be confusing for non-chemists surely. Hmm, I've forgotten what the reference actually says, exactly, about the moment, I mean did Gimpo squirt fluid onto the cash and get the matches out and was stopped just in time or did he stand there shaking the can of lighter fluid and matches for ages, threatening, calling Rachel Whiteread's bluff? Drstuey 09:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
From what I've been reading, he was fumbling around for the fluid, presumably he then he got the money soaked because he said he had it covered in petrol but was told to wait for 2 more minutes. Whiteread ran out of the Tate with a couple of heavies and they grabbed the loot. --kingboyk 10:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Legality

Were there any legal issues associated with burning a million quid? Andjam 03:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Various articles from the period seemed to suggest that this had been a concern, but that it was concluded to be completely legal. Actually, should this be mentioned in the article? –Unint 04:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't see why not. Do you have the articles to hand which mention it? --kingboyk 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm mainly thinking of this: "Their lawyer confirmed it was not illegal." I can only read the antecedent as being the act of burning. –Unint 20:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This blogpost reproduction of a Mail on Sunday 2006-11-09 blurb on a trivia book called Bears Can't Run Downhill (which probably doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article) says:
In the UK it is not illegal to burn money but, ironically, defacing it is subject to a penalty under the Currency and Bank Notes Act 1928. The reasoning behind this apparent discrepancy is that you could attempt to keep a defaced note in circulation, whereas once in flames it has gone for ever and no longer has any value. Notes do get mutilated, defaced and destroyed in daily use, of course. The average lifespan of a fiver is only about a year, according to the Bank of England. In 1994, art pranksters The K Foundation burned £1million and got away with it. But they had previously been fined £9,000, plus £500 'reprint costs' for defacing £1million worth of £50 notes by nailing them to an art gallery wall.
This doesn't quite tally with The Face article of January 1994:
(A last word on this money mania. Nat West, which loaned the cash for Nailed To The Wall with a reputed 20,000 insurance premium attached, intends to fine the K Foundation, in accordance with Bank Of England rules, for defacing the currency with nails. The million quid used had to be destroyed and the K Foundation will have to pay for its reprinting. Had they carried out their threat to burn the 40,000, they would have faced criminal prosecution as well. At least the banks and the police seem to believe in the intrinsic value of money.)
Apparently burning US notes is illegal. jnestorius(talk) 06:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Regret?

I notice that, in 2000, Drummond stated that he never regretted it and never would. (Although that interview is very different in tone compared to the 2004 one cited here.) Is there a way to reconcile this? Should it just be mentioned as an apparent change of mind? –Unint 04:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I should think so, yes. I'll take a look at that later today. To be honest, I don't recall if I'd finished trawling through the sources on this one, whether the source you mentioned I didn't have or if I just hadn't got it to yet. Either way, I'll take a look and also reassess the article. Just glancing at it now it seems pretty good.
By the way, if you want to improve the articles you don't have to ask :) It's appreciated that proposals are made first where big changes to FAs are concerned of course, but this isn't one of those :) --kingboyk 11:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. I already quoted from that piece, but I think the quotation you've picked up on will help the narrative nicely. I'll be using it. Thanks for the spot :) --kingboyk 12:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The regret portion is actually listed twice verbatim, thus appearing very rendundant 169.132.18.249 (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

K Foundation Burn a Million Quid

There's rich pickings in the book regarding audience responses and questions, testimony from Jim Reid and Gimpo, and candid sentiments from Bill and Jimmy. One of the things I'm currently doing is working through it to find the significant bits.

There's also a photo of the car plunging down the cliffs of Cape Wrath, taken by one Drew Farrell. It's taken at distance, so you can't actually see that the figures running to the cliff edge to look are Bill and Jimmy. And talking of long shots, do you think a scan of this photograph would constitute fair use, given it's an unrepeatable occurrence? --Vinoir 00:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Simply stupid?

In the KLF documentary [1] they said they burned the money since it took control of their lives. "If you have money you need to invest it and so forth". So the burning was a way of getting rid of the control the money had. I understand and respect the control part, but not the action.

What they did it was completely stupid. A GBP banknote is nothing but a proof that the Bank of England has borrowed boney from you. Money that they will not pay interest on, BTW. BoE will use the money for investments here and there. So what KLF accomplished by burning the debt notes was to give Bank of England a million pounds minus the expense to print new bills. Metallion 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

wow, that is very interesting... perhaps not to be added, but thanks for the stirring idea 169.132.18.249 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
How would the Bank of England be able to verify that the money was removed from circulation / destroyed in order to print new money? --cloudo (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would of been more impressed if they just quietly gave it to charity. Instead, they effectively purchased 'fame' for burning their million and I've helped that fame to continue by reading this story and posting this response. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.176.253 (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

seconded - if having money is too difficult, then donate it to some worthy cause... ( of course, people will probably argue about which cause is "worthy"... )
86.25.123.66 (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Title is horrendous

  • It is a statement
  • "Quid" is slang

To better follow wikipedia convention, this article would be better moved to "K Foundation Money Burning Stunt" or similar - PocklingtonDan 15:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Its the name of the book about the event (intended as an art event, rather than a mere stunt). The film title adds a "Watch". So its the name of the book, almost the film title and the name of the event they describe. Bwithh 15:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but as such all words other than conjunctions should be capitalised (i.e. "K Foundation Burn a Million Quid").FrFintonStack 21:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Propose move to "The K Foundation Burn a Million Quid" As I see it there are three ideas for the article title: Book title, film title, and description of the event. The description of the event could be worded many different ways, but the book title has the added benefit of also describing the event. —Dgiest c 16:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course quid is slang, but it's how they refer to it in the title of the book and film; this article is trying to describe book, film and event (per Dgies). "The K Foundation Burn a Million Quid" is alright by me. I suspect if we ever get this to FAC - which we ought, as there's a solid article here - the reviewers will have more to say about the title anyway. --kingboyk 12:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a difficult one this, and I don't mean to bring the discussion to the edge of the "What is art?" abyss. However, I think that since the K Foundation used money as art, their burning of the million quid was, as well as being a symbolic action, also intended as an art event in its own right, in the physical tradition of Richard Long. Because of this, it seems entirely reasonable to me that the title of this article - which documents the whole event - is retained but Capitalised as "The K Foundation Burn a Million Quid". The book and the film are both very important façets of that event, but the article is conceptually bigger than both of those. The film serves to formally record the burning, for posterity and for audience involvement at the subsequent tour of discussions; the book records the burning and the discussions for the involvement of the reader. Vinoir 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The book is K Foundation Burn a Million Quid —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vinoir (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Title is really bad! You can't leave 'quid' in the title without capitalizing the title and thereby recognizing that the project had a distinct name as reflected in the movie title and book title. Please admit that, for now, leaving 'quid' uncapitalized in the title is awful and move the page to "The K Foundation Burn a Million Quid" and continue discussing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OatmealSmith (talk • contribs).
Did the K Foundation formally give a title to this event? If so, that should be used. If not, then the book title shouldn't be used, because this is not an article about the book - it is an article about the event and its spin-offs. It needs to be a title that encompasses this, such as "The K Foundation's burning of a million pounds". Tyrenius 03:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, Tyrenius, you seem to be correct. Reid's Observer Article is simply called "Money to Burn." That seems to be the most immediate documentation of the event and it does NOT use "The K Foundation Burn a Million Quid." Furthermore there is some doubt as to the accuracy of "million." The title of this Wikipedia entry as it remains is still alarming. I propose the shortest title that accuaretly describes the event and also reflects that first Observer article: "K Foundation money burning or "K Foundation money-burning." Note also that this denotes a past event: a burning; and not a present-tense action: burn. Curious to hear reactions. Thanks. OatmealSmith 03:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • But that title doesn't express the large amount of money involved (a concern raised earlier. And artistic works are often expressed in the present tense. I'd suggest K Foundation burns £1 million.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trlkly (talk • contribs).

K Foundation Burn a Million Quid is the current home, and is acceptable to me. If it's acceptable to others would somebody clean up the incoming links (from mainspace, image: and template:)? I've sorted all redirects and the KLF template. --kingboyk 20:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"K Foundation Money Burning Stunt" and similar titles would be Wikipedia editors inventing a name, and "K Foundation money-burning" or "The K Foundation burns a million pounds" would ignore the name given to the performance by... the people who actually did it and claim it is art! You wouldn't rename Mona Lisa to Picture of smiling woman would you?!

They named the performance "K Foundation Burn a Million Quid":

  • Name of film: Watch the K Foundation Burn a Million Quid
  • Name of book: K Foundation Burn A Million Quid
  • Name of debate organised by Drummond and Cauty during the 2017 "Welcome to the Dark Ages event": Why Did the K Foundation Burn a Million Quid?

Any title which is fundamentally different from the current "K Foundation Burn a Million Quid" would be totally unacceptable. --kingboyk (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hoax?

According to http://www.firstfoot.com/good%20scottish%20pop/klf.htm there was an Omnibus documentary which showed a bank statement with £1,000,000 withdrawn just before the event, but apparently also showed a deposit of £1,300,000 a few days later. Has anyone got a copy of the documentary and can confirm or deny the statement? Yorkshiresky (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the deposit and the withdrawal are on the same day, it just shows the withdrawal first. Remember this is 1994 transactions were processed by day not hour by hour. I think that they cleared the million through this account, like when you move money from a savings account to a current account in order to withdraw it. 86.176.23.203 (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This tangentially brings up a fact that has, suprisingly, rarely (that I've seen) been discussed. Granted, a million pounds is nothing to sneeze at - however, this was the biggest selling singles band in the WORLD for a 12-18 month period - and, crucially, they owned their masters, licensing them to various companies. Therefore, it stands to reason that they would have (yes - wait for it) - money to burn. So supposition of a "hoax" is jumping the gun a bit, perhaps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.176.25 (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2008 ‎

Here's the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvo650F9xcs and the context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4uQtOQwLGE&t=6m25s It's blurry, so here's a transcript:
STATEMENT DATE 31 AUG 1994
Date Details Withdrawals Deposits Balance
29JUL  BALANCE FROM SHEET NO. 42 12,689.77
2AUG, TREASURY RESERVE TR 500,000.00
, TRO INT GROSS TR 543.70
37737201 TR 500,000.00 13,233.47
??AUG  TO 36922005 ACC TR 13,000.00 233.47
2???G, KLF GROUP TR 1000,000.00
TRO INT TR 2,863.70
TRO TR 1130,000.00 133,097.17
The document is hole-punched over the last two dates. 81.110.227.118 (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

New ownership of estate on Jura

As I explained on your own talk page, Noq, the new ownership of the Ardfin estate (and therefore its boathouse) is extremely relevant. This is because the new owner happens to be a multi-millionaire hedge-fund trader who deals entirely in money and presumably values it above anything else. It's the irony of this that makes it interesting and relevant, but I felt it was best to allow readers to work this out for themselves, rather that ramming it down their throats! I hope that explanation is clear - let me know here if not. Regards Dhmellor (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

That is all WP:original research. Your conclusions that it is ironic does not make it relevant - whether you ram it down readers throats or not it does not belong here without specific references about the irony and the reaction if any of K Foundation - not just about the person who has bought the site. Incidentally, WP:BRD calls for discussion after a reversion rather than just undoing the reversion after making a point but before consensus has been reached. Please undo your last edit until this is resolved here. noq (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Noq. This is not only original research but it may be also a classic example of original research. Please either bring a citation by a reliable source that this is somehow relevant to this article or leave this original idea out of the article. If you still do not believe us take this to the the original research noticeboard where the editors there will essentially tell you the same thing. Needless to say edit-warring should never be the solution to these disputes. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I don't understand why it is OR, but I have referred it to WP:OR as you suggest, and will await advice. Regards Dhmellor (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Best regards. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 25 external links on K Foundation Burn a Million Quid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Quid/Archive_1&oldid=1190149531"