Talk:Christine Keeler

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christine Keeler article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A news item involving Christine Keeler was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 December 2017.

Wikipedia

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The chair picture

The famous picture is here: [1]. Marnanel 04:06, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Laleham Air Force Base

Laleham is near Wraysbury but it does not have (and as far as I know, never has had) an Air Force Base. Searching for Laleham Air Force Base only brings up articles relating to Christine Keeler. Where did this start and does the editor who added it have a verifiable source? Egham1 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Langley Airbase - named as one of several US airfields nearby, in 'Honeytrap' (Anthony Summers). 86.140.5.29 (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent appearances

the second 'sentence' isn't one, and makes no sense.Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any more recent updates on life, work, relationships? 86.155.209.111 (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Husband and son?

She married and had a son, whom she sent to a good primary school at World's End (Chelsea, West London) before moving to join her (ex?) husband in Kent. Any updates? 86.145.155.99 (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright statement in Scandal! is C. M. Sloane; her full name is given in the last chapter which covers her trial (chapter 1 is imprisonment, out of chronological order); the dedication is "To my sons". The preface is signed from World's End, 1988.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And then what?

What has she done since 1963? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.148.133 (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pool parties

If we actually have pool parties in this country, I suspect that we did not in those days. Billiards evenings, perhaps. 194.176.105.139 (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)The NHS[reply]

I think it refers to swimming pools? PeterM88 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://chrisspivey.org/scandal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.40.24.4 (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At 17.....

At 17 the article says "she gave birth to a son after an affair with a man called Jim, an African-American sergeant from Lakenheath Air Force base."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPYkeeler.htm This says different.Brakn (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does say different! It also quotes her referring to it being an 'abortion'. A child surviving for 6 days isn't an abortion? PeterM88 (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Rice-Davies

It is very strange that no mention is made of her at all in this article. 86.133.211.7 (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright?!

A chair can't infringe any copyright. It might, however, infringe a patent. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no lawyer, but the source explicitly states "The hand-hold aperture cut out of the back was a ploy to avoid the legalities of copyright." Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, under current law, a chair could conceivably be covered by copyright if its design amounts to a work of authorship, as a "pictorial, graphic or sculptural work" (in this case "sculptural" is the key). As a utilitarian object, any copyright protection would extend only to the expressive "sculptural" features, not to the utilitarian ones. This is in sections 101 (definitions of "pictorial, graphic or sculptural work" and "useful article") and 113. The identification of what elements are expressive and what elements are utilitarian is a hairy one, fact-specific and the subject of a lot of murky courts of appeal cases. That being said:

The discussion here is undoubtedly UK law, not US law;
even if it were US law it would have been a good 15 years before the current US law I'm discussing above took effect (although the pre-1978 law was more-or-less along the same lines, if even a little murkier);
making modifications to a copyrighted work does not generally avoid infringement in either the US or the UK, but a lot of people mistakenly believe that it does, and the hole cut-out made by the manufacturer of the chair Morley used was more likely made in a mistaken belief that it avoided infringement than an accurate understanding of the law at the time.

TJRC (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no lawyer either, but in the UK in the 1960s the relevant law was probably that of 'Registered Designs', which is roughly equivalent to the US concept of a 'design patent'. This protects the non-functional design aspects of a functional object.109.150.6.216 (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christine Keeler. 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/20131005012531/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/181822-Casting-Announced-for-World-Premiere-of-Andrew-Lloyd-Webbers-Stephen-Ward-Starring-Alexander-Hanson to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/181822-Casting-Announced-for-World-Premiere-of-Andrew-Lloyd-Webbers-Stephen-Ward-Starring-Alexander-Hanson

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) 13:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laleham US Airforce base?

There was an US Airforce base at Laleham?? I suspect this was Lakenheath but can find no WP:RS for it. I see that the question was asked above, back in 2009, but was never answered. Does the source given (Knightley and Kennedy, pp. 53–54), actually support this claim? I have trimmed out the name for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that p.54 of that book does support? Also appears here. Langley Air Force Base is in America, of course. But there was an airfield (not a "US Airbase") at Langley, Berkshire so it was probably that one (although what African-American Sergeant "Jim" was doing there in 1958 is anyone's guess)? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Knightley and Kennedy also tell us that Keeler had tried to abort her pregnancy herself, using a knitting needle. Perhaps this harrowing detail is best left out? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture caption

Hello User:Martinevans123! Thanks for your comment re the Christine Keeler caption and apologies for not making myself sufficiently clear. Might I explain? I was responsible for uploading the image and it is indeed from a Channel 4 edition of After Dark. However the possessive ("Channel 4's After Dark) is not strictly accurate: a quick look at the article about this programme shows that during its history it was transmitted by two (indeed rival) broadcasters. It was this which led to my reversion.

Strictly speaking, if the programme is "anyone's", it belongs (as per the copyright of the image) to the production company Open Media - but not only would using this have a certain promotional flavour, it is not an edit I would be comfortable with making (see my Talk page for why).

Hope that helps. Copying this to your Talk page as I am not sure where the comment belongs best. AnOpenMedium (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, AnOpenMedium. The caption "television discussion" is not wrong, of course, although it's strictly "television discussion programme" or "television topical issues programme", or whatever. I also considered using "Open Media", but did not for the same reasons you suggest. My only point is that on 4 June 1988 the programme did "belong to" Channel 4 and, as far as know, that episode has never been broadcast by the BBC. But please feel free to revert to your version if you think that's better. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All clear, many thanks. I've just tried simplifying while providing (a bit) more information. Maybe this is a good solution! AnOpenMedium (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fully agree. Simpler is usually better. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Birth

Good morning, I'm not sure if this has been discussed previously, but I have been re-reading my copy of Truth At Last and on page 12 I noticed Christine states her date of birth as 2 February 1942, not 22 as generally publicised. I'm wondering if this may be simply a typo, and if anyone else has a copy which gives the same date, or if 22 February has been fully corroborated by a sight of Christine's birth certificate. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roandy (talk • contribs) 11:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Roandy (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising that her date of birth seems to be wholly unsourced in this article. But there are very many sources that say 22 February, such as BBC, The Guardian, Britannica, The Independent, etc., etc. A misprint in the book seems likely. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oldie article

I haven't read it in full yet, but this Oldie article looks like it might be a useful secondary source for this article: https://www.theoldie.co.uk/blog/the-dignity-of-christine-keelers-funeral -- The Anome (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did she smoke?

She died of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Did she smoke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi454 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]