Talk:Cleo Rocos

CBB5

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why are you so so intent on edit warring over this? The wording of the article fits with what is suggested by the MOS, so all you are doing is trying to force your own POV on something against the wishes of the wider community. Why? Why are you so intent on going against the agreed consensus of all editors? SchroCat (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in the MOS gives any support to the bizarre wording you are trying to enforce. You have not even tried to explain why you think that saying "X is described by random population segment Y as being best known for Z" is somehow better than saying "X is Z". Your motivation appears to be a mixture of stupidity and spite. 190.208.49.108 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL, which indicates how consensus-led editing should be the order of the day, rather than insult throwing. In relation to the text in the article you are so intent on putting your own personal slant on, please see WP:NPOV, which states that opinions: "should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views". This is exactly what we have in the article and exactly what you are trying to edit war against. - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

On the basis of your inability to accept what is written in the MOS, your constant throwing of insults towards other editors in breach of WP:CIVIL, your breach of WP:3RR and your attempts to avoid the block on your IP address, the matter has now been taken to ANI, where you are free to discuss the matter further. The thread about your approach and poor behavious can be found here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the IP's wording in the article. I don't see the POV problem in their version and I appreciate its economy. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• OK, I've looked at this ridiculous mess, again. There is nothing in the MOS that dictates that we should have odious verbiage such as "described in the UK national press as being best known for starring" in an article. There is nothing wrong with "who starred"--it cannot be a matter of opinion. Was he described as having starred? Then he starred. If the IP had handled this a bit different from the get-go, and if other editors hadn't been so hell-bent on preserving...what? some kind of purity? Let common sense prevail: he starred. And that's what I'm restoring. (FWIW, Kuru seems to agree with that in the ANI thread, and I can see no valid arguments here.) Drmies (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Do you not think that it would have been better to discuss this with others before joining in an edit war? To come to a consensus before adding another revert to the page? - SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Do you really want to know what I think? I think we have acted in a ridiculous manner here. I think the phrase I cited is pure and utter bullshit. I think the IP was rude, and I think the registered accounts have embarrassed themselves here in a stupid edit war where they were wrong. Now stop reverting. Lest we forget, you were edit-warring too, reverting and reverting and reverting for weeks, reverting something that was not vandalism. You should be pleased that you didn't get blocked for edit-warring, and that you managed to get the IP blocked for 3RR. I'm not saying they didn't deserve it, but hey, you were warring too. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, the IP was blocked for a number of things, not least block evasion, incivility and edit warring with a number of editors. I kept the article at a steady state and tried to make the editor come to the talk page to discuss and come to a consensus. He didn't. And I'll point out that you haven't discussed things either in this instance, you joined in an edit war by reverting something that was not vandalism. - SchroCat (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Stop wikilawyering. As a side note, the IP was correct here as well. Yes, I joined in in this ridiculous process, and I have explained my edit without resorting to a bunch of things that have nothing to do with anything. BRD and CIVIL and whatnot--sure, they are relevant to the editor's behavior (as well as your own), but not to the content of the edit. (And the IP has in fact addressed the content of the edit here, and they've been treated like shit. It was all nicely and politely phrased, of course, in a non-NPA manner--but they were treated like shit all the same.) Unless the lunatics have really taken over the asylum. That's a metaphor, not a statement on anyone's mental status. Let's move on, shall we? We were here to improve articles, not to keep them in a steady state if that steady state makes for prose a hyena couldn't digest. Drmies (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) "I think the registered accounts have embarrassed themselves here in a stupid edit war". Does that mean me? As stated above, when we're arguing about whether or not to include the phrase "best known for" while the very next sentence in a biography of a living person is tagged , then we've got our priorities wrong. I apologise if you think trying to dig out sources to improve an article and support a stance is "stupid", but there you go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Apology accepted. Now why is there a cn tag in the lead anyway? Isn't that what the body of the article is for? Drmies (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) It's not wikilawyering to point out why the IP was blocked: they will read this thread and not necessarily appreciate the range of things they have been blocked for, thinking it may just have been to 3RR. Yes, the IP was correct at the Irish pound article and has been in a number of places. My point in raising that edit at ANI was not to criticise the edit, but the edit summary. Looking through the edit summaries here shows a very poor approach to dealing with others. I think it is this, as much as anything else that has led to the one month ban. I don't agree with your revert, but I do agree that the version was not ideal (the previous version which the IP warred over "best known for starring alongside Kenny Everett" is the much more preferable one). They have not been treat like shit and I suggest you seriously rethink that. They kept being asked to discuss the matter properly on the talk page and keep a civil tongue in their heads: they did neither. They edit warred and insulted their way into a ban. - SchroCat (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I support Drmies' edit here, and I think that my edit here was a mistake. The problem was that I and others were tending to revert the IP's edits on the basis of their uncivil and edit-warring behaviour and edit summaries, and didn't respond when they changed their position on the precise wording. No doubt the IP has achieved what they sought to do, which was to cause the maximum possible disruption. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I see where Drmies is coming from with this. There has been a lot of reverting since I last got involved and everything has got far too much out of hand, and their edit was definitely an improvement over the preceding one. I just think we can do a bit better still. How about : "Cleo Rocos ... is a UK-based comedy actress and television/theatre producer and presenter, notable for her work with Kenny Everett." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"notable for" adds nothing. It contains no information. It's a point of view. When you can just state what she did or does, why feel the need to apply any kind of judgement? It's proscribed by NPOV, which is a non-negotiable foundation of Wikipedia. "...is a UK-based comedy actress and television/theatre producer and presenter. During the 1980s she worked extensively with Kenny Everett, appearing on many of his television shows" would tell you the facts with no kind of implicit or explicit judgement. That is what this encyclopaedia is about. 190.21.165.248 (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

In this instance, it's because she's also notable for appearing on Celebrity Big Brother, Come Dine With Me, some DJ work - quite a few things actually. My problem with the lead is that it's factually misleading to imply that she's only notable for her work with Kenny Everett. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And your proposed wording "notable for her work with Kenny Everett" helps that how? 83.44.110.207 (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

* I suspect the unsourced assertion about her parents' nationality is tagged cn because it's the only place in the article it appears. While we're here, as I also hinted above, I'm not sure that the "Personal life" section, with a single cite to the Daily Mirror, is within the spirit of WP:BLP either. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"No doubt the IP has achieved what they sought to do, which was to cause the maximum possible disruption"

And there you see what one faces when editing without a username. This kind of casual assumption that you just must be some kind of troll or vandal, that it simply can't be the case that you're making good faith edits. And then we have "I and others were tending to revert the IP's edits on the basis of their uncivil and edit-warring behaviour and edit summaries". So "Ghmyrtle" will happily ignore the actual content of an edit, and revert simply because he/she doesn't like the person making the edit. And then in the very same breath accuses me of being disruptive?

Since the very first edit I ever made to Wikipedia, some time in 2004, not a single one of thousands of edits I've made has ever been made with the intention to disrupt. In the last two or three years it's become extremely noticeable that people are no longer bothering to even look at edits, and no longer bothering to understand key policies. No matter how polite or patient you are, as an IP editor, you will be falsely accused of vandalism. So why the fuck would I bother being polite when all the poisonous clueless cunts will conspire to get me blocked regardless? No, you all had your chance to be nice to people, and you collectively, utterly blew it. So fuck you all, you'll just have to learn to deal with intemperate and aggressive editors like me. If all editors were like [[User::Drmies]], who may not realise it but has been kind and reasonable towards me on several occasions, we'd all be far happier. The difference between Drmies and all the fucking rest of you is that he actually understands what WP:AGF means. 190.21.165.248 (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I can absolutely assure you that this was made with the best of intentions. I'm not bothered who you are, or even whether your changes should or shouldn't go in the article, all I was trying to do was to point out that if you revert four times in one day, you run the risk of getting blocked, and I was pleading with you, for your own sake, not to revert again. You might also wish to review the discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Block evasion, edit warring, uncivil and disruptive approach. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite

Frankly, the whole article could do with a wholesale rewrite. Any offers? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A while back I had the idea of creating a section on my userpage called "Crap articles", which were all BLPs of lower tier celebrities that most people would assume are notable, but who've had sourcing and quality problems hanging around for years. This is one. Paul Daniels and Michael Barrymore are two others. Jimmy Savile used to be, but recent news events have sorted that one out. This article, however, was so bad, that the version I first looked at here could have probably been successfully deleted via a BLP PROD if that was the first revision, as all sources were unreliable or dead. I've just removed the "Personal life" section as it's not actually cited to the Mirror's website, but a dead link to Findarticles. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Best known for"

To hopefully get a final resolution one way on the other for this, per Ghmyrtle's suggestion above, I have brought this debate to a wider attention at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Cleo Rocos (and elsewhere) : Use of "best known for". Please have a look. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cleo Rocos. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090225181107/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/08/04/dp0401.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/08/04/dp0401.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Born July 1966? Give me a break! I (born June 1967) remember Cleo in the Kenny Everett Show and she's several years older than me. IMDB has an entirely credible 24 March 1962. I know IMDB isn't considered a reliable source but is it really less reliable than an actress's claim that she lied about her age to get on TV at 15? TheMathemagician (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

If you check out Companies House (though not considered a citeable source by WP), Cleo herself gave her dob as March 1962 when she registered as a director of SKYHIGH PRODUCTIONS in 2006 [2] but gave it as July 1962 when she registered again for TEQUILAS OF MEXICO LTD in 2010: [3] and the Telegraph (which IS considered reliable) gives her age as 51 in October 2013 [4]. Crisso (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure on the rules for credibility but know she was older than me in the 1980s and I was born in 1965. Had seen the other sources, which must be more reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:5610:3200:3502:D19D:8A51:3F08 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This 2013 Telegraph article mentioned by Crisso seems to be the most reliable source for her birth year - we can't place too much trust in IMDB, Hello!, or anything that she has written herself (obviously it's commonplace for celebrities and their publicists to give false information about their age, to make them appear younger than they are). I haven't seen anything reliable that gives her birth date. My suggestion is that we give her birth details as "c.1962", sourced to the Telegraph article, and leave it at that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

PS: I imagine that BFI is a reliable source, both for the year and date. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Per the above, I have tweaked the account of her meeting Jim Muir and being asked to audition for the Kenny Everett show to remove the claim that at the time she was 15 years old. (Despite the claim being in the Independent [5] (27 September 1998), then the Mirror piece [6] attributed to her (30 Sep 2012) and also picked up by the Telegraph (15 October 2012).

The BBC show went into development after Everett's last series for Thames finished in May 1981. If the March 1962 date of birth is correct, Rocos would then have been 19. Otherwise she would have been filming the Hitchhikers 'Gargle Blaster' scene (8 May 1980) when she was only 14, which seems hardly credible; as well as the other credits per the BFI [7] she had in 1980-81 (and The Rutles when she was not yet 12?)

A previous version of the article tried to finesse this by suggesting it was the ITV series she was talking about (1978); but Moir wasn't involved with the ITV series, nor was she, it was on the BBC show (after she'd done Hitchhikers) where she met Everett.

It's not clear why she would have said this (? just to appear younger in 1998/2012). But it does seem unfair to Everett, Moir, and everyone else she worked with at this time to leave it in; so, despite the sourcing, I've taken it out. Jheald (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)