Talk:Amy Winehouse/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 7

Tabloid sources & gossip revisited

It appears that again, we need to address what is a reliable source to use in additions to this article and whether each and every issue regarding Winehouse's husband needs to be detailed in this article. I do not believe that sources like The Sun, which extrapolate from the husband's legal and drug problems to the possibility of a divorce, should be used as a so-called "reliable" source. It's a gossip rag, much like the National Enquirer. What one editor keeps trying to introduce into this article is simply gossip and does not belong in the article. I've taken the issue of the tabloids to the reliable sources noticeboard and want to try and establish consensus on the page. Comments? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to see an assessment of [British] tabloids' reliability, not just for this article but in a more general sense on Wikipedia. Certainly it'd be possible to compile a huge amount of information about Amy Winehouse just from the tabloids, but we've got to keep it relevant.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that we cannot use American tabloids such as The National Enquirer and Star as sources so I think we should follow that same mindset and not use British tabloids either. I did a bit of research and it seems that The Sun has been sued on several occasions for printing false stories (See Story #1, Story #2, Story #3 & Story #4). In quite a few instances they settle out of court and issue an apology which indicates that they knowingly stretch the truth and sensationalize what little facts they use. The whole inclusion of tabloid fodder shouldn't be allowed in an encyclopedia anyway. If the stories are in fact true, they'll be covered by a reliable, third party publication. Only then could I see such content being included. I also don't think that Winehouse's husband and his personal exploits need to be heavily covered. He's only known for being her husband and truth be told, that's the only reason his actions are covered by the press. Unless an incident involves Winehouse directly, it needs to stay out. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid or celebrity magazine, everything that the news (or tabloids) report about doesn't have to be included in an article. Pinkadelica (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The official response to my inquiry at the reliable sources noticeboard was:

We don't want the Sun used, no. Its not the National Enquirer, true, but its a tabloid nonetheless, and impermissible on a BLP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


It must also be remembered that “respectable” news organizations have been caught fabricating material. Here are two examples Jayson Blair ,Janet Cooke. And need we talk about how the fabrications published by “reliable” news organizations during the run up to The Iraq War?. My edit that alleged her husband had been hospitalized used three sources one of which was the tabloid the “News of The World”. It was replaced by a story in a reliable News organization the Boston Herald. Upon reading that story they quoted showbiz.spy which quoted the News of The World. The reader would be better served in this case by being linked to the original tabloid cite then the third hand “reliable” source. I am not picking on then editor who made that change just using that as an example of the”cannot see the forest from the trees” [1] mentality that occurs in Wikipedia at times.

My suggestions are that use of British tabloids cites should be allowed but only if the story has direct quotes from sources close to the situation. If using these sources the language should make it clear that it is a tabloid report and that events described “allegedly” happened. Also the entire Personal Life section and Legal Issues sections should be marked as Current Event or a more appropriate caveat. If the consensus is not to use the tabloids we must be consistant and all tabloid source based language in the article must be deleted. Edkollin (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If the Boston Herald reference is suspect, then certainly, another one can be found. However, I'm not certain how your "forest" mentality analogy isn't directed at me, since I am the one who took exception to the references used. The mention of settled lawsuits was made only to highlight the frequency of fabrication that occurs with the tabloids. Citing the two examples you did only reinforces how "respectable" media deals with fabrication vs. how it is handled by tabloids. In any case, the decision at the reliable sources noticeboard was clear about using tabloids. Adding gossip and innuendo isn't protected by the use of "allegedly" in a WP:BLP. If something is indeed factual and significant, it will appear in reliable news articles soon enough. In regard to the use of a current event template, that is reserved for material and articles that have a great flux of edits and the fast-changing state due to something that is occurring at the time (a death, shooting, presidential election) wherein edit conflicts will likely occur. Given the logic used to suggest putting this in Winehouse's article, those tags should be on every article of every active living person, which isn't their purpose. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as my remarks being a directed at you I will deal with it on your talk page. As for the broader issue Wkipedia does do things differently depending on circumstance. In medical articles only cites from Medical Journals are allowed no “popular” press articles period . In articles about movies very detailed “spoiler” plot points are described. I might be wrong but since movies reviews do not give “spoilers” the information must either from editors whom have seen the movie or stolen scripts Original Research or copywrite violations(among other things). Winehouse is a unique case even among “druggie” celebrities in that herself, friends, and family are so open about their trails, tribulations and personal feelings about the matter. And in most cases they go to the tabloids. With the exception of The Times of London who has done some excellent original reporting on the matter most “reliable” source reporting is not all that different from The Herald in how they are gaining information and reporting this issue.
The larger debate of what should be allowed in a bio is a good one. I myself grew up in a different era. We knew rock stars did drugs it was called acid rock after all. And there was controversy over the “drug content” of lyrics but public figures personal life was considered a private matter. An example of the different mentality was that it was well known to reporters covering U.S. President Kennedy was having nude swimming parties in the White House pool with people and was likely having an affair with a well known actress but reporting it was something that was never considered. If you are a middle aged person the debate between keeping the “standards” you grew up with and becoming a “dinosaur” is a constant one. Wikipedia is a creature of this era and many of our readers grew up or are growing up in an era where complete and total openness about personal matters is encouraged and expected. Many of the our reliable sources are losing money because they have failed to keep up thus the halfhearted attempts to be “relevant” like my over picked on Herald cite. I suggestion a solution I thought would bridge both worlds and look forward to everybody's suggestions Edkollin (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed both sections. For the purposes of Wikipedia, Winehouse is a musician first and a drug addict second. We don't need 40% of the article to be about her trips to rehab. Will (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and a gossip rag not at all. --TS 23:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the section about Winehouse's private life. A cleanup would be very welcome, but there has to be a consensus. Erasing the whole section seems a little bit too radical to me. Whether we like it or not, Winehouse's private life is part of her biography. And she has a private life, as she is a human being, not a robot. The same goes for Frank Sinatra, Pete Doherty, Carla Bruni, or Mick Jagger. Omitting it would mean painting a quite distorted image. Furthermore, Wikipedia cannot ignore a person's public image nor the respective media coverage. Certain aspects of Winehouse's private life have also been publicly adressed by her family members, it is not all made up or invented by muckrakers. In my view a total expulsion would come close to censorship which of course we do not indulge in. --Catgut (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. She's notable for being a musician which is why she has an entry here, but she also has colorful personal life that can't be ignored. Since her trials and tribulations are pretty much covered in every media outlet, I honestly don't see a problem in finding non-tabloid sources. The section about her life outside music doesn't need to be that long either. A small, to-the-point personal life section ought to do the trick. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh I agree, we do need to discuss Winehouse's drug problems. But not in a way that takes up 40% of the article. Maybe a paragraph about two. The article on Doherty does it quite well and neutral. Will (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Brit Awards 2008

Take That won Best British Single for "Shine" at the 2008 Brit Awards, therefore this should be changed in her awards section as it says she won. 86.154.240.38 (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done surprised no one spotted that. GDonato (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Content deletion

First I want to state that personally, I am not a great fan of Winehouse, but I would like to see this article, which involves a controversial and recently highly publicized person, become a good article. I have had no particular involvement with any of the editors who have been involved in this new issue regarding the page. Having said that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildhartlivie (talk • contribs) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, there is an issue to discuss regarding this page and I will start, since the majority of what has happened regarding this page in the last 12 hours or so has occurred on the talk pages of a handful of, mostly, previously uninvolved editors. What I see that has happened here is a violation of the spirit of working together to achieve a consensus on what should or should not be included in this article and the misuse of administration to ram home a point. This is totally inappropriate and out of line.

Will (Sceptre), who prior to yesterday had not made an edit on this article since its creation until he deleted the entire Personal life section, said the article needs to discuss Winehouse's drug problems. Well, excuse me, but we also need to discuss how it is going to be included. That process was underway as we had BEGUN to discuss appropriate sources to be used. Discussion was underway.

However, on 22 February, Sceptre made an arbitrary decision to completely remove the entire "Personal life" section without even so much as a courtesy mention of doing so on this talk page. An editor uninvolved in the rest of this returned the content with this edit summary: a cleanup is welcome, but erasing the whole private life section goes too far. Sceptre reverted that with the ominous edit summary of don't. When a previously involved, and perhaps less Wiki-savvy, editor took exception to this and reverted the deletion, Sceptre responded by removing it again and within 5 minutes of Esprit's reversal, requested full page protection due to an "edit war". What I see in the history of the article and this talk page is not an edit war by definition of the term, but a misuse of the system. Sceptre, you used Wiki processes to push your point of view, outside of the arena of this page, to justify your decision to simply cut this without debate on the subject. That could be interpreted as a violation of WP:Point. The page protection request was premature and appears, from what I could garner from looking at various user talk pages, was a knee jerk reaction, which wasn't correctly represented at the request for protection. As a former adminstrator, you should be aware of the proper procedure to avoid edit wars, which were not followed.

The entire episode has pushed the remainder of us who have been trying to work on this page - using the proper channels in an appropriate manner - out of the picture in regard to discussion and working toward consensus. That is unacceptable.

As far as the question of undue weight to the drug and personal problems, that is a matter for the consensus of editors on this page as well and that, too, had an end run around the process. The question of sourcing through tabloids was being dealt with and what Sceptre removed was not solely sourced by tabloids. As one can tell, I have major issues with how this whole thing has been handled. So what's it going to be? It's 9 hours later and no one has bothered to broach the matter on this talk page YET. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

When we're writing about people, we have to make sure we get it right. It isn't acceptable to retain poorly sourced (Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, etc) contentious content on the wiki for one minute while we discuss what to do about it. If User:Sceptre was not previously involved, that's a good thing, not a sign of abuse. He has removed contentious content, and sometimes that has to be done quickly and over the heads of people who don't have such a strong commitment to our policies. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a huge contradiction in logic. In order to adhere to Wikipedia policies, sometimes policies have to be violated? People who are trying to work within the policies don't have such a strong commitment to them? Please. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No policy has been violated. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that huge contradiction in logic is actually policy. Will (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And again, what needs to be done is being ignored. It seems as if everyone is just happy and content that Winehouse now has no private life. I believe Sceptre was arbitrary and unnecessarily extreme in how he handled this article. I'm not so sure that "ignore all rules" is a good defense for hijacking and locking the article from editing. The methods used, to which I object, are secondary to the article itself. Contentious material and/or sources weren't edited out, half the article was cut, regardless of what it was or how it was sourced. No effort was made to edit and improve the article. Do either of you plan to make a meaningful contribution to this article, or is it a matter of "it's done and over with"? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Discuss the articles and not the editors, please. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

At present, that doesn't appear to be possible. The article was locked prior to any specific objections being made and none have been mentioned in the nearly 12 hours since. It would seem to me that if material was objectionable or questionable, it would fall to the person who removed it without discussion to bring specificities up. To quote an editor: I think, to get a widescale change, you'd need to have some sort of centralised discussion. No one can read minds here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the entire personal life section was not sourced from tabloids. The entire section should not have been deleted because one person didn't agree with some of the content. That content could've easily been deleted leaving the other content in tact. WP:BLP doesn't say that a biography can't have a personal life section. Quite a bit of content that is perfectly acceptable for an article was deleted without even a mention on the talk page. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP pretty much trumps everything. Potentially disparaging information about a living person needs very solid sourcing. It is no great loss if people need to go elsewhere than an encyclopedia to hear about the latest scandal. Amy Winehouse merits mention in an encyclopedia because she makes music, not because of her personal life. We should try to give responsible coverage of that personal life, but we should also keep our focus on what makes her legitimately notable, not on what makes her tabloid fodder.
In general, large unexplained cuts are bad, but the material can still be found in the history: it's not like you are being prevented from looking at it to redo it, and it's not as if there was a misleading edit summary. I'd suggest that you try to come up with a well-sourced, unsensationalistic version of same. Keep in mind, we do not need a blow-by-blow level of scandalous detail, and none of us know how her life will turn out. You might look at the Marianne Faithfull article for an example of how this has been handled for another famous British singer with a legendary (but less recent) history of drug abuse. (I haven't closely checked the quality of the sourcing there; I'm thinking more about how the article is written.) - Jmabel | Talk 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's acknowledge a few things: (1) Everyone here agrees, that anything substantiated by tabloids can be out rightly removed according to a policy; (2) a substantial part of Amy's fame is her personal chaos; (3) proper weight of that chaos in this article is the central controversy here. So let's actually consult the policy. WP:WEIGHT (the relevant portion) says in full: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Now, does anyone here think that an article devoid of information about Amy Winehouse's turbulant legal, drug and emotional problems is balanced? Of course not. Yet, that is what we currently have. And because of unilateral decisions of mass deletions, page protection and the like, without so much as discussion on the talk page, that is the only article we will have into the foreseeable future. Worse, prior to these actions, we had several non-admin editors, who had actually resolved disagreements before peacefully (see previous discussions above) who now can only sit on the sidelines - furthering alienating editors who are actually involved in the article. The only issue remaining is where do get proper sources, and what needs to be trimmed, re-worded, included to represent this aspect of Amy's fame/notoriety. This issue is hashed out in thousands of articles on Wikipedia everyday much more effectively, and very poorly here. I invite any editors who are concerned primarily with improving the content of the articles to a comment to that effect below and make any edits to the subpage. I will also investigate the best way to proceed with unlocking the article and reintroducing the missing information in a collaborative and .--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"...a substantial part of Amy's fame is her personal chaos". Well, no. Her notoriety (a term I notice that you use later) may come from that, but her fame is another matter.
Again: I don't think this subject matter should be omitted. I do think it must be well-cited and should be handled with perspective, written in a way that does not blow things out of proportion just because they are recent.
I have no objection to un-protecting, but if someone just goes and reinstates poorly sourced material, it will probably rapidly be protected again. - Jmabel | Talk 07:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Noteriety is also grounds for inclusion of information (eg. jeffrey dahmer). Regardless, I believe at the very least discussions are underway, so the article can be unblocked and information that is not supported by tabloids can be reintroduced into the article. I am not saying that what can be introduced is in good condition, and shouldn't be altered, if not outright deleted later on, but by the normal wiki-process. Unfortunately, the editors and admins who blocked and deleted have not proven to be in any way involved in fixing the problem, so the block has failed to serve its purpose. It is only hindering the progress of the article, since the majority of the persons active in these discussions are non-admins.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Misquote: Camden Town

Her quote from the Grammies performance is actually "Camden Town ain't burning down." This should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattCoon (talk • contribs) 00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose a sub article be created to deal with her non music issues limiting them to one paragraph in the main article. I will admit it seems nuts at first to give a celebrities personal issues that sort of weight. But it is not us that gave them this weight it is The Times of London, New York Times etc and the era we are living in that has done this Edkollin (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I assure you, it will be deleted faster than you can say "no, no, no". Will (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Edkollin, I second you motion and was thinking of proposing the same myself. So I am delighted to see that you have made this proposal. I feel this situation has taken legitimate concerns and turned them into a power war, but working on a sub-page can restore the collaborative nature of the project. I will create such a subpage now: Talk:Amy Winehouse/Personal life and controversy. Any further discussion about inclusion should take place below.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think all that is needed. Move and trim the drugs related stuff into "Personal life" to about three paragraphs at the most, and integrate the controversy section into talking about her music. Will (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
We have Pete Doherty's controversies and Amy Winehouse's are surely just as notable. I disagree with Will that it will be deleted quickly, and opposed his views on Corey Worthington as another example. At the end of the day, WP:NOT#PAPER, and we should aim to be as comprehensive and provide as much sourcable information as possible. The only thing that really makes such articles of dubious worth is WP:BLP. Getting back to tabloids though, it's really sad to think that what half of a nation reads every day has to be written off as 'misinformation' if used on Wikipedia... although yes, I do oppose the tabloid press and the lies and ignorance they promote, but this is not a political forum. Been thinking too much today.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
At least, we used to have Pete Doherty's controversies but it must have been merged.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
A whole other article focusing on her controversies is a bit much. I think there's plenty of room for it in her own article if all the tabloid fodder is left out. Every instance of trouble and speculation needs to be left out and nothing should be sourced from tabloids. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that 90% of your reliable source reporting is just quoting from British tabloids anyway.(San Francisco Chronicle),(Denver Post) I still fail to see why this is ok but using The Sun directly is not. If tabloids are not to be used these must go also. Getting rid of it all will 1. Negate the need for a separate section because all that will be left is a paragraph or so. 2.Strictly uphold Wikipedia Standards 3. Ill serve a portion of the readership. Edkollin (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you miss the point. There is no section at this time. Debating the finer points of tabloids vs. no tabloids is moot. Unless one can write a section saying she got married, she had a bit of problem, people expressed concern, but her next album is (whatever), it's likely not going to be allowed to remain. It's quickly becoming more hassle than I personally care to deal with, since we've been given the dictate of how much can be here and where it should go. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a question what I or any other editor considers to be a reliable source. The fact remains that Wikipedia does not consider tabloids reliable sources, that's Wikipedia policy and I doubt that will change anytime soon. It's not unusual for what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable publication to cover the same thing as a tabloid, however, reliable publications happen to fact check. For the most part, tabloids do not which is the main reason they're not considered reliable. This whole issue has been covered above. I don't see the point in doing away with an entire section because it can't be filled with tabloid fodder. Loads of featured articles have personal life sections so what's the problem here? It's fairly simple to state that Winehouse was married on such & such date to whomever and she's had some drug problems and went to rehab. I personally would find it odd that such info was omitted from a biography on the woman because that is very much a part of her persona. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the more salient points about the reliability of the newspapers you list above, EdKollin, is at the very top of the San Francisco Chronicle page which says, in part:

On February 20, 2008, SFGate.com reprinted the wire service report below, which was written and distributed by World Entertainment News Network Ltd. SFGate.com has since learned that the headline below erroneously reports ... SFGate.com regrets this error.

They admit when something was proven to be wrong. That is the difference between a tabloid and a legitimate newspaper. They fact check and correct what they print if errors occur. They may have quoted a tabloid on some point, but it was doublechecked before press. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It was corrected after it was posted on their website after Winehouse's spokesperson specifically denied that charge(I am not sure if it made the print edition). The Denver Post did not correct it as far as I know. It is much much more then they have quoted a tabloid. Most stories in "reliable" sources outside of Great Briton about Amy Winehouse's personal life are using non AP,UPI wire services who are directly taking information from the British tabloids. There just is not any comparison between Personal lifestyle section articles and the day to day coverage of the singers travails. Personal lifestyle sections have a writer who might spend an extensive amount of time on the subject. With more time you get more careful editing. In day to day coverage of major news events you have the papers major resources working on it. The Winehouse and other gossip type articles what you get the interns or the newly hired or maybe a music reviewer whose expertise is music not journalism. The point is Wikipedia can have any policy or guideline it wants but in the real world Winehouse articles from "reliable sources"(outside of Great Briton) are not any more reliable then The Sun because they are the third generation rewrite of The Sun. Wikipedia policy is great but they are guidelines and I would guess the reliable source policy was written with regular news stories in mind. Edkollin (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The retraction to which I was referring was about Nicolas Cage and tax issues. If you feel so strongly about the ONE source I used, then by all means, take out the citation, but take out the material the citation covered too, until you find a better source. From now on, I won't contribute to this article. The last 4 days has worn me out on Amy Winehouse, it's way more headache than I care to have from Wikipedia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I do understand how you feel as I have quit editing other totally unrelated articles for similar reasons. The SF Gate article I was referring was about her allegedly causing 6000 pounds of damage to her hotel room. Her spokesperson has denied the allegation so I never added it. But the larger question for any remaining editors when a "reliable" source writes a third hand account from an tabloid article what should be done?. 1. Use the reliable source because it because it is irrelevant how the reliable source got its information and it is acceptable by Wikipedia policy. 2. Do not use it as the still tabloid information so while not violating the specific Wikipedia policy it violates its spirit. 2 Use the tabloid cite directly because a reliable source said that the original information is ok so why not use a first hand cite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edkollin (talk • contribs) 06:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Worrying about who covered the story first is a waste of time. All you need to do is provide a source that Wikipedia considers reliable. Quite a few tabloids get inside information first, but the problem with tabloids is that they may get correct info first, they also might (and usually do) add additional information that is not true to add to the story. Most mainstream news outlets don't do that and again, if they get misinformation, they will retract. Tabloids don't do that unless they're sued. If you're uncomfortable with the policy, just don't add content that you feel might have been covered by a tabloid first. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I am only uncomfortable with the policy because it seems to me you are making readers get third hand information (actually fourth when you consider our rewrite). Now matter what the source at some point as an editor we have decide does this go in at all if it does go in what part of it goes in. So as far as sorting irrelevant information in part that is our job. As an editor if their is a direct quote by Amy Winehouse, or a family member in The Sun regarding an issue relevant to this article but it is not picked up by a reliable source I would not have a problem putting it in. But according to policy as I understand these arguments I can't. This type of thing happens with Amy Winehouse more the any public figure I have ever seen. The same tabloid likely pays somebody to crash her party and gets and alleged "crack" video but since the Times thought its ok so no problem. This is exactly what I meant by "can not see the forest from the trees". When Wikipedia made its policy my guess is that they had the second situation in mind not the first. And I really do not know about mainstream news organizations retracting false information on celebrity matters. In the matter I mentioned above a Google News search shows the denied information printed many times with no retractions. But of course there are a couple of Wikipedia policies that MIGHT cover this Wikipedia:Use common sense,Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules Edkollin (talk) 06:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"the album"

"Winehouse toured in conjunction with the album's release": context gives no indication what album. - Jmabel | Talk 21:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hair

Is she not blonde anymore? CandiceWalsh (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Whenwillamywinehousedie.com

Dunno if it's wrth mentioning in the article, but the site got mentioned in the Times today, [2] so that might count as notable. clearly getting attention, anyway. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not in a million years is that worth mentioning. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
That is not worth mentioning but I did put the report itself in the controversy section. The report did not mention anybody in particular but all of the stories about the report mentioned her. Edkollin (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
To be quite blunt, it does not belong in this article, period. Because a couple news sources said, in effect, "for the Kate Mosses and the Amy Winehouses of the world," does not make the UN report specifically relevant to this article. The UN did not target Amy Winehouse and to include it here is asking for problems. I suggest it come out immediately. Neither of the sources included say anything close to "suspect that Amy Winehouse was one of the celebrities the author Hamid Ghodse had in mind." The New York Times commentary blog said it was irresistible to suspect that Winehouse's song "Rehab" came to mind, not that it is generally suspected, as the entry into the Winehouse article would lead one to believe, that it's Winehouse herself. The BBC article didn't even come close to that connection. This is a world wide release, it's irresponsible for us at Wikipedia to make it about Amy Winehouse. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Wildhartlivie, I agree completely.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Who would he have in mind the editors of Wikipedia?. I did write the the report did not mention specific names but if you feel my language implied that it can be rewritten to something like "the singers name was widely used in media reports as an example" etc and more sources could be added. Every reliable source I have read did use her name in their articles about the report and that is notable Edkollin (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Who would he have in mind? It should be fairly apparent that the UN didn't set out to conduct a story about Amy Winehouse. As interesting an aside as this all is, the good editors over at the Kate Moss and Pete Doherty articles - both of whom were mentioned in the sources given on this - didn't feel compelled to jump in and add a passing remark about an otherwise unconnected UN drug study to their articles. This article has to walk a very fine line between tabloidism and whitewashing. Adding a passing remark by the press to an otherwise unrelated study isn't the way to do it. Gosh, who else could the author have had in mind? What about Aaron Carter, Lindsay Lohan, Courtney Love, Nicole Richie, Paris Hilton, Brad Renfro, just to name a few. Gee, just run a Google search for "celebrity drug use", the list could be astounding. In any case, unless it involves an incident directly involving Winehouse, it's just sensationalism and doesn't belong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not say the press mentioned only her name just that her name was in all of the articles I read. And they were not tabloid sources. If you are saying your reliable sources are engaging in tabloidism that goes back to the previous subject of how more reliable they are in these matters then the Sun. Again we could put in language emphasizing Winehouse is one of among many celebrities cited as an example. I do not know if we should edit this article based on how other other celebrity articles are written but be that as it may the few I reviewed do not have a separate "Controversy" section. Their "issues" are handled in their "Personal Life" section. Since the U.N. report is not part of their personal life it probably does not belong there. The difference is probably (U.S. and England have some differences) is that unlike most of the celebrities you mentioned is that Amy Winehouse is not one of the celebrities mentioned but the main one[3]. The controversy over her Grammy victories mentioned in the controversy section is in similar territory as this. Saying that should be in because her name was specifically mentioned by that complainant is nitpicking. Should the "Controversy" section be there is another issue but if it is to stay this is the kind of thing it was created for. Edkollin (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say reliable sources were engaging in tabloidism. What I said was that this article has to walk a fine line between tabloidism and whitewashing. The point is that we do not need to add a note to this article every time Amy Winehouse gets mentioned in a publication, which often tends to be the case. Yes, "Rehab" was used as an example in the articles on the UN study. But then, as I said, other celebrities were mentioned too. It would almost behoove the article if new items were not added to the article until a week later, just to see if it even matters in a week.
Be that as it man, we have a mandate not to be a gossip rag. Throwing little tidbits like the mention of the whenwillamywinehousedie.com website and the eagerness of journalists to cite celebrity examples of drug users is going to keep us from that course. As far as the Controversies section, actually, if one would check further up the page, removing it was one thing the person who cut out the entire section suggested doing. Personally, I'm all for removing it. The article needs to continue to move slowly toward a clean article. Right now, that is a chore. I say let's just cut it altogether. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Controversy section aside for now (I still have mixed feelings on the matter) you may not like that journalists create a link when the report did not. You have a right to and are probably correct in that opinion. It is not up to us to decide what is gossip and what is news reliable sources do that in in this case such papers as The New York Times,The Times of London have decided for whatever reason the her personal issues are worth tones of news space,columnists time and in one case an editorial and in the matter of the UN report they decided to make that link. If it a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia where is the violation of policy? Apologies for reusing the same Times link that started this section.Edkollin (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the logic of having a section on "controversies" when there is already one on "personal life". All the controversy around Winehouse is related to her personal life. Another possible structure for the article would be to relate everything chronologically and weave between events related to her artistic output and those that are about her personal life and how it has been portrayed. Since sources usually mention in the same breath her success as an artist and her troubled personal life the most straightforward path to a good article would be to do the same. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If editors want to look at an bio article that is in chronological order but still has intensive coverage of personal issues See Britney Spears. If you want extreme chronological order another option is one summary paragraph here and link to a not a separate article as I suggested earlier but a pure listing by date Edkollin (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The Spears article doesn't have intensive coverage of personal issues. It has coverage of the main points. It doesn't go into explicit details regarding her day by day press coverage and it doesn't delve into everything she says and does. For instance, Adnan Gliban isn't even mentioned in the article. It's not as if none of us have neglected to look at other articles. What I'm not clear about is why you alone are so persistent in wanting to include so much of what is essentially tripe. This isn't a no-holds barred detailed biography of Winehouse. It's an encyclopedia article, and the mere fact that the article had tended to divert close to gossip makes it unencyclopedic. This sort of material has already triggered controversy on this talk page. The article needs to be pulled up from the mire, not to continue to have mire introduced. Just because something doesn't technically violate policy does not by definition mean it belongs in the article. There's a wide berth between fair game and good taste and judgment. It appears to me that a consensus is beginning to develop about this sort of issue, and it's not leaning toward the inclusion of each and every piece of press that occurs. The issue of a separate article covering controversy has already been decided. No one agreed with it. Should I go back and count how many people said no? Instead of asserting that it doesn't violate policy, why not try to cover how a UN report which says celebrities are let off lightly by the justice system in regard to drug related crime pertains to Amy Winehouse, to my knowledge who to date, has only been arrested for marijuana possession. Yes, we're all aware that she likely does a lot of other things, but it's hard to slam justice system treatment of Winehouse when Winehouse hasn't actually been arrested or charged for the drug use being covered by the report. At some point, someone has to say enough is enough in these inclusions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Wikipedia policy cannot cover common sense, good taste and judgment, that's up to each user. Winehouse is included here because she is a musician, first and foremost. Her personal life and problems are covered because they have become part of her persona. I think a good example of someone who had (and will probably continue to have) a turbulent personal life is Courtney Love. That article touches on her troubles, but mainly focuses on her career because that is what makes Love notable. That is how the Winehouse article should be treated as well. People need to remember that Wikipedia isn't a fansite or a blog and every time a celebrity is mentioned in the press, that doesn't need to be added to their article. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The Spears article like this has a large percentage of it devoted to personal issues and it in chronological order. I have no idea what other articles editors look at. It was suggested chronological order might be a better way all I was saying was here an article that leans that way. As for my separate article suggestion being shot down three or four or five against editors against it a consensus does not make. The suggestion was made because I agree that Winehouse is a musician first and foremost and that at most there should be a summary paragraph here. Both this article and the Spears article (never edited it no plans to) is to clogged up with this material. Since reliable sources think this is notable a more detailed sub article/list or whatever should be written for readers who want detail on those matters. What that should include or not is for possible later discussion in that articles talk section and out of here. Edkollin (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The Spears article has 26.92% of its content devoted to personal life, the Winehouse article has 33.33% devoted to personal life. That's quite a difference. I'm curious, then, what a consensus would be, if not when four or five editors weigh in against a suggestion made by one or two. If Winehouse is first and foremost a musician, then why should there be a detailed separate article covering her personal travails? Is that not, in and of itself, sensationalistic? You obviously want to write a more elaborate and detailed controversy article and I'm really growing tired of debating this same thing over and over, so what I'd suggest you do is go start a sub-article and then fight out its retention when it is nominated for deletion, which I can assure will be the case. And no, the Costa comment does not render the basic issue moot. It will still remain at issue over how this will be treated in the article. The prevailing viewpoint remains that anything like this be handled with attention toward neutrality and no preponderance of weight. As with the news reports, Winehouse was not solely singled out and now the drug problems of the world seem to equally be Eric Clapton's fault. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As the article now stands (See Below) Costa's commentary [4] this does belong and I put it in. I tried to keep it short and neutral and made specific note that Winehouse was not solely singled out. If you are referring to this article Costa did not say the drug problems of the world were equally Clapton's fault and unlike Winehouse he was only mentioned once but that is the Clapton editors problem. As with anything the wording can always be changed. Unless you find a specific rule violation do not delete it but of course you can put it here for deletion in an up or down vote Edkollin (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC).
I feel this site does belong in the article, and I in fact had added it to the external links only to have it subsequently removed. This is how people see this person and her celebrity, this is her public persona, people are throwing into a pool because of her outlandish and ridiculous behavior. Wiki should be all inclusive, including someone or some group's detractors. Tens of thousands of people have guessed when Winehouse will croak and that IS NOTABLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipingrock (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 April 2008
There are a lot of reasons why this site is inappropriate and won't be kept in the article. One is that Wikipedia has a policy regarding living persons, which precludes it from printing defamatory material. Another is that this is basically a spamsite, with nothing more substantative than a few photos taken from other sources that are copyright violations and nothing besides their self-titled "pre-condolences." Finally, the site requires one to register, which is not allowable under WP guidelines. Beyond all that, it's simply distasteful and tacky and not notable for anything except exploitation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Drug use belongs in lead

Winehouse's status as a celebrity drug user is often and persistently noted in reliable sources. In fact, she gets more prominent publicity for her substance abuse than her music. The numerous media references are certainly enough to outweigh any BLP concerns. Another Four Plasmids (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand this section it is in the lead as of 9 March Edkollin (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This is here because User:Another Four Plasmids is protesting my removal of a sentence fragment he added to the lead sentence. He decided to elaborate on the opening sentence to have it read: Amy Jade Winehouse (born 14 September 1983) is an English soul, jazz, and R&B singer-songwriter, as well as a prominent substance abuser. Is that where this article should be going? I don't think so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok Edkollin (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life and Controversies how much weight?

There are too many issues at once to get anything solved. What we should do is start with the most broad issues decide them then gradually decide more detailed issues.

The first most basic issues are how much weight these matters should be given in this article. Sourcing or possible future sub articles should be for later and irrelevant for this decision

A. No mention should be made - There is no Wikpedia rule saying you have to discuss personal matters. It is just a custom.

B. Summary - Probably one paragraph but that can be fleshed out later.

C. "Considerable" Weight - Vaguely the weight given now.

D. Other - Hate to put this in as this can cause chaos but people may regard the above as false or inadequate choices.

I suggest we give this a week to account for work/family life cycles Edkollin (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that you want to approach this issue reasonably and calmly. However, I'm not entirely certain this is a fair or equitable thing to suggest. At this point, it has primarily been your opinion vs. others and to bring that around to opening up a community "vote" isn't the same thing as consensus. Consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts. I do honestly think that taking the personal life issues to a new page is not only unnecessary, but will give it too much weight and would be destined for deletion. No one has actually advocated for there to be no personal life or controversy section at all. What does remain is how much weight this material should have, and in what manner it is presented. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
And I appreciate that you did not delete but improved my edit even though you have problems with the whole idea of it. You can have a poll and a discussion as the post just below by Esprit15d demonstrates. My fault for not being more clear about that. Other articles I have been involved in rely heavily on polling. I would not be overly concerned about a non career issues page at this juncture because we are far from that point. Decisions rendered here might make the need for it in my view moot. In any case it is not something I would just do on my own. Edkollin (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Edkollin, I am addressing each option you have mentioned above (A) Not an option: Wikipedia has the same industry standards of every reputable encyclopedia or "tertiary source", only our methodology is unique. There is no way you can have a featured article (always the goal) on someone without reporting every major portion of their fame/notoriety. In this case, to not have a personal section on Amy Winehouse at all would be virtual malpractice and certainly biased. (B) Poor option as well: One paragraph would be insufficient since a huge portion of her renown is her antics. To illustrate: Robert Frost and Oscar Wilde are both renowned poets, and this is their claim to notability inclusion here in wikipedia. But the article on Frost makes scant mention of his personal controversies while the article on Wilde is rife with is various scandals (and its a GA). Why? Because Wilde's antics/homosexuality/jail-time heavily contributed to his renown in his day. There are other examples, like Kristy Yamaguchi vs. Tonya Harding. (C) Only real option since this is the spirit of Wikipedia for people to come in and whittle/add/reference/trim/copyedit/discuss gradually until the article is sound. And that's how we have come to the current version. Is it perfect? No but close. This thing has to report the facts, but not slip into an editorial. I see persons (one or two) on the extremes who are beating horses that are already dead. --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Guys, also remember that all articles have to be treated equally. Amy Winehouse's drug use as mentioned in the article is fair, neutral and matches other articles regarding other celebrities with similar problems. I think you guys are forgetting that Amy Winehouse is NOT Michael Jackson or Whitney Houston, hardly anyone in Asia knows her, so please stop trying to blame her lack off growth to that of a disproportionate negative coverage such as drugs etc. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is blaming disproportionate negative coverage of her personal issues for affecting her career momentum. It's her personal issues that have done that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute addition

I am questioning the addition of this material: The singers father said that he believed lyrics from the track "What It Is About Men" references his extra marital affair which occurred during the singers childhood. Essentially, so what? How does that apply directly to Winehouse? This is a comment by her father, she has not endorsed it or disputed it, so essentially, we are back to throwing everything in but the dishwater. It is not relevant what her father thinks is the reason for the verse in the song, or the effects of his marital life on whether her childhood was ruined or how her life is now transpiring. Unless Amy Winehouse says this, it is irrelevant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Speculation does not belong in an encyclopedia. Unless this event had a profound effect on Winehouse, so much so that she spoke in depth about, I could understand its inclusion. Again, people need to remember that every bit of info or quote cannot be included. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Opinions are only included in Wikipedia if they are from reputable sources. Her father's interpretation of her music is neither here nor there.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
So the rule is nothing her father says should ever be in the article because he is not a reliable source?. What about this? "The singers father said she had a seizure in August 2007 caused by her drug and alcohol addiction and that further seizures may be life threatening"[5]. He is not a doctor so this should not be in? Edkollin (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that would be a problem because the source is a dead link and can't be verified from the link given. However, as stated, that example would really need to be clarified to explain that he doctors did say so, otherwise that would be his opinion as well. Another problem with that is that a seizure wasn't caused by her drug addiction, but either detoxing in drug withdrawal or the effects of drugs and/or alcohol. But no, that's not the issue. The issue is that he was rendering his opinion of the meaning behind her lyrics, which basically is irrelevant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed broken link. True not the original issue but the original issue is a rather small one about song lyrics brought up the much larger issue of using immediate family members as reliable sources. In the article there is no direct quote of him saying the doctors told him this. Common sense says that this is not his opinion but something based on what he was told by medical professionals treating her that he got the gist of but misunderstood or misspoke botching the difference between "direct cause" and "effect". So because of this we can not use this. And to reedit the line to note these differences is Original Research since one would have to go into medical journals to retrieve this information. So this and other potentially important information cannot be used denying our readers important information. Very unfortunate. Edkollin (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely indisputable talent and drug problems

Why does it have to be such a case of her music reflecting her life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.204.68 (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dental gap

Which is the cause of her dental gap (see: http://estb.msn.com/i/CF/8E640F013DB564A51C827A0364FC8.jpg)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turm (talk • contribs) 12:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A weird tidbit

Amy Winehouse has a longer article than Kim Jong-il.

There is something desperately, desperately wrong with this situation.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone needs to expand the Kim Jong-il article then. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Amy Winehouse has a longer article than many people who are objectively more significant. Wikipedia often just reflects the interests of those who edit it (hence the comprehensive sets of articles about science fiction programmes) rather than any consensus of importance. Things won't change until a wider range of people are attracted to editing Wikipedia, which probably means better measures to deter the vandals and trolls that often bring progress grinding to a halt. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And all of that is specifically relevant to the Amy Winehouse article in what way? It's not clear to me whether you think this article should be cut drastically so it won't appear that Winehouse has been determined to be more important than an arbitrarily chosen someone else - or - you're just griping here because here is where you happened to land. Importance and significance aren't in any way objective standards that can be quantified. That is POV to the given reader. Meanwhile, the purpose of this particular talk page is to discuss improvements to the Amy Winehouse article and not discuss the pros and cons of the efforts of those who do happen to bother putting in time on Wikipedia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Wildhartive, methinks you and Nunquam Dormio are on the same team.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, I hope I was supposed to laugh at that! Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the English wikipedia. There's bound to be more coverage of western subjects, and those with high press coverage here. Merkin's mum 16:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Well if Kim Jong-il had a hit, then maybe we would talk about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.15.38 (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

recent stuff in the press

[6][7] Shall we include any of this yet or wait to see how it pans out? Merkin's mum 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless it becomes a major life issue, I'd say no. We can't even begin to note every bender someone goes on since it wouldn't be encyclopedic. This is just more of the tabloid-esque fodder that has attached itself to Winehouse to sell a few more magazines. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Two issues here. A strong consensus has been reached against using British tabloids as source so no to the Daily Mirror. As for People magazine it seems to be their reporting and they seem to have a direct statement from the police. I do not know what the consensus is of the reliability of People magazine. As of this writing Fox News and the San Francisco Chronicle are reporting this quoting a “British Tabloid”. Other British tabloids are reporting this as part of a pub crawl and posting pictures of her with a alleged marijuana cigarette. So it is best to wait and see if police investigate the photos and how the standard reliable sources handle all of this Edkollin (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
On the BBC site now [8]. Merkin's mum 17:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
She's been cautioned, so there'll be no further action but it will stay on her record. [9] Merkin's mum 16:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This has been put in the article. I put in the legal section and not the Subsistence abuse section that a doctor concluded she was "unfit for interview" since the doctor did not say it was a chemical that made her unfit. I did put in the Subsistence abuse that there were fears that the drug rehab efforts have failed as The Telegraph reported this(UK Telegraph not Australian Telegraph which is a tabloid). The Telegraph was not quoting from a tabloid therefore if was not "feedback". I could not put in the tabloid marijuana pictures as unlike the crack pictures the police and reliable sources did not pick up on it for whatever reason. Edkollin (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Is she really "known for her eclectic mix of various musical genres including soul, jazz and R&B"? She made a jazz album and then a soul album; I don't call that electic. --Pbn-dk (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Touring Section

I have added her upcoming performance at Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday party to this section for now. This event and other charity concerts she has been involved with are not part of what is considered touring in the conventional sense. Either this section should be renamed or these types of performances should be moved out. It is incorrect as it stands but I am unsure exactly how to rectify it. Edkollin (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

singing style ?

i came here to find information about her singing style and just got some completely uninteresting trash tabloid ramblings who cares about all that paparazzi shit ? write about the music !

For the sake of balance I think it should say that despite having a terrible reception in Birmingham, on othe 2nd night of the tour in Glasow, she delivered a fantastic performance, growing in confidence as the evening went on. The crowd went wild- its not fair to imply all her performances were like that! shes a professional -----

"Musical Legacy"

Winehouse is considered a “massive influence” in jump starting the success of a wave of British females who have unique take on writing, producing and preforming American music from the past. British female singers whose success occurred following Winehouse’s such as Duffy and Adele have been described as “New Amy’s”. In the United States this wave has been dubbed a British Invasion[10][11][12].

Is something along these lines article worthy and if so should a new section be created or should it be added to the summary? Edkollin (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it can reliably be said that Winehouse was forerunner of a British invasion musically at this point. It also doesn't say they are performing American music of the past, it says that some of the sounds are reminiscent of US 60s music, which would make it more retro, not remakes. I also don't think one can definitively say Winehouse was the leader of what a couple reporters call an invasion at this point, especially invoking one of the calibre of the British invasion that occurred in the US in the mid-1960s. One doesn't always have to put everything in the article and in this case, I think it's entirely premature. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Just for clarification when I write "somethings along these lines" that means I consider it a rough draft which means I am proposing an idea not the exact wording. Since you did not remark about the "New Amy's" does that mean you consider it article worthy? Edkollin (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't implying that's what you were doing. I'm just not clear on what they mean by "New Amys." Do they do the same kind of music? Or is it a case of a fledgling music trend of UK girl singers doing retro style music? Or does it just mean there are some up and coming female singers who have the potential for the musical success that Winehouse has had? And how does that relate to Winehouse herself? Does she have anything to do with it except for the fact they've pegged her name onto lesser known singers in trying to market them? At this point, I'm not clear on how this factors into Winehouse's career. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If I may pipe in here on this business of the "New Amys" ... as I have philosophical issues with the concept that newer performers (and sports figures, politicians, actors, et al.) should, or even, can be lumped in definitionally under someone similar in terms of style, appearance, rise to fame, etc. The reason the more well known individual is well known is that he/she is distinctively talented. So, Elvis was Elvis, and for those who like/d him, do/did so because of his distinctive characteristics, not because he emulated someone else. So, if new musical performers come along, they will achieve success because of their personal characteristics, interpretations, etc., not because they are a copy of someone else. In music, some performers will cluster in a genre or sub-genre (girl groups, punk rockers, etc.), but, again, for long-term endurance, they have to bring something notable to fore. I think as fans (in whatever fields) we all yearn for capability but also for the unique. We seem not to be particularly interested in having mere clones of capable performers.Designquest10 (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The worthiness of the "New Amy's" or "British Invasion" designation should not be an issue in deciding article worthiness. Are enough reliable or notable sources on pop culture using these? The main difficulty with music is there is no scientifically proven definitions just individual perceptions. So what is the most reliable source for a pop music trend music journalists or the company that successfully markets it? Edkollin (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Whether something is sourcable really isn't the issue under discussion, if that's the point you're making. It's relevance is. This is one of those things that fall under "just because something was published doesn't mean it has to be stuck in." How a company is marketing someone else doesn't make it relevant to the Winehouse article. And because one or two writers have used the words "British invasion" doesn't make it so, either. Again, how is this relevant to Winehouse? Beyond that, at this point, to my knowledge, Winehouse is still alive, so she really has no legacy at this point in time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What music "movement" somebody is popularly perceived as representing is always article worthy and that is more we like to admit the result of "marketing". Understanding public opinion is what they do for a living so that is expertise to some degree or other. And of course one can have a "living legacy". If reliable sources say Winehouse is a cause or part of a cause of a music movement that is absolutely article worthy. Edkollin (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, at this point, I don't think that a "British invasion" or movement has been reliably established at this point. The concept is vague at best, and certainly ill-defined. Just because a couple writers use that term does not a musical movement make. Just because a marketing ploy is to tie a singer's publicity in with a highly successful and award winning songwriter/singer does not make a movement. You've had two others agree that this is at best premature. By your reasoning, everything published is article worthy, and that makes no sense to me. Three articles are published in a two week period does not establish anything except someone got a press release. It is a huge stretch to make this part of a Winehouse article when fundamentally, none of the articles are about her, but about an attempt to market on her coattails. I don't think it belongs. DesignQuest10 doesn't think it belongs. I would suggest that this be shelved at this point until something is actually established. One of the articles even states that the singer in question doesn't want to be associated this way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The only reason other British female singers are being dubbed "new Amys" is because they all happen to be British and write their own songs. In other words, it's an easy way for the press to categorize British female artists based on what is successful right now. Whenever Britney Spears first came out, every young girl who released an album was compared to her. That doesn't necessarily mean that Spears (or in this case, Winehouse) influenced these singers, she just ushered in a different genre of music for that time period. The media and record companies are notorious for marketing or comparing groups or singers on a successful predecessor, that doesn't mean the first person to have success with a certain formula is the originator. Since the terms of this "British invasion" aren't particularly clear, I'd find it difficult to rationalize putting this section into the article, especially since it's based on a few journalists' opinions and Winehouse's career is relatively young. Pinkadelica 13:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I am disagreeing with anybody that this is a marketing ploy or the an "easy way" for the press. That is why I used the wording "described" and "dubbed". The original "British Invasion" was the same way .Dusty Springfield,Petula Clark,The Beatles,The Rolling Stones, The Who etc had more differences then similarities and many times the artists disliked being compared to one another. And the term was used when there careers were for the most part young. This is similar to what goes on for any so called genre. The point is reliable sources(more then three) are starting to use these terms or something similar. There are to many I do not personally like these designations arguments. So how many reliable sources should use this term before it is not "premature" 19,20 100?. Should the statement be watered down to to some are calling them this? or just say some have compared others to her? Edkollin (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The way I'm reading this is that at this point, no one else thinks it merits inclusion. Calling a couple other other singers "New Amys" isn't really relevant to the progress of Winehouse's career, and so far, I'm not convinced there is a British invasion. If you'll look at the article on the British Invasion, the influx of music was huge, and trendsetting. Right now, we've got Winehouse and some up and comers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It denotes that reliable sources think she has importance and influence(in my POV on sales figures of the newbies not musical style). And from the way I am reading this so far the main reason no one wants it in because they are against the idea of the the designations. While on some points I am sympathetic to these objections that is not a reason for not including something.(It does not have use the words "New Amy's" or "British Invasion" necessarily although it should). Nobody answered the simple question I asked at what point would it be article worthy? Edkollin (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I would not use the Wikipedia British Invasion article in this discussion because it is mostly uncited Edkollin (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Working backwards, you are the one who first linked to the British Invasion article, and the lack of citations isn't a factor in looking at who was included in the 1960s so called invasion. It was still a huge influx of music in an emerging change of music genre. It's not the designation that I'm objecting to, it's the validity of it. This comes down again to just because someone mentions Winehouse in passing, or in an attempt to link her to something that really doesn't influence her career, doesn't mean it has to be included in the article. There is enough in the world directly relating to her. This amounts to "look, here are some more British singers, let's pump them up by mentioning Amy Winehouse." It has no meaning to Winehouse's article. It might be article worthy when it's more than passing comments and connections. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct on calling me out on the Wikipedia British Invasion cite. As far as validity I might have been more clear that other editors did not want the designations because they disagreed with the validity of it. I have always understood that point and mistakenly thought I was communicating that. That being said it is still editors deciding validity not reliable sources. We have the POV that reporters using these terms are lazy or are repeating some press release. But that is our educated guess. Nobody has given any proof at all that these are the motivations for the use of these terms and basing article worthiness based our opinions is wrong. The whole point in my bringing up marketing was to make a point about sourcing for pop music not to go off on a tangent about motivations Edkollin (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The music critic for the Montreal Gazette disagrees with the Wikipedia consensus [13] Edkollin (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


Nelson Mandela typo

Could the typo on Nelson Mandela's name be fixed please? I can't do this as the article is locked --Totorotroll (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Annie Lennox blog

I'm really not sure that this addition is an encyclopedic one. Although it's just the edit summary, she didn't really call for ban, per se. It was more like wishing people would quit thrusting her in the limelight. What she said is "PS...Completely different subject...I’m very upset about Amy Winehouse right now...I just want to see her turn it around. She’s a major talent, and it’s so harrowing to see her spiralling out of control like a car crash. I wish somebody could just put a stop to everybody taking pictures of her, and get her out of the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. I want to see her healthy...not wrecked. I can’t stop thinking about her, and I wish somebody could just get her the help she so desperately needs to save her life. It’s so not right." This is all more of a passing comment, on her blog, and despite that it's Annie Lennox, I have to ask how this is relevant, encyclopedic content. She's worried about her. And that's fine, but why does her blog comment merit inclusion the article? This really is one of those cases where just because it's there doesn't automatically render it relevant for an encyclopedia. I'd be interested in hearing opinions from others on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Every comment by every celebrity should not be included in this article. I don't question the validity of Annie Lennox's blog, but those are her musings, not an official statement. I hardly see how it qualifies as being controversial either. I can see including the Natalie Cole comment because it relates directly to Winehouse's career (which is what makes her notable). I think Lennox's comments are related more to Winehouse's personal life/problems which are already covered. I think just about everyone has been asked about Winehouse at some point in time and we seriously need to draw a line somewhere. If we included every comment every celebrity or person with an iota of fame said about Winehouse, this article would be a mile long. This isn't a fansite where every detail or mention of the girl needs to be documented. I'm all for nixing it, but to be fair, I will wait until more people comment about its inclusion. Pinkadelica 05:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Based on past history you two will probably be the only ones to comment and even if I am wrong and one or two more editors do comment on it they will agree with you. I am calling it a "consensus" and have deleted it. Sucks that more editors do not participate in these discussions but that is how it goes.Edkollin (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hospital

Winehouse remained in a London hospital on June 17, 2008 after collapsing at her North London home on Monday. Initial tests were inconclusive putting her under further observation.nytimes.com, More Medical Tests for Amy Winehouseap.google.com, Amy Winehouse still in London hospital for tests--Florentino floro (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I took it out. Since the tests as of this writing have have been inconclusive there is by definition no known serious health issue that is worthy enough for article inclusion. Everybody is understandably suspicious that this is related to her drug problems. The tabloids and the singers father have reported these suspicions with some reliable sources reporting on these tabloid reports. "Feedback" which reliable sources reporting tabloids claims is discouraged by Wikipedia policy. The Sun report which has been reported she has been told to quit drugs or die has been denied by her spokesperson[14]. So all that is actually known is that she fainted and quickly recovered a not uncommon occurrence which is frequently a minor issue. Edkollin (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

An editor put in that Winehouse was hospitalized with a chest infection and an irregular heartbeat based on a cite from celebrity blogger Perez Hilton. 1. Perez Hilton is not a reliable source 2. Hilton got his information from The Sun a British tabloid not a reliable source. As of 5:30 PM Saturday New York Time the only thing that has been confirmed by her spokesperson is the chest infection. The source for the irregular heartbeat story is reporting by The Sun and therefore not usable. We had a long long debate about using British Tabloids for this article and the overwhelming consensus was against using them. Irregular heartbeat in no way at this time can be used. Here is what is known based on what her representative confirmed to people magazine and other sources. She has been in the hospital now 6 days. A chest infection is confirmed. Testing as of Friday was still ongoing. While there there is plenty of speculation of a connection between the chest infection and her drug and other problems there is no confirmation of this and therefore this does not belong in the substance abuse and mental health subsection. As said above it is not known if this is life threatening or life altering so at this time it does not belong in my view in the Personal Life section but I could see where one could disagree with me on this. Her spokesperson confirmed it might imperil her upcoming tour dates this summer so I put it there. My POV is that this will turn out to be a serious article worthy personal life matter. I would advise everybody to be patient and not jump the gun. Edkollin (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This debate has been rendered mute by later by unfortunate updated information Edkollin (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is change needed for subheading: Substance abuse and mental health issues

Just checking in to see if a change is needed for the subheading:

"Substance abuse and mental health issues"  ??

Now that her physical health has entered the article, it gave me pause to think that the section could be re-named.

Perhaps: 


               Substance abuse and mental/physical health issues


Not wedded to this, and this Just a thought.

And, hope that things improve for her in the very near future.

Thanks, Designquest10 (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it might have been been caused by drug use probably not Edkollin (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Typo and punctuation to fix when article gets unlocked

I just drifted by after reading about Winehouse's father's report of her having emphysema. I am neither a fan nor a detractor, and simply wanted a quick update on the matter -- but when i saw a couple of typos and could not fix them, due to the article being locked, i thought it best to leave a note here, as it is unlikely i will return any time soon.

(1) "cooking a snook at the law" is incorrect: the spelling is "cocking a snook at the law" -- see http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-coc4.htm

(2) "involved in the plot recognizing Fielder-Civil's notoriety tried to sell" is missing some commas, and should read "involved in the plot, recognizing Fielder-Civil's notoriety, tried to sell"

(3) "in the early morning hours, barefoot and wearing only a bra and jeans appeared on the internet" is missing one comma. It should read "in the early morning hours, barefoot and wearing only a bra and jeans, appeared on the internet"

There's a lot more, but obviously this is a contended and not very well written article, so i will leave it at that. Good luck! cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't locked from editing, only semi-protected. Just for clarification on point #1, for any editors who might look to correct it, the "cooking a snook at the law" is a direct quote from the source, and as such, can't be corrected (unless you've a mind to contact John O'Connor and correct his usage thereof). Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Glastonbury performance

should her performance at glastonbury be added?

[15]. I will change the tense. I do think her Jay-Z comments should be added to the controversy section as his appearance at the festival caused consternation in some quarters. I do not feel qualified to make that edit because I do not understand the context of the controversy not being from the U.K. As for the "punching incident" there is just not enough concrete evidence of her intent. I looked at it on youtube myself and I could not tell if it was from anger or just rough play. It is not as clear cut as Sid Vicious hitting a fan on the head with his guitar . I would wait on this Edkollin (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. First breaking news seems to rarely be complete. It really isn't clear from the video what happened, and my first reaction was that someone grabbed at her, she elbowed away, then went back. After that, she goes and drags what appears to be a security guard along with her, so no, it isn't obvious. Whether her remarks about Jay-Z are controversial or not will be determined. The article linked above also states she has emphysema, which isn't what the other reports I've read have said. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
"Punch " update: Police have received no complaints and there will be no further investigation[16] so at this time it should not go in. Edkollin (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This still remains true despite another editor putting it in based on this cite [17]. As the fan quoted it the cite said "At the end of the day it is all part of being at the front and being pushed by thousands of people. It is all part of the Glastonbury experience". What it is not at this point is article worthy Edkollin (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Rock en Seine reference

Winehouse did not play Rock en Seine in 2007. I was there, she wasn't. Can someone who has editing privs change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.113.174 (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference is for 2008 festival. Section is in chronological order. The entire paragraph references summer of 2008 and there is a reliable cite that she is scheduled to perform at the festival Edkollin (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also that she could die within three months[7]. is not a sentence. I suppose there's an unnamed subject here, probably her father but I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.184.6 (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Cocking not cooking

"In reaction to the decision, former Scotland Yard commander John O’Connor said it is an "absolute scandal that nothing could be done" about Winehouse "cooking a snook at the law"

I believe the expression is cocking a snook not cooking a snook http://www.answers.com/topic/cocking-a-snook Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you'll note the discussion above, this is within a quote from the source, and it was presented therein as "cooking." Whether it was O'Connor's misuse or the source's, that's what we have to work with. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Should the word Cook be succeded by [sic]? Or is this simply too small of a nit to pick? Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. It's been mentioned twice now. Would you like to do that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As it was a quote (and therefore taken from an interview on tape) is it within the realms of possibility that the journalist misheard the word or didn't understand the dialect, and did not know the phrase (which "went out with the Ark" BTW). Change it to "cocking", which will save everyone in the rest of the world a lot of scratching their heads and wondering why someone wroted cookings [sic].--andreasegde (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, it is a quote. We can't second guess the source, perhaps the speaker misspoke. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bestival is not the same as Isle Of Wight Festival

I removed mention of the Isle Of Wight festival on 7th July. I see that User:Wildhartlivie has reverted it, citing "supported by reference". It's NOT.

The reference - http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKN1151444420080511 includes the following paragraph:

The south coast holiday island also hosts the 30,000-capacity dance/alternative festival Bestival, an offshoot of the Sunday Best label/club events firm headed by BBC Radio 1 DJ Rob Da Bank. The lineup for this year's sold-out dates (September 5-7) at Robin Hill Country Park includes My Bloody Valentine, Amy Winehouse and Underworld.

The Reuters report states that Amy Winehouse is scheduled to play Bestival; it does NOT state that she is or was due to play the Isle Of Wight Festival, which is a different event. and has already taken place, and at which Amy Winehouse did not perform. Therefore this reference should be used to refer to the Bestival appearance, and the Isle Of Wight information removed.

I've never knowingly had an edit reverted before, and since I realise that to repeat yesterday's edit without this explanation may lead to problems. So here is the justification, could someone please verify this summary and reapply the change. --Alasdairmacdonald (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to User:Wildhartlivie for correcting this.--195.152.161.5 (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bryan Adams

Should we mention that Bryan Adams wrote one of her songs<Bryan Adams --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed where in the article it says that. Otherwise, unless it was an unprecedented event, such as the only time Winehouse did a song written by someone else, or it was a huge hit, probably not. At some point, most singers do a song written by someone else. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
He did it when he invited Amy to his cabin for personal reasons. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What? A member of the Royal Rock Family interfering with a cute young girl? Adams had better watch out, or he'll be following in Gary Glitter's footsteps... :))--andreasegde (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Eviction

I put in a sentence or two about her neighboors tring to evict her and it was deleted because it was of probably not germane to her career. True or not it is very germane to her personal life. And we have a very extensive personal life section which by Wikipedia rules is the consensus until it not the consensus. I do not see this item is different then many of the items in the section. I found it notable that the local goverment was getting so involved. Edkollin (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I don't much agree with the statement "[it] is the consensus until it is not the consensus." Is this an implication that we need to request comments regarding consensus over whether Winehouse's possible eviction is encyclopedic and appropriate for the article? This is simply one of those items that really is inconsequential in regards to the overview of her life. She's only lived in the apartment for four months, according to other articles. I scanned news articles about other celebrities who have had eviction problems and then checked their articles. Maggie Gyllenhaal, Dane Cook, Corey Feldman, Robin Givens, and others have faced eviction in the last year and no one has included that in their articles. In proportion to the other issues in Winehouse's life, neighbors wanting her eviction is trivial, and I'm not so sure that this doesn't border on a WP:BLP violation, which says "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." When we start including news items that the neighbors are unhappy, that seems to be encroaching on her private life. Because a newspaper/website prints it doesn't mean it is suitable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia does have WP:NOT#NEWS, which I think is applicable in this case. There doesn't seem to be anything in the various news articles about this that state that neighbors going to the local council is an extraordinary occurrence, and actually, at least on the surface, appears to be something fairly routine: Go to the local council about the issue and they render advice. I'm not in the UK either, so I can't speak to whether it is notable in the UK, but at least in my hometown, the town council does sometimes involve itself in neighborhood issues. In any case, this is, in my view, trivial and doesn't stand to be germane to her career, or in the long term, her personal life, either. Lots of celebrities move around, have neighbor issues, and the like without it effecting the overall course of their career or public life. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxegen festival

Is it noteworthy that Amy couldn't stay in Irealnd for the Oxegen Festival 2008 as no hotel would agree to allow her to stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.221.196 (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse controversy

I am so tired of people mixing up Amy´s music and her behaviour. I am happy that the section controversy is separate from other sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.3.39 (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Genres

Folks, this genre switching needs to stop. Winehouse's musical style is a lot unique and borrows from a lot of genres, so everyone seems to hear something different. The allmusic article states that Frank was an amalgam of jazz, pop, soul, and hip-hop and then Back to Black "abandoned jazz, delving into the sounds of '50s/'60s-era girl group harmonies, rock & roll, and soul." Journalist, this is the source you added here. Your "so-called source" specifically says rock & roll was incorporated into the second album. XxJoshuaxX, not everything needs to be changed so quickly. Jamalar, please stop going around imposing your POV on musical genres of artists, quite often it's not so black and white.

For anyone, the way to sort out a difference of opinion is here, not over the article's edit summaries. If it doesn't stop, I'll request the page be protected from editing, open a request for comment and ask the entire Wikipedia community to weigh on to try to arrive at a consensus on what genres will and won't be included. Personally, I'd like to see a source for neosoul and contemporary jazz vs. older styles, since the one reference we have refers to old soul, jazz and R&B as her influences. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sunday Times article

I put a Sunday Times article in both the citations and External Link. The external link part was deleted because it is should not be in both. I understood that when I put in both but did so anyway because of several experiences I have had(not here) where information from an external link has been marked with a "citiation needed" warning or deleted for that reason forcing a revert.

I put several pieces of information related to Blake that has since been deleted such as thier prenuptual agreement that leaves him with none of her money and the fact that he has been mostly jobless. While I understand the delete and will not discuss it after this I put it in because A. Information about her wealth and what she has been paid has been accepted before. B. The descrepency of wealth between her and her husband became an issue in his legal case. Edkollin (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life typo

This line is not grammatically correct "Winehouse admitted she had been violent towards Fielder-Civil when she was been drinking"

Fixed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't even have bothered leaving a note here for something like that. Good on you.--andreasegde (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section trimming

The controversy section is not a mandatory section of bio articles. So, while it is certainly relevant to an article of a person so controversial, it is still a secondary topic. However, it currently dominates the article and, more distubringly, has become a clearinghouse of any comment that anyone has made about her. Opinions from random stars in interviews are not generally notable or reputable. Before adding a statement, each editor should ask why a reader should care, or even know, about each of the opinions stated here? If the comment is notable (eg. the comment affected legal proceedings or the receipt of a award) AND reputable (eg. from her dad, judge, attorney, etc...) it should be included. Otherwise, it's just high-profile gossip. I will begin trimming that section and bringing it more in line with WP policies. Additional discussion on individual portions is welcome below.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue whatsoever with trimming the bulk of this out. I do endeavor to remove the most extraneous and least directly related items, and lately I've thought it really needs reworked, but honestly, I haven't had the initiative to go ahead with it. Thanks for stepping in. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Disagree on this point. Amy Winehouse has generated an unprecedented amount of comment from fellow musicians (as well as others) about her personal travails. Nothing in my forty years of following the news has even remotely resembled this phenomenon . So the fact the Controversy sections are not usually put in is irrelevant for this particular article. If I were to put in every comment a fellow musician made about her the article would be three times the size it is. Of course I am not advocating that but comments should be considered for this article if that person is an iconic or very popular musical figure has a point of view based on experience or is representative of what is being said.
I can not edit the article based on what readers want to read because I am not a mind reader.
I request that before gutting the section give us your proposed modified section and the reason for your changes Edkollin (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
If I am going to request you go here before deleting things is fair to ask me to put things here before adding things to the controversy section.
"Sex Pistols lead singer John Lydon criticized Winehouse for imitating black music “in an idiotic way” and said she lacked talent." [18]. Of course Lydon is an iconic figure. The issue of white musicians using so called black styles has been a point of contention for decades. Edkollin (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that whether John Lydon is iconic or not is debatable. What I do see, by doing just a bit of googling, is that he's been quite busy lately thrashing young musicians, both verbally and physically (via his bodyguards). He's lashed out at Winehouse, Pete Doherty, Kele Okereke, Sting, and who knows how many others as he's attempting to revive a mostly dead music career, including appearing on I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here. Lydon's time as a possible music great passed a long time ago, and striking out at the now successful seems bitter and not so notable. Personally, what he's been saying sounds more like sour grapes and jealousy than it does anything newsworthy. This is the sort of thing that really isn't all that encyclopedic. The overriding concern is that Wikipedia isn't news nor a tabloid, which it how it often seems. That's my opinion.

Beyond that, the controversy section is prone to being given undue weight. Some of the content is now old news and does need to be pared. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So Far, the only person abusing verbally and physically is Amy Winehouse. She was cautionned for that. Talmmm (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC))
As for Lydon there really is little debate about the Sex Pistols importance to the history importance of rock music nor is Lydon’s attacks on other musicians being a part of that. Public Image Limited is credited as important force in the development of the postpunk genre. As for his motives in 1977 or 2008 again I am not a mind reader. But I can say if we are not to use quotes by people who might have a financial motive for such statements we would have to delete many quotes starting first with Winehouse’s spokespeople.
As for old material all cites in the Controversy with the exception of the first paragraph come from this year. Trimming could be done by consolidating statements where people are making similar points Edkollin (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say that the controversy section should be condescended. Whomever wants to take on that task can go for it because if I do it, I'll be bold and cut a LOT out which will inevitably anger someone. Personally, I think the section veers off a bit. The only quotes or criticisms that should stay in should be about Winehouse's alleged drug use and image being lauded because she's viewed as talented. I personally think that's why she's a controversial figure. I honestly don't see how her being voted as "Worst Dressed" is even worthy of being included. She's hardly notable for her fashion sense and honestly, did anyone expect Mr. Blackwell to applaud her beehive and filthy ballet slippers? Just about everyone who has an iota of fame has been asked about Winehouse because she's a slow motion trainwreck. People who aren't all that newsworthy nowadays (ahem...John Lydon) will take a chance to comment about her because it gets them the attention they're dying for. To be blunt, Lydon doesn't have a high opinion of anyone and I don't see how his opinion about her is at all notable. His place in rock & roll history has no bearing in this at all. Again, every person who mentions Winehouse or talks about her cannot and should not be noted here. Pinkadelica 19:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I never said every person and nothing like that has occurred in this section. Don't disagree as to why people are being asked about her but the fact is she is being asked about much more then others including Ms. Spears. Just because we may not like this situation is not a reason to ignore this phenomenon. The idea that because somebody's "notable contributions" occurred in the past means they are not article worthy is very very wrong. So what you are saying in the is if we are doing an article on opinions of some foreign policy issue Margaret Thatcher's opinions should not be in that article. As for Mr. Lydon to be blunt what I see is the reason he is not article worthy is because he is perceived to be a prick with an ulterior motives by the Wikipedia editors (for the record while Mr. Lydon is to put it mildly highly critical person he is not critical of everyone. At the time he praised a the Seattle grunge movement as has been very laudatory of Kate Bush). Getting back to the trimming issue even though it will never happen I will say what I said months ago because I am even more convinced of it now then at that time all of the non career stuff should be spun off into a sub article with only a summary here Edkollin (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
How are Lydon's comments notable? He is one of about 5 billion celebrities and musicians who have commented on her. I keep up with Winehouse, and I didn't even hear about this remark. But for an opnion to be notable, it really has to make a ripple in the life of this artist. Two, how is this comment reputable? He isn't a music critic. His track record of being unduly critical probably further speaks against the dependability of his opinion.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 11:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Having a ripple effect on the life of the artist?. I have not seen it proved that any of the comments expert or not in this article has affected her life or career. Quite the contrary she seems to do what she pleases. I have already explained why Lydon rather then some other musicians should be quoted but you have intentionally or not shown me that Lydon is not the real issue here. It the belief that music critics have more expertise then people who actually do it for a living and are exposed to the "lifestyle" issues and experiences. That belief is completely wrong and elitist. But I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on all of this. The consensus is against me so you might as well just do what the hell you want with this section Edkollin (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

introduction

the list of prizes should not be in the introduction, but later on, IMHO Johncmullen1960 (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraphs should be a summary of the article itself, and the reason Winehouse is so notable is the quality of her music, for which she has been given multiple awards (they aren't prizes won in a sweepstakes or contest, they are primarily peer recognition accolades for high standards of work). If it is covered at any length in the article, then it should appear in the lead. The lead gives the awards the proper due weight they should. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It is fairly common practice to list awards in the summary section Edkollin (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Years Active

Shouldn't Years Active start when she began her career as a solo artist, not when she released her first album? //Joke (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Health Report

The notion that Amy had developed even EARLY "emphysema" was quickly debunked by medical authorities. Her dad was apparently over-reacting and diagnosing things on his own. She has health problems, but emphysema and other forms of COPD take years, decades, usually, of heaving smoking, usually tobacco products. That heavy use of crack tends to kill in other ways a lot sooner than COPD! I deleted the misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.5 (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Ok I tried to, but it's locked. The information is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.5 (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are misreading what the article says, there is no misinformation. It reports specifically what Winehouse's publicist said, which is that she has early signs of what could lead to emphysema. It does not include her father's early report, but only what he said about her lung capacity and physician warnings about her habits, and what Winehouse herself said about it. Those statements are not presented as physician reports, but from those who are directly concerned. Having said that, it's not true that such conditions develop only after years of smoking. There are those whose lungs are compromised from other issues and develop problems much sooner than others. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a physician myself, I can tell you that there is no way Amy's lungs are operating at 70%. She's too young, she doesn't suffer from, say cystic fibrosis (which is NOT emphysema anyway) and that represents nearly 1/3 loss of capacity! Why should we quote the medical opinions of her publicist and dad, just because the magazines did? She might have blown into an incentive spirometer once at the behest of a nurse or respiratory therapist and scored a "70" with poor effort (she wasn't feeling well, after all...) and her dad was there to see it or someone told him, but that's a huge difference than saying that 30% of the 300 million alveoli in her lungs are destroyed (that's what emphysema is, acquired destruction of lung tissue). It was sensationalistic crap that was actually retracted by other news stories--specificially retracted. Saying continued crack use COULD lead to "EARLY" emphysema is like saying driving a car COULD result in a NEAR-FATAL car wreck someday. Useless information that doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article for one, and in practice, irrelevant to the health of a 25 year old. COPD is not what she has to worry about, unless she continues to smoke cigarrettes, a pack or more a day, for the next 15-20 years. If not technically incorrect, the information is worthless and misleading. My two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.6 (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to your medical education and knowledge, and I am not doubting it or disputing your conclusions, we can only include what is sourcable and there are no reliably published sources that discuss Winehouse's medical reports. We can only present what is citable, and that is all. We aren't quoting medical opinions of these people, we're quoting press statements by them. To draw conclusions based on your medical training falls under the realm of original research. Be that as it may, I'm willing to remove the quotes from her father, but the reliably sourced press statement from her publicist and from Winehouse are relevant and not medical opinions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not "original research" it's basic medical knowledge (see next section). Any medical student knows it, and there are literally thousands of potential sources, starting with your basic medical textbooks (all of them). Regardless, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH AMY WINEHOUSE'S LUNGS; so why confuse the issue and even mention it? Misleading. The publicist was addressing the dad's ill-informed statements, trying to undo them. Why include these statements, if not the original, provoking statements? To me, that represents an even greater error in editing, because now you have a "credible" source (her publicist, right!) expounding upon a non-subject, rather than merely addressing a needless controversy. But, whatever; I've made my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.14.5 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a long debate either, but there are some Wikipedia policy issues that must be considered in this. By definition, what you are proposing regarding this is synthesis, taking information from one source (in this case, public statements by two persons speaking on behalf of Winehouse, as well as Winehouse herself) and information from another source (any medical student knows it and thousands of sources including medical textbooks) and implying a conclusion (there's nothing wrong with her lungs). The public statements have been made, her hospitalization and issues surrounding it are widely published and relevant to the Winehouse article, it's not a non-subject. It's beyond the scope of this article and consists of original reseach as it is defined by Wikipedia, to debunk what has been reported. And again, no disrespect to your education, but you have not examined Amy Winehouse, so it is also beyond your ability to say definitively that there is nothing wrong with her lungs. All you can say is that based on what has been reported, it is your opinion that there is nothing wrong. That's also not allowed on Wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Unless your medical opinion is published in a reliable source, it can't be used to establish facts in the article. (Also please note that entries on talk page discussions must be signed by the poster by typing four tildes). Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
As the non medical expert who wrote a lot of that section you have run into the reason why while Wikipedia should be the first place to look in a research project it should never be the last. The strict rules means incomplete information. It means accurate and relevant information is left out most times. Most times there rules mean the information is accurate but in cases where the best we can get is second or third hand sources especially on a subject that requires expertise accuracy as you have proved is problematic. In a perfect world you would have a direct quote from the physician that examined her. If we would go by the a first person expert sourcing rule in this case the most that we could write that she was hospitalized which would be meaningless piece of information for a career changing event. After this summer it was announced she will not be touring for the foreseeable future because of something related to the hospital visit. So I got quotes from heads of the American and British lung foundations who were discussing her case. They were like you experts who have not examined her. I quoted the non medical sources whom it it be very logical to assume would have discussed her case with the physicians who are treating her but who may not have understood what they were being told. If you have a better way to write this within the rules please feel free here to show us. Edkollin (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? I understand the rules and protocols of Wikipedia, but there's no need to lower your standards so egregiously. When something flies in the face of established scientific knowledge (even if it is relatively esoteric, as in the case of the "disputed" medical information in question, which is not disputed at all)Wikipedia shouldn't ignore that.

If an article about a celebrity mentioned the celebrity's experience with or interest in, say, astronomy, and quoted either the celebrity or a fan or even a certified astrophysicist and made some preposterous statement that would be universally rejected by any qualified physicist, and the statement is pointed out and is seen to be patently false--or even, as in this case, probably grossly inaccurate, as you seem to be conceding--then why on earth would you, as editors, leave it in? Even the possibility of a statement being really, really misleading should exclude it from an encyclopedic article. You rule things in, not out! Leaving something in until it is categorically, absolutely proved to be nonsense is irresponsible.

And in THIS case, you have ample evidence to assume its bad information from the get-go: you have her dad speaking out of turn, saying things that even he quickly admits were incorrect, and then you have a publicist clarifying the dad's mistatements with her own, non-expert spin, and you end up with the nonsense about having "something" which could "lead to" the "early stages" of emphysema (like what, HAVING LUNGS, for instance? Because the same could be said for that.)

You are right, I did not examine her, so I can only say that it is virtually impossible for her to have COPD at her age and with her history. I can't say it is entirely impossible, but it's so unlikely that it is practically impossible. I.e., impossible.

But here's the core of my argument: the only reason that we are even debating whether or not she has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is because her DAD said she had it and the one thing we are absolutely certain of is that he misspoke! So apart from requiring a minor medical miracle to be even remotely the case, there's no reason to even suspect it is, other than quoting someone who admittedly had no idea what he was talking about.

WHY QUOTE SUCH A SOURCE? I'm not saying "write it this way," I'm saying LEAVE IT OUT. It's misleading. And even if I can't prove to you that she is no different than millions of others in her situation (and no doubt healthier than millions more with respect to her lung capacity), has enough doubt not been raised in your minds to warrant leaving it out for now, unless you can come up with some convincing evidence that rules COPD back in, something more than dad saying (to paraphrase): "She doesn't have emphysema...I said she did, but she doesn't...but she could DEVELOP emphysema, like anybody else could, if she keeps abusing her lungs..." Ridiculous.

If the point is that she is harming her own health by smoking crack...DUH! But again, crack addicts who perish from their disease die of heart attacks, strokes, seizures, psychotic behavior, murder, infectious disease, etc., etc., NOT, by and large, pulmonary illnesses directly related to the damage caused by smoking itself.

And finally, the news that you are technically correctly citing is that she was mistakenly diagnosed with emphysema by her dad, who then retracted what he had to say. That's the newsworthy item in all that, not that there is actually something quantifiably wrong with her lungs. No credible medical source has EVER said that, period. The quotes are accurate, but one is left with the highly misleading notion that Amy has in some way specifically harmed her lungs which, again, there is no reason to believe and every reason to doubt, given the pathophysiology and epidemiology of COPD.

It would be poor (and rather obstinate) journalism to insist upon leaving those clearly unsubstantiated statements in at this point, based on the remote possibility that they might NOT be totally untrue.

168.38.49.6 (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Apriluno (and that really is the last from me on this topic)  :)

I am not taking the statements out but have reworded things a bit. All mention of diagnosis have been changed to stated or claimed. In addition I did change spokesperson to publicist and noted that the publicist claimed the father misspoke. At some point we have to entrust the readers to make judgments as to accuracy. Edkollin (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What's Really Wrong With Amy's Lungs?

Dad later told BBC Radio 1, "Amy really hasn't got emphysema, there's traces of emphysema. Obviously, if she doesn't quit smoking, it's going to get worse, like everyone else ... with patience her lungs will recover completely." Even he probably has no idea what he means by “traces of emphysema.”

Emphysema is a clinical condition; either you have it, or you don’t...kind of like pregnancy. There are no “traces” and what “traces” is he talking about, anyway? Those “nodules around the chest and dark marks”? Sounds ominous, but doesn’t sound like emphysema. The damage is either extensive and severe enough to cause a clinical syndrome, or it isn’t, and once you’ve destroyed enough alveoli to be symptomatic, you don’t regrow new alveoli; you don’t “recover” lost lung capacity at all, much less “completely.”

Ergo, whatever is apparently wrong with her lungs now (NOTHING, which is my point) is not emphysema, “early emphysema” (do they mean “mild” emphysema, because she doesn’t have that, either) or anything that could or will lead to actual emphysema later…much later. COPD stands for CHRONIC obstructive pulmonary disease. That means 1) emphysema and 2) chronic bronchitis, which are two distinct pathophysiologies which nonetheless co-occur to one extent or another, because they are caused by the same thing: lifestyle lung abuse. In this regard she IS “like everyone else”, so why mention it?

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not doubting she’ll get it, if she lives that long, but she’s also at risk for osteoporosis, eventually. But her dad isn’t warning her to drink less booze and more milk to avoid worsening the pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-osteoporotic condition of her 25 year old bones, is he? I don’t mean to be a sarcastic arse, but saying she has any degree of “early” (mild) emphysema or the beginnings of the beginnings of it is just as ridiculous as the bone example, if not as obvious to the layperson. It’s foolish. You have to be OLD to get osteo; you have to at least be middle aged to get COPD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.6 (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Typo

Her dad said that she WOULD be performing until 5th September. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.90.208 (talk • contribs)

Dead Citation Links

Most of the citation links are dead. All sources sited from the Associated Press cannot be found. Do these need to be removed? Matthew Gibbons (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, WP:Dead external links and WP:DEADREF cover this and there are procedures to deal with them. Someone will work on them as they have time. If you want to work on that, read these guidelines for dealing with them. Otherwise, removing them will leave the article with unsourced content. I only see nine dead links out of 159 though. This is what will happen when someone uses an AP story as it appears on Google news or Yahoo, since it deprecates after a few days. Thanks for the note. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have taken care of some of them. It is very bad for Wikipedia that AP stories go away. In the United States many reporters have been fired and most newspapers are relying exclusivly on Associated Press reporting for national,international and entertainment stories Edkollin (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
AP articles don't necessarily go away. I found dead links while running the Checklinks tool, which does offer some alternatives to replace dead links with accurate ones. It doesn't offer alternatives to AP stories posted through Google or Yahoo, which do expire. Thus, linking to those stories should probably be avoided. However, sometimes, these same stories are picked up and covered in newspapers and are available online. One option, before removing links is to run a search for the article's title, sometimes you can find the same story elsewhere and can replace the link. Both the guideline links above cover procedures for fixing dead links. On the other hand, if a dead link is only one of several citations for the same thing, it can be comfortably removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank You Edkollin (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dap Kings

i have removed (from the 'early career' section)

Winehouse hired New York singer Sharon Jones's longtime band, the Dap-Kings to back her up in the studio and on tour, giving the group its first real taste of the limelight.[1]

1. The Dap kings worked first 'famously' with Mark Ronson on (throughout) his 2nd album. This was their first 'limelight'. 2. Mark, producing Back To Black, brought in the dap kings again. 3. Back to black.. her 2nd (and latest) album. not early career!.

I have to ask why you didn't revise the statement or move it to the appropriate section, rather than just chuck it?? Taking it out completely isn't productive. Beyond that, perhaps correct the New York Times, since the statement is sourced. Famously would be a relative term, as would limelight. For the moment, I'm returning it, and opening it up for discussion here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


Race

I know this isn't exactly important but what race is Amy Winehouse? I know she's British but her skin tone looks Latino?--RandomEnigma (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

She is Jewish. People with roots in the Mediterranean region such as Italians are of the white race but have somewhat darker skin then those with roots in Northern Europe. Also remember that most photographs of her are taken late at night. Edkollin (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Brain damage from marijuana claims

Fox news http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414542,00.html and The Sun http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1051250/Amy-Winehouse-brain-damage-drug-overdoses.html (daily mail was reporting for The Sun) claimed some unnamed doctors and medics claim she got brain damage from overdosing on marijuana due to smoking an "inhuman" amount. I discussed it on an offsite forum, and I discussed it at Talk:Cannabis (drug), and people seem to find that these news companies were printing false information about marijuana causing brain damage so I figured I'd point it out here if it ever is brought up in the future. William Ortiz (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is tabloid reporting even if mainstream press is reprinting it therefore it is unusable Edkollin (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the tabloids, as long as they have a story that can be backed up with facts (which isn't always so).--andreasegde (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Kid Rock

I put this paragraph in and it was deleted it was deleted it should not have been.

American rock /rap singer Kid Rock said listening to Back to Black inspired him to ""go through all my old Stax and Motown records and try to "add a little of that flavour to my music".[2]

Here you had a direct quote from a popular musician not of Winehouse's genre saying Winehouse was influencing him. We had a thread about this before but I still believe the continuing consensus against either acknowledging or seeing the importance of her musical influence remains a grave disservice to our readers. Many other articles about musicians do this. Edkollin (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

At present, what we have is your view that this is a disservice vs. the views of the rest of the Wikipedia editors who have weighed in on this. I'm not sure why it has to be a debate every time someone changes or removes something you've added. This time, it was a different editor who made that edit. I'd add a further comment that Kid Rock has made a career out of borrowing from other musicians and one more doesn't make it unique for him. Aside from that, the goal of all WP articles is to eventually achieve featured article status. I looked at five current featured articles about musicians - Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, Gwen Stefani, Phil Collins and Bob Dylan. The first four comprehensively cover the careers of the subjects, including collaborations with other artists. They have no mention of comments made about them by their peers. Only Dylan's makes mention of this at all - and that is, after all, Bob Dylan, whose article could be rife with influential references. By the way, the peers whose comment were included were George Harrison, who later is discussed in regard to collaborating with Dylan, and a very brief one by Bruce Springsteen, which was specific to a landmark recording (Like a Rolling Stone) and the musicality of the song and to Dylan's voice in specific. Those comments are included in retrospect, many, many years after they were made and the notability of the comments have become apparent. The point of all this is that I'm sure there are articles out there that include such references, but the articles that have reached near-perfection do not, with the exception of the rare very influential, and that only in historical perspective. The article is about Amy Winehouse, not about Kid Rock thinking she's got a sound he wants to copy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand the delete was not made made by you that is why I called it a consensus against my viewpoint. I do not edit here with the goal of winning some sort of Wikipidia award but to hopefully accurately inform readers. I do disagree that one has to wait a long period of time in the pop music field to see influence but I can understand why one would disagree with that. The consensus here against this sort of thing is not common in the articles I have edited or looked at. While Phil Collins does not have a legacy paragraph Genesis does, as does Kate Bush (a featured article last year). These articles list a bunch of groups that cite influences. The Libertines article is about a more recent group that has a briefer mention of influence. Edkollin (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Future recordings questions

I noticed there are several entries in the Future recordings section that seem to basically be old news, and I wonder how much of this is just talk that is no longer relevant, since none of the older entries seem to have come to fruition.

  • After a surprise duet with Prince at the end of a London appearance, he proposed that she fly to his Minnesota home to work on a musical collaboration.[3]
This is nearly a year old now and has come to nothing. Does this need to remain in the article?
  • Meanwhile, George Michael wrote a song with which he wants to duet with Winehouse. Michael said "Amy is the best female vocalist I have ever heard in my entire career, as well as one of the best writers."[4]
Another entry nearly a year old that has come to nothing.
Has this happened or was it just a passing fancy of Winehouse's?
  • Pete Doherty said that Babyshambles had begun collaborating with the singer on a song entitled "You Hurt the Ones You Love".[6] In May 2008, Doherty announced that he will duet with Winehouse on a track for the forthcoming Babyshambles album. Winehouse is writing the song with Babyshambles guitarist Mick Whitnall.[7] In addition Doherty said that Winehouse was "recording loads of new stuff" and that he is taking a "back seat" in the collaboration process.[8]
This seems to be contradicted by other entries in the article that state Winehouse is not doing much in the way of recording, so was this puffery on Doherty's account? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Everything but the Babyshambles should come out. Barring any developments the Babyshambles should stay in until the end of the year. The Babyshambles are different in three ways from the others. The obvious is it the information is still relatively new. The other cases are a wish list while Doherty is quoted. It was Universal Music that reported she was doing nothing in regards to a new album. Winehouse has talked about recording a "alternative" Bond Theme. It is theoretically possible that Winehouse might be recording material not at Universal's studio. It is has been often been reported that there is at least a friendly relationship between the between Winehouse and Doherty. I have not seen any reporting that Winehouse has any type of continual relationship with Prince or any relationship at all with the other two. If this is deleted because the editors think Doherty is making it up it would be another example of this article being affected by editors reading people minds. Edkollin (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
These questions were posed in good faith based on what seems to be iffy-ness in the statements, and I would expect a good faith answer. No one is trying to read anyone's mind and honestly the statement that the article has been affected by editors reading someone's mind is not a good faith comment. The question was whether it was puffery, which was meant as perhaps exaggerating or overstating the situation, no one was conjecting that Doherty made it up. If there is doubt about the Universal Studio report that she's not been recording, then why would it be quoted in the article? In any case, there's no reason for contentiousness in response to good faith questions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not think it a good situation when the accuracy of seemingly most quotes made by artists recently are always questioned. It can be called it intentionally reviving a career,making things up or enhancing it does not matter. It is possible to be not be in near a studio whist collaborating. If she was not collaborating for a couple of months or so because she was touring as the article implied does mean the statement she is collaborating is false (especially for a future recordings section). I will reword it to be overly cautious. If I see a pattern that is bothering me and do not point it out that is not good faith on my part. You saw a pattern that you did not like and pointed it out (my objecting to every deletion). I did not take that as bad faith on your part. If I said you are intentionally doing so or so for an agenda that is bad faith. Let me make clear here that I believe your objective here is as you stated to achieve featured article status. Edkollin (talk)
Back to topic I said barring any new developments the Babyshambles collaboration material should stay in until the end of the year There are reports not quite article ready at this point in my view that Winehouse is to move away from London to a rural locale to help her rehabilitation. Mitch has confirmed a move but the details are tabloid reporting including a report that she will have a recording studio there. If these reports pan out I would be in favor of removing the Babyshambles section. Edkollin (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Doherty has now been quoted as saying the collaboration have been scrapped[19]. Based on this I an deleting that part. I will delete the whole section in a few days barring objections Edkollin (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

That works. I was waiting to see if anyone else had an opinion on this. One person who is interested in the article is unavailable due to weather. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You mean we agree on something(LOL) Edkollin (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Um...wait a minute. Do you want me to rethink it?  :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
That is up to you.. On a more serious note if the interested editor you speak of if was affected by Hurricane Ike unfortunately it might be a month or so before that person gets his/her power back and as much as we feel sorry for those people it might not be in the best interests of the article to wait that long. Edkollin (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of being presumptious, I think she'd agree. If not, whenever she does get back to the internet, she can raise objections, though I doubt it. I'd say go ahead. I'm a bit concerned, they stayed home. I'm sure I'll hear something soon. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Will give it a few more days. What do we do with The Times report about a her inactivity and that it would be a year before a new album could be released?? Edkollin (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is some content in that section that is still viable. Maybe the section could be renamed to "Current projects" or "Upcoming projects"? I'd favor the former. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me Edkollin (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is WAY too long

There are more notable musicians and artists who have less prominant wikipedias, why does Amy Winehouse get a choc-a-block page? Most of the things seem irrelevant anyways. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.46.83 (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Winehouse's article is edited by interested editors, there is a lot of information out there to include. If you have specific contributions regarding the page, please, by all means, bring them up. If this is just your editorial opinion, please know that this page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not your personal opinion of her as a person. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Just because you have no interest in the Amy Winehouse article does not mean that it is worthless to all. This article is not to long, it provides great information to those who seek and have interest in it. Matthew Gibbons (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

When will people get the basic fact that this not a paper encyclopedia? Good grief...--andreasegde (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Winehouse a Manic Depressive

She is a self professed Manic Depressive. When I find the video on youtube I will include a link to it but I don't understand why most people don't know of this. I feel its a key part of why her life is falling apart. People who are bipolar peak in highs and lows when they are in their mid twenties and manic or depressive trips can be heightened when triggered by emotionally altering situations. Britney Spears is also Bipolar which her mother has attested to and hers was likely brought on by postpartum depression. She is getting over that though because her emotions have leveled out to a degree which have made her stable. Winehouse on the other hand cannot control her manic behavior or depressive angst because she is addicted to both hard core drugs. Not just any old drugs though, but extreme uppers and downers such as heroin, crack, cocaine, alcohol and pot. She once OD'd on heroin, coke, extasy, alcohol, ketamine and possibly pot and crystal meth? WTF who does that! SHe is obviously in dire need of a new drug. I know this sounds ludicrous but I think its time for her to see a psychiatrist and get perscribed some lithium or some other drug for Bipolar disorder to save her life. It could really be the only way. My father is bipolar so I know —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownskin1 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your opinion. The problem is, we aren't in the business of analyzing someone's behavior and drawing conclusions, nor are we in the business of publishing something we can't source. But, thanks again. If you're just posting to express your opinion, please be aware this board is for discussing improvements to the article and not Winehouse in general. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
In fairness there has been a lot of speculation similar to this line of thinking but unless a reliable medical source agrees or it is officially announced that she has been diagnosed it is not going in the article Edkollin (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC).

"Signature" beehive?

No. That was already done by the girl groups of the '60s, especially the Ronettes. Do your homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.194.17 (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That has little to do with Winehouse resurrecting and it becoming her signature beehive now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It has everything to do with her signature beehive because that comment implies she was the first to wear her hair that way. You're giving her credit for something she was not even the first in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.194.17 (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Her distinctive style, most notably her signature beehive hairstyle, has spawned imitators[citation needed] and been the muse for fashion designers such as Karl Lagerfeld." What imitators? She's imitating people like the Ronettes and Dusty Springfield and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.194.17 (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick Google around shows plenty of sources for the "signature beehive", and I'm not sure she has to be the first to wear one. for example, Morecambe and Wise were not the first to sing "Bring me Sunshine", although it was their signature song. I find no support for the contention that the beehive has actually influenced anyone else, although her having it may have revived the style. As usual, this would need a reliable source. --Rodhullandemu 15:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Death

Is there a way to make a template to easily change from the present tense to past tense after she dies later this year? --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's worry about that if it happens. Meanwhile, if she should die in suspicious circumstances, I'd guess your name would be near the top of the list of suspects. --Rodhullandemu 11:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
If it does happen I would load it in my word processer program and make global changes that way. But while I defiantly would not be shocked by such an event just because a woman celebrity in her 20’s takes a variety and massive amount of drugs and has eating disorders does not automatically mean she will die.[20] Edkollin (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to be taken seriously, but someone should have told that to Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Mama Cass, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, and these others...--andreasegde (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Winehouse's Racism

She says, "I'm the least racist person going."

Oh really? What about the lyrics to her song, "Rehab"? The one where she sings "Yes, I've been black, but when I come back...", implying that black people are always getting drunk and hooked on cocaine, and that Amy Winehouse is "black" because she's engaging in these same behaviors.

I left a message about that lyric on the talk page for the Rehab song as well. I think there should be a mention of those lines in this article as well; it adds additional evidence (along with her husband's recording) that Winehouse is in fact a racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that interpreting the use of the word "black" in the context of that song as referring to black people is more than slightly skewed and your own POV. Why could it not be be referring to a black frame of mind, meaning, in other words, dark, self-destructive or depressive? I see absolutely no reason to include your personal interpretation of the song in this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree. "Black" is a common synonym for clinical depression, and I should know. Winston Churchill called it his "black dog", but somehow, he had a war to win and, er, didn't commit suicide. All I have now is an encyclopedia. Make of that what you will, but try not to project racism where it doesn't exist. --Rodhullandemu 02:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources have to make that connection for it to get in the article Edkollin (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
YHBT, folks. I'm planning on removing this thread as BLP, as the argument is beyond specious. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevant poll?

Lately there was added some information regarding a poll of music students of London's Tech Music Schools. Is this of any relevance at all? We don't even know the polling sample. And is the Tech Music School of any importance? Or is this mere PR? --Catgut (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Took it out. I put it in because I thought music students would have some expertise on the subject. It never occurred to me that they would by part of Winehouse's PR machine. Not really worth fighting for since there are many other examples where she has been acclaimed. Should we take out her Grammy's because these awards are given out to promote the music industry?. Edkollin (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

message at the template

It's a message at the bottom of the article, with the Amy's template'cause one has write that message at the template. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Amy_Winehouse I don't know what to do, now ! And, I have 2 go out, too! Ciao! --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism. Reverted and perpetrator blocked. --Rodhullandemu 14:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Amy's Sober

For the many articles in the main page of Amy Winehouse concerning her health, there needs to be an update that Amy has packed on a lot of pounds, she's stayed sober.... still got the tattoos though. But she's currently doing good as she's divorcing from Blake. There's needs to be a mention of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felton66 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There does not need to be mention of this unless it is confirmed by a reliable source that she is sober. All I have seen is speculation that she is doing better based on topless photographs of her. As far as divorce all that has been confirmed is that Blake said a divorce would be a good idea. There has been no reports that actual divorce proceedings or even preparations for such proceedings are underway. The couple could kiss and make up tomorrow Edkollin (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

MySpace is not trivia

Ms. Winehouse seems to have a lot of MySpace friends a fact incorrectly cited as trivia by the editor who deleted it. The editors point of view I find is the consensus view of Wikipedia editors or at least the editors in the articles I deal with. I think of it as one measure of an artists popularity. I see blogs or YouTube hits for that matter as imperfect measures but not any less imperfect then the CD sales we cite endlessly here and elsewhere. Winehouse does not blog but artists statements on blogs are generally viewed as less valid then statements they give to the BBC. These communication methods are becoming the prime methods if they already are not the prime method of communicating among the younger generations. While I understand the instantaneousness of it presents difficulties I hope but do not expect that Wikipedia will find a way of accommodating these new ways of the world. Edkollin (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering what value it has in the absence of a plausible comparator; without such, it's just a number, although those who use MySpace will probably recognise it as a high tally. However, we're writing for a general audience and shouldn't assume they will be familiar with such popularity ratings. In other words, even when cited by a reliable source, what encyclopedic value has it? For one thing, it's a self-selecting sample, which any researcher will tell you is of limited value, and as you rightly point out, figures like that date rapidly, which makes maintenance a problem, even if we resort to the weaselly "As of". I'm still open to argument, but not yet convinced. --Rodhullandemu 20:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. It is a biased sample, consisting of people who want to be friends on a social network, and the overwhelming question is "so what?" There comes a point in articles such as this one where a line must be drawn between relating facts that are relevant and of general importance to the notability of the artist's contributions and just giving lists and trivial facts that really aren't enduring and pertinent. Trivia concerns matters or things that are very unimportant, inconsequential, nonessential, or are trifles. Noting how many friends have been added to someone's Myspace page is the very definition of trivia and it has no bearing on the professional course of her career. If what is published on a Myspace page isn't suitable as source for Wikipedia, then I fail to see how her friends count is of any more importance. It isn't a true measure of popularity, nor is it a measure of the prominence of her career. It's... trivia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
To Rodhull: MySpace did recognize it as a high tally placing her the third highest among musicians.
The Guardian and several others sources disagreed that the listing is of trivial importance. Most Market Researchers do recognize these types of stats as an indicator of popularity among the younger people. Frankly and I am dating myself here but in 1975 I heard somewhat similar reasoning as to why certain song popularity in discos was trivia (I plead guilty) and in 1982 more similar reasoning was given as to why MTV was trivial (I had learned my lesson). I wonder what we are going to do if as some predict a lot of what we call reliable sources goes the way of horse and buggy? Edkollin (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oxegen Image

This article may be enhanced by one of my images located at Oxegen 2008. --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 11:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Amy Winehouse/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Definitely a B; you could try for a GA.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 20:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Sisario, Ben. "She’s Not Anybody’s Backup Act." New York Times. 29 September 2007. Retrieved on 2007-12-13
  2. ^ Kid Rock - Winehouse Inspires Rock's Music contactmusic.com 4 September, 2008
  3. ^ Williams, Owen. Prince asks Amy Winehouse to duet with him. Showbiz Spy. Retrieved 11 October 2007
  4. ^ George Michael wants to sing with Amy Winehouse. sofeminine.co.uk Retrieved 16 October 2007
  5. ^ Winehouse heading to Jamaica for Bob Marley inspiration. Jamaica Gleaner. 22 January 2008.
  6. ^ Pete Doherty names Amy Winehouse collaboration. New Musical Express. Retrieved 3 December 2007.
  7. ^ Pete And Amy To Duet MTV UK 12 May 2008
  8. ^ Doherty swaps music for football . BBC.co.uk. 19 May 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amy_Winehouse/Archive_3&oldid=1136516614"