Jump to content

Talk:Cleo Rocos

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 190.208.49.108 (talk) at 21:14, 13 February 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



CBB5

Erm...says a lot about Celebrity Big Brother! Unless I've spelt it wrong. Jammy Simpson | Talk | 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me or does the 'celebrity big brother' bit seem very unprofessionally written. Almost like it was written by a Big Brother/Cleo Rocos fan. Could someone improve that.

Co-star

Is "co-star" really appropriate? As far as I remember she used to stand around in her underwear along with some other girls, and eventually was occasionally given a line or two. "supporting actor" might be better, although even that is glorifying her role a little. 81.144.212.67 09:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps so - but it was always done in the best possible taste :)

Limehouse

A trendy village? I mean... come on....it's an inner-city suburb with a couple of cobbled streets

British or Brazilian?

It is unclear whether she is a Brazilian citizen, a British citizen, or both. There is nothing about her family, where she grew up, or her personal life. How long has she lived in the UK? F W Nietzsche (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An extra in "The Rutles - All You Need Is Cash" ?

In the 1978 Beatles parody - All_You_Need_Is_Cash - there is a scene of screaming teenage girls chasing the band members ( and a policeman complaining about being overwhelmed by a mob of "little girls" ). One of the ( not-so-little ) girls looks suspiciously like a young Cleo Rocos. Actually her, or just a coincidence ? Anyone know ?

I was going to ask something similar - a girl looking very like young Cleo Rocos also appears in the "Roof-Top Concert" scene, sitting on the left of the scene, wearing a red sweater...
90.244.141.241 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph

User:190.46.98.195 has persistently tried to change the opening paragraph of the article, without any explanation here, using uncivil edit summaries, and edit warring. This appears to be based on their interpretation of WP:NPOV, without any consideration of WP:LEAD. Any further explanation and discussion here would be welcome.

The above taken directly from Kenny Everett where the same is happening there.

Also, the lead paragraph here is supported by an article in the Daily Telegraph which clearly states "Cleo Rocos, best known as Kenny Everett’s glamorous side-kick...",[1] however the user refutes the validity of this on his talk page - but I invite him to do so here as well where it may get a larger audience. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, as per wp:brd - I have reverted the page back to it's original format pending discussion here. I would invite editors to note that I have gone back to the very first iteration of this page - which means that the reference supporting Cleo Rocos as being "best known" is no longer technically a reference, but is in fact the first link in the External links section as The Telegraph: How Cleo Rocos replaced light entertainment with tequila This does not lessen the fact though that the statement of her being best known is sourced and can be upheld. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can hardly believe what I am reading. Have you ever read the NPOV policy page? In the first section, it says "Avoid stating opinions as facts". "best known as" is an opinion. Whether it's sourced or not is irrelevant. I can find sources which say that George W. Bush is a moron. I can find sources that say that James Bond films are stupid. I can find sources which say that London is an ugly city. Wanna put those statements into the lead sections of the relevant articles? Go on, see how you get on with that.
There is no discussion to be had here. If you can't reliably tell the difference between opinion and fact, you should not be editing this encylopaedia because you're doing more harm than good. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in those articles of which you speak. If you are, please edit them yourself. I'm interested in your behaviour here, which is going against consensus, and the intepretation of policy by all other editors. You are the only person who holds your particular opinion, which should give you a clue as to the validity of it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in them either. I'm trying to illustrate the stupidity of forcing bias into articles, as you're doing here. My "opinion" is not an opinion, it's a core policy. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV says "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I think it would be quite difficult to find a source about Ms Rocos that does not mention her involvement with Everett. She is clearly most notable for that part of her life. It's not an opinion, it's fact - and, more importantly for a BLP, highly unlikely to be contentious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
God, when did it all go so horribly wrong for wikipedia? Worked with Kenny Everett = fact. Best known for working with Kenny Everett = opinion. Simply give the facts and don't apply your own judgement to them. What could be simpler? What next - The Nile, best known for being the longest river in the world? Winston Churchill, best known for being a wartime prime minister? War and Peace, best known for being a very long book about Russian history? I can not believe that you fail to see the problem here. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're not applying judgement, we're using a source that specifically states she is best known for working with Kenny Everett. that's the difference that you are unable to accept. WP:DONTLIKEIT, WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:RS are all other policies that apply here, and you subscribe to the first two, but not the second, which is unfortunately the wrong way round. And that's where it all went so horribly wrong for wikipedia. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting you should mention WP:RS, as the article as it currently stands cites a self-published site, a dead link, a Flickr site, and a a tabloid newspaper. Not exactly a stellar collection of sources. I'll see if I've got some better sources to hand later and improve this article. However, to give a fourth opinion to this debate, I would go with "best known" as Everett got directly mentioned in the title of her own autobiography. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, again, I just can't believe how badly you can fail to understand what NPOV means. You're seemingly desperate to include the POV of a source in the article, with the sole justification that it's in a source. "Best known for.." is POV, objectively and unavoidably. It is so very easy to simply state the facts and not impose your or someone else's opinion onto them. If you don't understand that, you really shouldn't be editing wikipedia. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone disagrees with you on this issue (and consensus so far is that they do), then hey, I'm afraid that's life. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, if one or two people here are too stupid to understand core policies, then whatever consensus they think they have is irrelevant. If you think "best known for" is an objective fact, then you're beyond my comprehension and your edits are tantamount to vandalism. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any policies to back up what you just said? Surely a much better course of action is to improve the article, and find better sources? Such as here ("The TV comic's best friend Cleo Rocos lifts the lid on Kenny's struggles") or here ("Cleo Rocos was only 15 when she became Kenny Everett's TV muse, and they were inseparable until the comedian's premature death") or here ("TO millions of 80s comedy fans – including an awful lot of enamoured men – she’ll always be best known as Kenny Everett’s leather-clad sidekick Miss Whiplash.") --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not concerned with "objective facts" it simply reports what the reliable references say and if the reliable references say "best known for" that's what we go with?Theroadislong (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Policies, Ritchie333? How about the one I've been quoting all along, that is one of the very foundations of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV? The best course of action is to follow the core policies. Write articles in a neutral tone of voice. Don't report opinions as if they are facts. Unless you have a poll of a representative segment of the population of the entire world, which demonstrates what they "best know" Cleo Rocos for, then you don't have a reliable source for the claim that she is "best known" for anything. You have a source that contains an opinion, and you are edit warring to impose that opinion on the article, and you are being deliberately obtuse if you deny that it's POV. And it's SO EASY not to use this phrase. It's a stupid phrase that adds nothing except bias and opinion to the article.
And yes, wikipedia is very much concerned with objective facts. If you think it's not, leave. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should spend less time worrying about removing the phrase "best known for" and more time worrying about the fact that her supposed birth date in the article is not actually attributed to a reliable source, and that large parts of the article are unsourced, which is a more serious issue for WP:BLP. Edit : Never mind, I've found one. I cannot believe I have just been reading Hello! magazine in order to settle an argument on Wikipedia. Somebody please shoot me in the head. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does a lack of source for one bit of the article mean that I shouldn't remove biased material in another bit? Your insistence on including an opinion and believing that it's somehow objective fact is kind of pathetic now. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ritchie is suggesting that your time might be better spent researching a genuinely unsourced section of the article, rather than expending effort by going against sourced consensus and the more widely accepted understanding of Wikipedia's core policies. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this discussion ever re-emerges, can I suggest that it be raised at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for wider discussion, rather than simply engaging one or two editors here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph, yet again

190.46.98.195, you appear to be engaged in an edit war with yet another editor. At what point do you open your mind to the possibility that you may be wrong and that everyone else may actually have a point? You appear to be keen on citing WP:NPOV in your defence of your actions while edit warring to ensure your point of view is dominant. Could I quote the full section of NPOV that you are so fond of selectively quoting—and I strongly suggest you read to the end of the paragraph, rather than stopping where you want to?

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." (my emphasis)

You have twice reverted the phrase "described in the UK national press as being best known for starring alongside Kenny Everett on The Kenny Everett Television Show", which is the format suggested by the policy and is not my POV or opinion: it is a reporting of facts—in this case, the opinions of others.
Could I also raise one more policy, which is one of one of Wikipedia's five pillars, WP:CIVIL, which says that "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner". Reading over your recent edit summaries, you appear to be falling some way short of that particular policy and if you are not able to "play nice" with others, then I am afraid your editing career will be a very Hobbesian "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". - SchroCat (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the editor concerned claims to have a long but unstated editing history; so, when he/she eventually reveals it, or anyone can be bothered to take the trouble to uncover it, they will be blocked. Their only purpose here is to get under the skin of other editors, and in my view they are simply best ignored. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you seriously think that "described by the UK press as being best known for starring" somehow encapsulates more information, engages more readers, and is more aesthetically pleasing than simply "starred", then you are spectacularly, utterly, ineptly clueless. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. I see that, despite the requests to use the talk page constructively before editing the wording again, you have posted another foul-mouthed summary and warred once again. I also see that you've been blocked for your approach. In the two weeks you are away, could I suggest you read the following:
  • WP:CONSENSUS
  • WP:CIVIL
  • WP:BRD and
  • WP:NPOV (particularly "they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views")
Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what is this, some kind of catastrophic misunderstanding of how articles are written, a vendetta against me, a deep seated belief that anonymous editors cannot under any circumstances be right, or all three? A journalist's opinion of what someone is best known for is a truly bizarre thing to keep on putting into an article. It is like saying "London is described in the Lonely Planet guide to London as being best known for being the capital of the UK" instead of saying "London is the capital of the UK". As your wording is self-evidently ridiculous, I will keep on removing it. 190.208.49.108 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cleo_Rocos&oldid=538106539"