Talk:Kathy Kirby

Official websites
I know there is argy-bargy between the creators of the two official websites, one by Mediaworld (.co.uk)and one by Odeon Entertainment (.me.uk), as well as a third authorised site (.org.uk). But why not include all of them rather than none?138.37.27.9 (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

?
Why does someone keep editing out the references to Kathy Kirby's mental health problems? Her nearest and dearest are well aware of this aspect of her life, and it is nothing to be ashamed of. KK's mental health has dominated her life for 25 years, it seems weird to not mention it.

I edited out the references because it seems you have a problem with all that is unpleasant about this lady's life. Why do you seek to reveal her address? Why do you stalk this topic? Why haven't you the guts to reveal yourself? I think it is your motives which are weird.

What an outrageous response. Reveal myself? There isn't the opportunity or reason to do so on Wikipedia. I created the page about KK in the first place, my first Wikipedia page, because I was surprised she didn't have one already, and she deserves one. I therefore often check it to see what has been added and removed; that is hardly stalking. I gave the basic info I knew, about her many achievements and her well-known problems to try to give some useful information about this talented, complex and interesting woman. I had some slight insight into her current situation as I am a former neighbour, but I did not give her address.

You are the outrageous one. She does deserve recognition, but not the sort you were giving. You may have had slight insight, I have slightly more. You won't reveal yourself? Then go away. You didn't give her address? You gave the name on the doorbell! Not a stalker you say.

This is daft. Contributors are not supposed to reveal their identity. And in fact I said that her name *used* to be on the doorbell. It hasn't been there for years, or I never would have mentioned it.

There was no point mentioning it in the first place really was there?

Reading the above and the article itself, I have a feeling that unfortunately this topic has been hijacked by someone who does not have any perspective on Kathy Kirby. She is as interesting for her problems and contradictions as well as for her considerable achievements.

Loads of missing information
I recall so much more than this page has. What about the Billy Cotton Band Show, for example?

And where is the reference material here? So little authoritative data, this is more like a paen of praise than an enclyclopaedic article

What about a decent biography?

This page is deeply flawed.

And why do talk contributors not sign their talk? Fiddle Faddle 17:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I may be wrong about Billy Cotton. It was a long while ago. Fiddle Faddle 22:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing Kathy Kirby with one of the regulars on the Billy Cotton Band Show, known as Kathy Kay. (She died last year incidentally.) If there is missing information, all you have to do is add it. You may have more sources and time than the rest of us. There isn't quite enough material to put in sections yet. If we did, one or two sections might only have a single sentence. It is difficult to write about her without mentioning what a phenomenon she was and why. This is not praise. If anything it is a sad story about how the greatest talents are often wasted (cf George Best). The word is "paean" by the way.JMcC 15:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes. Kathie Kay, surprisingly easy to confuse.  The brain plays tricks over time.  As for "Paean" I must learn to use spilling chucker more, or to better effect  Touché.  I don't have the information myself, but am interested in areas like spouse/partner, offspring, possibly a dated discography.  I understand your thoughts about sections with but a single line of text.  Consider, though, that such a lonely line of text would or could encourage another editor to expand that section.  Surely that would only be to the good?


 * Looking at the history and this talk page some "unpalatable" information has been discarded over time. But, if that information is verifiable, surely it has a place in the article? Fiddle Faddle 15:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this page has attracted a possessive control freak who keeps altering the entry and references to Miss Kirby's official web site. Stars like her do unfortunately attract this type of person and there is little normal sources can do to get rid of them.

Take a look at www.secretlove.info —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretadmin (talk • contribs) 22:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I do think reference should be made to the now confirmed touring show about Miss Kirby's life. It is detailed at www.secretlove.info and I am sure many Kirby fans would wish to know about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storyman2007 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert
this entire article has come from elsewhere. See revision history. It has been reverted and listed correctly with the relevant wikipedia pages. This is not only poor practice it is outside wikipedia ethics. I'm not a fan, particularly, so I am not going to create the page by researching it properly, but I do not like to see copyvio, esp since googling Kathy Kirby showed Wikipedia and answers.about.com very close to each other

Apoliogies to Kathy's fans, but a real article would be appropriate, especially with a neutral POV and decent sections. I'm about to add a stub notice to it to attract editors Fiddle Faddle 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm, no. answers.com is a wikipedia mirror site.  What you are seeing on that page is not copyrighted material that this article has lifted: What you are seeing on that page is this article. FiggyBee 08:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah. In which case humble apologies.  The system works, and one learns. Fiddle Faddle 09:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I recall much more but it has better destinations that Wikipedia!

We have published a decent biography thank you.Why don't you fade away and play games somewhere else?

Sections
We have an anonymous editor who keeps removing the tag which says the page needs sections. I contend that the page does need sections. I put the tag there for that reason, simply because I found it was not wholly easy to follow. This singer has an interesting life. The article would benefit from a more expert editor compiling the remainder, and would certainly benefit from sections.

Equally, a plea for sections neither adds to nor detracts from the content of the article, and it strikes me that our anonymous editor might do well to argue the case against the tag instead of perpetually removing it.

Accordingly I am reverting the page to re-add the tag requesting sections. Fiddle Faddle 12:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you mind your own business?I don't need your limited editing skills thank you.


 * Please do not use rudeness. If you don't think the article needs sections, which really is a wikipedia convention, why don't you give reasons?  At present I see nothing to justify what you are doing.  Wikipedia is better for multiple editors who work together.  It also has conventions that you sign comments on the talk page. Fiddle Faddle 20:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

30 August 2006: Yet again, this page has been blatantly hijacked and edited by Mediaworld, the people behind the recent biography of Kathy Kirby. They really seem to think they own her and everything written about her, and that their own name and presence on this page is vital. A number of editors have now attempted to turn this page into a proper balanced and informative Wikipedia page by adding context and background, and by removing Mediaworld's puff pieces and emotionally-charged language and point of view. The most recent edit seems to have once again reinstated all their amateurish nonsense.

Mediaworld and this article
I have toned down some of the (very excessive) advertisements inserted by Mediaworld into this article. Wikipedia is not an advertising space, and who this person uses as a media agent is (as far as I understand it) entirely irrelevant to an article about her. I have also removed an external link to their website, which at first glance has no content about her whatsoever, apart from a link to her official site (which already has a link). - Mark 07:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I give it about an hour before Mediaworld reinstates all their guff :{ 158.223.246.50 14:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK it took a few days, but I see they have hijacked the article yet again. 87.243.194.122 10:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reverted them. If they find that fan site offensive, then they should explain here in what way it is offensive. A cursory glance by me over that site reveals nothing. - Mark 11:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It is offensive because it shows pictures of the star and the web site builder in an inebriated state. You have an enormous opinion of yourself for a 21-year-old. Do you know you're two years younger than this lady's retirement year! My "guff" is professionally researched material and I have been in the media for longer than you have lived.There is no point changing the links or removing the offensive ones because you, Mr High and Mighty, will obviously "revert" again.

To be fair, the "guff" in question was some rather bullying and self-serving editing, which was not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. As a bystander, I am thinking there is surely some sort of pre-existing feud going on between Mediaworld and the person who made that Kathy Kirby fan website. It's almost like the argument is "she's MY friend", "no she's MY friend". Actually Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a vehicle for either party to showcase either themselves or their preferred spin of the subject. It is for everyone to share information and knowledge. I too looked through the fan website, and I think I have found the photos Mediaworld is referring to/ I have to say no-one looks to be in an inebriated state. On the contrary, it is great to see the subject looking relaxed, happy and attractive in recent years, given the well-known tribulations of her life (especially her fragile mental health, notes about which are always being added and removed from the page). Sah10406 22:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The weird and tendentious editing of this article continues, and is becoming really tiresome. The link to the much-discussed tribute website (which, despite Mediaworld's opinion above, is very innocuous and respectful) keeps being deleted or replaced with link to a one-page "site" that re-directs to the official site anyway. I am not part of either camp, but I did create the page originally, so I do get annoyed when it is hi-jacked. 82.5.179.28 14:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What a shame that Mediaworld now routinely removes anything added to this article by any other contributor, and that they continue to foreground their own work at the expense of objectivity. They are sneaky too. The "fan site" they keep adding is nothing of the kind, but one web page that links to the offical site, which they run. Sad sad sad. 158.223.121.58 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Mediaworld has been banned from Wikipedia. The IP address they used has has also been blocked. —Centrx→talk • 17:31, 12 December 2006 ("Sad,sad, sad." You certainly are

Birth year
Is IMDB's 1940 correct? Recent press articles say she is 69, 70 in October, which makes her birth year 1938. 138.37.16.171 (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Real Name
Is it possible it's Catherine E. O'Rourke? There are no citations in the article for her real name, and I found the above name via a search here http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl where this person's birth is listed as in Romford - that must have been the official district for Ilford? Ravenscroft32 (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Edits after her death
I have today restored some biographical information that was removed recently about her personal life, relationships, health and homes. This can not have been removed for propriety because some of the more startling aspects of her life were left intact. All the deleted information was sourced and referenced, except the reference to the 2005 recording with Mitch Winehouse which, although an amusing idea, was not true (although it was quoted as fact in some tribute articles following her death!) Sah10406 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Secret Love chart position
I've changed #3 to #4 as the official chart position for this single as shown by the official chart archives at http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/10793/kathy-kirby/ Maybe it peaked at 3 on other charts but 4 is its peak on the official UK singles chart Vauxhall1964 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kathy Kirby. 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/20140821115656/http://www.haworthfestival.org.uk/events/dance-on-the-kathy-kirby-story/ to http://www.haworthfestival.org.uk/events/dance-on-the-kathy-kirby-story/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Detailed list of TV show episodes
Please see Talk:Mary Hopkin where there is a discussion that is relevant to this article. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Connection with Lady Thatcher
Shortly before her death, Kirby moved to Brinsworth House in Twickenham at the insistence of her niece Sarah, Lady Thatcher, wife of Mark Thatcher.


 * It would be appropriate if we could trace the family connection (suitably cited), as Sarah-Jane Russell moved in the highest circles, (although not born of the Ducal family). Valetude (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)