Talk:Kitty Kelley/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Untitled]

Help me use this info in the article if you will? I do want a balanced article. - Sparky 04:37, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Which Mike Wallace?

In the section Nancy's Revenge, a sentence reads:

Kelley linked Nancy sexually with: Milton Berle, Yul Brynner, Clark Gable, Peter Lawford, Frank Sinatra, Spencer Tracy, and Mike Wallace.

Is the Mike Wallace referenced here Mike Wallace (journalist), or Mike Wallace (historian)?

Mike Wallace (journalist) - Sparky

Kevyn 12:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"She has had the tables turned on her by George Carpozi, Jr. with his 1997 book Poison Pen -- but it likely didn't have the effect expected." What was the expected effect? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 02:54, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nobody believes a gossip.

Really?

I do miss this from the article as I penned it:

---

Nancy Reagan: the Unauthorized Biography — Insights into the Reagans

Christine Larson -- an onscreen femme fatale, Larson was one in real life as well when she dallied with the married Ronald Reagan-- was with Reagan in bed when Nancy was giving birth to Patti. Kitty Kelley's first insight into Reagan's character comes off bad: After the breakup of his marriage to Wyman and before he met Nancy, Reagan had an affair with starlet Jacqueline Park, later the mistress of Warner Bros. studio boss Jack L. Warner. According to Park, when she became pregnant; Reagan denied that the child was his and ended the affair. When questioned later Jacqueline Park admitted Kelley quoted her fairly accurately: “ … When I told him I was pregnant, he said he didn't want to have anything to do with me anymore. He just ran out on me. …”

Using their advanced review copies of the book on April 1, 1991, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times investigated the rape claim on what was called The Battle of the Couch by Kelley, which described a date rape-like situation involving then 19 year old Selene Walters and 42 year old Reagan. Further, in the April 29, 1991, issue of People Magazine, Selene Walters said that Ronald Reagan raped her in 1952, confirming the basic version of the episode in Kelly's unauthorized biography of Nancy Reagan:

" … Kelley's account of his late-night visit is essentially accurate, although he never forced his way into her apartment. I opened the door. Then it was the battle of the couch. I was fighting him. I didn't want him to make love to me. He's a very big man, and he just had his way. Date rape? No, God, no, that's Kelley's phrase. I didn't have a chance to have a date with him. … "

No one asks why the Media gave Reagan a pass on a charge of rape

In their editor at large Jack Shafer's March 5, 1999 Slate article, Gipper the Ripper: - “… Ronald Reagan successfully stonewalled the Walters' story when the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times picked it up briefly in April 1991. And remember, this was three and a half years before his Alzheimer's disease diagnosis. The weekend the book was released, a reporter asked Reagan for a comment about it as he entered church.

"I don't think a church would be the proper place to use the word I would have to use in discussing that," he said.

Not exactly a denial.” - Sparky 22:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Interesting, she seem to have a lot of luck to get this kind of information

Nancy Reagan article

The Nancy Reagan article has most of this information expunged, is any editor interested in helping to work out a version of that article that would incorporate it? The current version of the page is written just like Nancy would have wanted it.

71.112.7.212 16:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

To me, this article sounds like it came out of one of Kelley's books! Her works have found her an international reputation—often controversial—as the first lady of the unauthorized biography genre. She is famous for her thorough research, attention to detail, and ability to get sources to reveal information, and her profiles are frequently spiced with unflattering personal anecdotes and details. - Kitty Kelley is one of the most controversial public figures in American history, and She is famous for her thorough research, attention to detail, and ability to get sources to reveal information is bogus! None of Kelly's claims in her "book" about Nancy Reagan were proven to be true, so the intro in this article needs some work. I'm tempted to tag this article for POV, unless you can give me a serious explanation as to why you say that she does extensive amounts of research and attention to thorough detail. Happyme22 04:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

When I read those same lines you cite I had a reaction similar to what yours appears to be. TIME's cover story on Kitty Kelley's Nancy Reagan biography details how her research lacks the "thoroughness, attention to detail" that is described here. The TIME article is probably difficult to find now but it makes a solid case against Kelley's credibility as a biographer.Light Bulb 09:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I definetly agree with that statement. This article needs some work! Happyme22 16:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:WTA is a good place to start Antonrojo 01:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Book "The Royals" - Publication status in the UK

Hi there - regarding this edit., I read somewhere that that "The Royals" was not published in the UK (at least on its initial publication). However, chain bookstores in London may have picked it up and distributed it from sources outside the UK, such as the USA. This may explain why 80.44.181.23 has seen it in chain stores in London.

Just FYI.

80.44.181.23, I would be interested to know where your copy of the book was published. Please take a look in the publication notes and let us know.

Thanks!!! LA Movie Buff (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This just in: Britain is to abolish all libel laws. Is she cornering the British market for gossip litterature, just as I now speak (Write...actually)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Political Views

Her political views are that GWB is a bad person because he didn't join the (active) military like his dad did? This seems incredibly stupid on her part and not very indicative of her political views. Unless the purpose of this is to say that she's a hack.

24.217.56.122 (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place for you to spout your own hack opinions, especially when they're poorly formed. The view for former President Bush should be criticized for his lack of military service is not a new one used against politicians. It has been used against other political candidates, Republican, Democrat, liberal and conservative alike. George W. Bush's own father's campaign ran ads criticizing former President Bill Clinton for not serving in the military, so this is a perfectly valid criticism, which nonetheless is not up for debate here. So please keep your vitriol to yourself. Shabeki (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that section is that it's original research, and vaguely derogatory. I am removing it per policy. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What?

I'm going to try to clean the following up- Oprah Winfrey

On December 13, 2006, Crown announced that it will publish a biography of Oprah Winfrey, written by Kitty Kelley. The Oprah tell-all will follow the Kitty Kelley modus operandi and be unauthorized. The 544 page book will be released April 13, 2010.[16] According to Kelley's book, Oprah is a self-conceited diva. Surprisingly, all the Kelley's statements are backed up by witnesses. Kelley interviewed up to 800 people before writing this biography.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for According to Kelley's book, Oprah is a self-conceited diva. Surprisingly, all the Kelley's statements are backed up by witnesses. Kelley interviewed up to 800 people before writing this biography.

There was also some type of code in the article and then the article started talking about Bush's son joining the army.--CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

References

I also removed this

I removed this- According to Kelley's book, Oprah is a self-conceited diva. Surprisingly, all the Kelley's statements are backed up by witnesses.

The above doesn't sound very encyclopedic. --99.177.250.140 00:23, 13 April 2010

article or attack?

This whole article needs a lot of revision to be less partial against her. I am amazed no one else has made the same comment.--174.31.9.98 22:23, 17 February 2011

I agree. It is a hit piece. I am going to escalate. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Inspired by Kitty Kelley

Rita Skeeter (of Harry Potter) —

The character is similar to the "poison pen" biographer Kitty Kelley. Both have a semi-rhyming name with an animal reference, and each is known for writing scandalous unauthorised biographies that largely consist of publishing every available, unsubstantiated rumour about an individual. There is an interesting similitary in phrases used to describe the two authors. Skeeter was called "enchantingly nasty" by Albus Dumbledore in Goblet of Fire, and Kelley was called "encyclopedically vicious", by the New York Times while reviewing her biography of Nancy Reagan.

Is this worth noting as a 'possible' correlation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.140.120 (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid not. I am a Harry Potter fan, and really like Rita Skeeter - and I think you are right by claiming, that Kitty Kelley is "just like Rita". But J. K. Rowling said that Rita Skeeter isn't based on a real person and says that only Lockhart is a real living person (thou she will not tell whom). Honestly I think that Kitty is the real life Rita. And I wouldn't for sure say that she wasn't the model for Rita either, even thou J. K. Rowling says she isn't based on reality. But this belongs to fanfiction and theory finding; to newspapers, fantasybooks and so on. But not here. Wikipedia should be about FACTS from reliable sources. And just the important facts. There isn't a reliable source for that claim and it's not an important fact. It shouldn't be something about theory finding. So no, it clearly doesn't belongs to Wikipedia. But I would love to hear more about Rita Skeeter. It would be nice if J. K. Rowling or Kitty Kelly would write a roman series about Skeeter ;-) --Elizabeth C. Clearwater (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kitty Kelley. 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/20140702223047/http://www.penoakland.com/PEN-Oakland-Awards.html to http://www.penoakland.com/PEN-Oakland-Awards.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) 22:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)