Talk:Kirsty MacColl

Discussion

Comparing the following:

• [link to copyvio website removed]
• [link to copyvio website removed]

It would appear that there are two extra verses to the Kirsty MacColl version. nameley:

My dreams were full of strange ideas

My mind was set despite the fears

But other things got in the way

I never asked that boy to stay

Once upon a time at home

I sat beside the telephone

Waiting for someone to pull me through

When at last it didn’t ring, I knew it wasn’t you

Mintguy (T) 20:10, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

noted -- fixed GWO 14:35, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That is what Billy Bragg wrote - but many of Kirsty's fans mishear the last line as "When the bastard didn't ring..." and, even when corrected, prefer to sing it that way. Jess Cully 03:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Billy Bragg claims to prefer the "bastard" version - source, http://www.kirstymaccoll.com/music/lyrics/a_new_england.htm Awo 08:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The additional lines were probably added to the MacColl version as he wrote additional material to make it her own song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.221.155 (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Work with the BBC

Was she not working for the BBC in the years preceding her death? Can we get any mention of that in her biog?

• Leaving aside her French & Saunders appearances, she presented a BBC-TV documentary about water pollution in 1991, and a Radio 1 series about political music in 1995, and that's about it. Jess Cully 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

See this link - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1078192.stm Several articles at the time of her death mentioned this radio program on Cuba. I pulled up this article and it was done for BBC Radio 2, so yes, she was working with the BBC at the time of her death. NickBurns 22:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Someone has put a neutrality disputed tag on the info about her death. Can they provide more details, please? My source for much of that info was the Karen O'Brien book, as well as the Justice for Kirsty website, and I think it's presented in a journalistic, objective manner (ie, this is what happened, this is what Nova, et al, are being accused of - because there IS a court case) so I'm not sure where the issue lies. Thanks! NickBurns 22:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I answered my own question. I did re-write a few phrases in the info about the accident to sound less accusatory to the other party. I also added SEVERAL citations supporting the statements in the article. Please note, these statements are also included in the O'Brien bio. I removed the flags for citations and neutrality, since I believe these changes resolve those issues. NickBurns 01:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe your points are very well written, I also agree mostly with your views, however the whole situation in regard to the suspicious death and probable negiligent homicide of MacColl is extremely complicated on many different levels. There are differing parties, languages, countries, parts of Mexico, bias, cultural differences, bribery and then egos as well. So to obtain a 100% clear view takes openness of mind, as well as patience.

The mother of MacColl is, it has been reported currently writing a new biography of MacColl and perhaps this will shed some new light on the matter.

The issue of Ivan Diaz and his perhaps partial responsibility and lack of prosecution, in regard to the investigation of the negligent homicide of MacColl, is a matter that needs looking into.

However all that NickBurns has stated, is all valid after hard work in researching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally1309 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The bias is that the section includes a lot about the dispute, ie: that people don't agree with the court verdict and 'official' view, but little is said about that actual court verdict of official; view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.1.250 (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just as a side comment....

I love the new picture! NickBurns 18:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this Puglife2006 (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Break it up

not enough subheadings, looks a bit tl;dr --Bobyllib 00:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, I am ALL about subheadings - many articles look like unorganized blobs - but I disagree here...I think it's well done as is. NickBurns 14:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Singles discography

Sorry, but "Greetings To The New Brunette" (a Billy Bragg track), "Ask" (a Smiths track), etc., do NOT belong in the singles discography for Kristy. Yes, she sang on them, but she was not the credited artist. If someone wants to start an entry for "Singles Kristy performed on as a backing vocalist", go ahead -- be sure to include the above singles, the relevant Tracey Ullman singles, etc. But they do not belong in her singles discography. 172.164.6.164 21:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag needed

The section concerning her death is a very strange paragraph that should be tidied up.

To Quote: It was disappointing that the Foreign Office was reluctant to assist in public enquiries initially after the suspicious death of MacColl, however once the publicity kicked in, then they thankfully became more helpful. Some UK members of parliament were happy to take up the matter and write letters to authorities, however others were reluctant to do so. One helpful MP in this matter was Michael Portillo, the member at the time of Kensington and Chelsea. He wrote to Baroness Amos, yet she was unable to do very much, perhaps she was very busy in her portfolio at the time. The Ambassador of the Mexican Embassy Alma Rosa in London, was extremely helpful, she provided advice and information openly, before even the British authorities did so.

The bolded words are very personal in tone and hardly objective. Though what is written maybe true (I don't know if they are), it is not wikipedia's job to tell the readers what is disappointing or helpful, and certainly not to make snide comments about a Baroness. - Welshy 11:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be more acceptable to pass snide remarks about a commoner? This is 2007 you know. Maikel 20:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The point stands, I think. It makes Wikipedia AND MacColl look unprofessional to have her entry so heavily coloured with judgments. Her story can certainly stand on its own, and doesn't need epithets like "helpful" and "thankfully" and so on - this way of telling the story is more appropriate for the Justice for Kirsty campaign website than for Wikipedia. Clippership (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph quoted above was removed from the article last month, so I don't see the point in continuing to criticize it. Has the article improved enough to remove the NPOV tag? The BBC's censorship of "Fairytale of New York" is in the news today, and it would be nice to have this article in good shape - Foetusized (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kmaccoll tdk.jpg

Image:Kmaccoll tdk.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to Guillermo González Nova

Why does the link from 'Guillermo González Nova' take us to an article about his supermarket chain, which tells us nothing about him except that he runs it (we already knew that)? There doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia article about the man himself.188.203.49.105 (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Jamie MacColl

Jamie MacColl of Bombay Bicycle Club is said to be a grandson of Ewan - is he Kirsty's son ? If so, shouldn't that be mentioned here ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Jamie MacColl is Kirsty's nephew. Kirsty's son is Jamie Lillywhite, manager of Ellie Goulding per [1] -- Foetusized (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Problematic source

I really don't think this article should use VDARE as a source. I don't see anything about Kirsty MacColl on that link anyway (only a strange appeal to keep Andrew Jackson on the $20)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kirsty MacColl. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.divemagazine.co.uk/news/article.asp?UAN=2637&v=2&sp=332676698283330323650
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150716153430/http://i.imgur.com/oyPN1pW.jpg to http://i.imgur.com/oyPN1pW.jpg

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kirsty MacColl. 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://archive.is/20120630070910/http://www.westnet.com/consumable/1995/Feb27.1995/revkirst.html to http://www.westnet.com/consumable/1995/Feb27.1995/revkirst.html

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Place of birth

MacColl was born in 1959 when Croydon was in Surrey. This is a simple fact that should be made clear in both infobox and text. Template: Infobox musical artist says nothing about omitting county from place of birth. 86.187.169.130 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

And saying Croydon is in Surrey in an infobox is incorerct, and caveating the information is also incorrect per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Per WP:UKCOUNTIES, Wikipedia policy is to be careful not to introduce anachronisms in the use of historical counties in present tense or in a manner that indicates they still exist with their historical borders. That is a settled Wikipedia policy that you don't want to follow. This I have already pointed to, and you are aware of because I have discussed with you at Talk:Jim Ratcliffe. Now you are following my edits around, and attempting to relitigate on other talk pages. See WP:SEALION. Note that I am not attempting to add an edit here that puts "Greater London" in the infobox, but I am following the general practice, and the guidlance of MOS:INFOBXPURPOSE of only having what is (a) a suitable summary of the main text and (b) is not contentious nor requiring of caveating. An infobox should be concise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Croydon is no longer in Surrey, it's in London. In 1959 it was in Surrey. MacColl was born in Surrey. That's an historical fact. There is no "anachronism". Kindly stop your "tidying up", based on your selective reading of MOS:INFOBXPURPOSE. Or take this question to a higher authority. I would welcome third party comments from any uninvolved editor, so that consensus might be established. 18:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.239.77 (talk)

It was already in London. The Dundee Telegraph, 30 November 1910 has a piece reading A Wesleyan bazaar at Croydon (South London) was opened by "absent friends." Very many other such articles are available. But although clearly in the South London conurbation, and described as such, it was administered as a county borough (so not administered as part of Surrey) but remained in the ceremonial county of Surrey (it was a Surrey county borough) until the creation fo Greater London in 1965, at which point it was administered as a London borough, and became part of the ceremonial county of Greater London. It was also joined with the Purley and Coulsdon urban district at this point. But this is not going to fit in an infobox, and is really rather undue in this article. As I have stated, the usual solution is simply to omit the county from infoboxes, and this per the policies I have described above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd say your source from The Dundee Telegraph, 30 November 1910, is wholly irrelevant. Here's a book biography source, by MacGowan (2022), that says MacColl was born in Croydon, Surrey: [2] BFI also says she was born in Surrey here: [3]. 86.187.239.77 (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

And as you well know, the dispute is not over whether Croydon was a county borough of Surrey at the time of her birth - it was - it is about whether the infobox should assert that Croydon is in Surrey now (it shouldn't: WP:UKCOUNTIES) or should contain the caveated information that it was Surrey at the time of birth (it shouldn't: MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). This is against policy as above. Infoboxes are a quick summary, and here the quick summary is that she was born in Croydon, and the fuller information is that she was born in Croydon, which was in Surrey until 1965. That is what main text is for. If you have a problem with Wikipedia policy, this is not the page to argue it. Take it up on the policy talk pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes, including Template:Infobox musician, should present a summary of the information in the text, not something different. Was Elton John born in London? No, he was born in Middlesex. In that case the infobox is correct. 86.187.225.200 (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Leaving out the county was a summary of the information in the text. We only have Surrey in the text now because you added it! but simply stating Croydon, wikilinked to the Croydon article, remains a good summary. That is what a summary is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The text did not simply state Croydon it also had "South London". But the birthplace claim was unsourced. So I have now added two references, both of which state that she was born in Croydon, Surrey. I see no good reason for omitting Surrey from the infobox, but if you insist on that I will not add it. 86.187.227.52 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will leave it there as a suitable compromise. Pedantically, though, I think Croydon was already in South London, because South London is an area of the London conurbation without formal definition, and Croydon was already in that conurbation. After 1965, Croydon became a London Borough, which placed it in the ceremonial county of Greater London, and severed its remaining link with Surrey. The ceremonial counties have defined borders, but the term "South London" has, for a long time, been more fluid. I am not sure how good those sources are that you added, mind. (WSWS is a "no consensus" on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and the other is a music chart site). I will leave both as there is no reason to doubt the information they are supporting. The Guardian source is better, and I note that they may well have chosen to go with south London, precisely because the term is fluid and avoids the debate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. So I guess the question is - do you want an encyclopaedia that is "fluid" or one that is "categorical"? I already mentioned the bio book source by MacGowan (2022) and the BFI website above. Happy to add those as well or instead. 86.187.231.12 (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

vandalism edits

remember kids,

there need be only one wikilink per mentioned notable person.

just a reminder, 98.247.164.220 (talk) 98.247.164.220 (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)