Talk:Amy Winehouse/Archive 4

Major changes
Earlier, an editor came in and made huge changes to primarily the "International success" section of the article, cutting nearly 70kb of content from that section and re-ordering other portions of it. No edit summary was made in the nearly 20 separate edits that were made, thus no rationale was given for cutting relevant and sourced content or moving items out of time sequence. I've reverted most of these changes and would suggest that such a revamping first be broached here, where concerned editors can have opportunity to discuss the whys and why nots of such major changes. Doing this without establishing consensus isn't acceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agred Edkollin (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Mess
Sry, but the site is a mess. There is data on the "International breakthrough" that just don't fit there. I tried to clean it up and removed/moved some parts of the article, but obviously some people disagree. Reidlos (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You gave absolutely no rationale for anything you did, including removing sourced content with no justification. Such massive changes really do need to be discussed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Here we go Reidlos (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

 * By 25 October, the album was approaching 5x platinum in the UK, making it [...] the top iTunes album in the UK in 2007.
 * Why is this important?


 * The album spawned a number of singles. The first single released from the album on 23 October 2006 was the Ronson-produced "Rehab".[23] The song was a number-seven single in the UK,[28][29] and the Ivor Novello award for best contemporary song.[30] "Rehab" peaked at number nine on the Billboard Hot 100 the week of 21 June, shortly after a performance of it on the 2007 MTV Movie Awards. Time magazine named "Rehab" one of the 10 Best Songs of 2007, ranking it at number one. Writer Josh Tyrangiel praised Winehouse for her confidence, opining, "What she is mouthy, funny, sultry, and quite possibly crazy" and, "It's impossible not to be seduced by her originality. Combine it with production by Mark Ronson that references four decades worth of soul music without once ripping it off, and you've got the best song of 2007."[31]
 * Who cares if she performed it on the MTV Movie Awards? Can't we say: >>The song was a number-seven single in the UK and peaked at number nine on the Billboard Hot 100.<< and the Ivor Award for Rehab is mentioned again a little bit later:


 * At the 2008 Ivor Novello Awards, Winehouse became the first artist to receive two nominations for the top award, best song, musically and lyrically. She won the award for "Love Is a Losing Game" and was nominated for "You Know I'm No Good".[59] "Rehab", a Novello winner for best contemporary song in 2006, also received a 2008 nomination for bestselling British song.[60] Winehouse was nominated for a MTV Europe Award in the Act of The Year category. [61]


 * I fixed the thing with the Ivor Novello Awards. What do you think? Reidlos (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The album's second single, "You Know I'm No Good" was released on 8 January 2007 with a remix featuring rap vocals by Ghostface Killah. It ultimately reached number 18 on the UK singles chart. Back to Black was released in the United States in March 2007, with "You Know I'm No Good" as its lead single. The title track, "Back to Black", was released in the UK on 30 April 2007 and peaked at number 25. A deluxe edition of Back to Black was also released on 5 November 2007 in the UK. The bonus disc features B-sides, rare, and live tracks, as well as "Valerie". Winehouse's debut DVD I Told You I Was Trouble: Live in London was released the same day in the U.K. and 13 November in the U.S. It includes a live set recorded at London's Shepherds Bush Empire and a 50-minute documentary charting the singer's career over the previous four years.[32] On 10 December 2007, the final single from Back to Black, "Love Is a Losing Game", was released in the United Kingdom and U.S.
 * This whole part could be summarized as: >>"You Know I'm No Good", the title track "Back to Black" and "Love Is a Losing Game" were released as singles too.<<. None of these singles had any remarkable achievement on the UK singles chart.


 * Frank was released in the United States on 20 November 2007 to positive reviews.[33][34] The album debuted at number 61 on the Billboard 200 chart.[35]
 * Seriously, can anybody explain to me why this is important?


 * In November 2007, the opening night of a 17-date tour was marred by booing and walkouts at the National Indoor Arena in Birmingham. A music critic for the Birmingham Mail newspaper said it was "one of the saddest nights of my life...I saw a supremely talented artist reduced to tears, stumbling around the stage and, unforgivably, swearing at the audience."[36] Other concerts ended similarly,[37] until she announced on 27 November 2007, that her performances and public appearances were cancelled for the remainder of 2007, citing doctor advice to take a complete rest. A statement issued by concert promoter Live Nation blamed "the rigours involved in touring and the intense emotional strain that Amy has been under in recent weeks" for the decision.[38]
 * IMO this would fit much better into the "Touring and appearances" section between the first and second paragraph.


 * By year's end, Winehouse had garnered numerous accolades and awards. The singer won 2008 Grammy Awards in the categories of Record of the Year, Song of the Year, and Best Female Pop Vocal Performence for the single "Rehab", while her album Back to Black was nominated for Album of the Year and won the Record of the Year award.[43][44] Producer Mark Ronson's work with her won the award in the Producer of the Year Non-Classical category.[45] The singer also earned a Grammy in the 'Best New Artist' category. This earned Winehouse an entry in the 2009 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records for Most Grammy Awards won by a British Female Act.[46] She performed "You Know I’m No Good" and "Rehab" at the awards ceremony on 10 February 2008 via satellite, as her visa approval came through too late for her to travel to the U.S. She said "This is for London because Camden town is burning down," in reference to the Camden Market fire.[47]
 * What?!?


 * The nominations, announced in early December, led to a 48 percent increase in the sales of Back to Black in the United States.[48] Post Grammy Awards, album sales increased by 368 percent over the prior week, to the number 2 position in the United States.[49]
 * Is this really worthy to mention?


 * In Paris, she performed what was described as a "well-executed 40 minute" set at the opening of a Fendi boutique.[56]
 * Why is this important?


 * Winehouse's "Valerie" is on a three disc 60 song compilation album entitled Now That's What I Call Music 25 Years, released in October 2008.[65]
 * Why is this important?


 * On 13 January 2008, Back to Black held the number one position on the Billboard Pan European charts for the third straight week.[50] By the end of January 2008, Universal Music International reported that total sales had reached 3.4 million copies and that it believed there was a correlation between that figure and the extensive media coverage the singer has received.[51] OR "Back to Black" was the bestselling album worldwide during the first half of 2008 selling 3.67 million copies.[57]
 * Isn't this enough: By September, the album had sold more than 11 million copies worldwide, helping keep Universal Music's recorded music division from dropping to levels experienced by the overall music market.[58]


 * On 20 February 2008, Winehouse performed at the 2008 BRIT Awards, performing "Valerie" with Mark Ronson, followed by "Love Is a Losing Game". She urged the crowd to "make some noise for my Blake."[52]
 * Why is this important?


 * On 7 April, "Back to Black" was residing at the top position on the pan-European charts for the sixth consecutive and thirteenth aggregate week..[55]
 * Why is this important?


 * Amy Winehouse - The Girl Done Good: A Documentary Review a 78 minute DVD was released on 14 April 2008. The documentary features interviews with those who knew her at a young age, helped her gain success, jazz music experts, as well as music and pop culture specialists.[62][63]
 * Why is this important?


 * A clip of Winehouse's music is included in the "Roots and Influences" area that looks at connections between different artists at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Annex NYC, which opened in December 2008. One thread starts with Billie Holiday continues with Aretha Franklin, Mary J. Blige and finishes with Winehouse.[66]
 * Why is this important?


 * A special deluxe edition of "Back to Black" topped the UK album charts on 2 March 2008. The original edition of the album resided at the number 30 position, in its 68th week on the charts, while "Frank" charted at number 35.[53] By 12 March, the album had sold a total of 2,467,575 copies, 318,350 of those in the previous 10 weeks, putting the album on the UK's top 10 best-selling albums of the 21st century for the first time.[54]
 * The bolded line is the only thing that matters the rest is trivia.


 * A wax sculpture of Winehouse went on display at the London Madame Tussauds on 23 July 2008. The singer did not attend the unveiling, although her parents did.[64]
 * Can't we include this into the "Artistic impressions" section?

Reidlos (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A little to much the day after New Years so I will start with some general ideas and some specifics about what should stay and what should be trimmed


 * Any mention an artist gets in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for any reason is article worthy    period.


 * As I was arguing before we are now in 2009 and while CD's and Billboard while are still important is not the only important measuring stick for popularity. Downloads, ITunes etc are an important popularity measuring stick of popularity for younger people. Just relying on traditional methods of measuring popularity gives only a partial picture. It is questionable if CD's or the record industry as we know it will even be here in 5 years. And as we discuss these things it is worth noting these surveys in any media measure sales not popularity.


 * I do not have a problem with listing non U.S. ,U.K. charts success such as the Pan-European charts.


 * For most artists having a performance go well is not article worthy. However do to her endless problems reliable sources do think it is important. Same thing with these private concerts. What we editors think should or should not be important does not count. It is reliable sources like the BBC or The Times that decide what is important and if we find their judgment galling to bad.


 * Speaking of 2009 the old idea of releasing an album then the first single and second etc does not apply in many cases any more. Singles are released that are not a part of the an album, things are released to the U.S. in another way the the U.K. things are released via the internet first etc. we have to report it. Most musician articles that I have looked accept this to some degree.


 * The Grammy's bounce in popularity should stay as it was of obvious import to her success.


 * But what can and should be trimmed is something like this. On 8 January Rehab was released on the 17 January it debuted at #4 and on 8 February it hit number 1. I agree with that you can just say something like Rehab peaked at number 1 in February 2007 and stayed there for six weeks.  However it seems to be Wikipedia consensus to print release dates for singles.


 * Television appearances get mentioned in Wikipedia musical articles because early in an artists career it establishes notoriety. What I have done in a couple of other articles is just list them in one or two sentences.


 * The wax sculpture belongs be in the artistic impressions section. Edkollin (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK

 * As I was arguing before we are now in 2009 and while CD's and Billboard while are still important is not the only important measuring stick for popularity. Downloads, ITunes etc are an important popularity measuring stick of popularity for younger people. Just relying on traditional methods of measuring popularity gives only a partial picture. It is questionable if CD's or the record industry as we know it will even be here in 5 years. And as we discuss these things it is worth noting these surveys in any media measure sales not popularity.
 * Most chart companies include download into their charts and sale figures, so...
 * Most reliable sources will publish ITunes download charts. We should go by their judgment not ours.Edkollin (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, most sources mention the Hot 100/UK Singles Chart/... or Billboard Hot 100 Digital songs (which includes every download provider).Reidlos (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you read different articles then I do because I see Itunes download charts quite a bit. and have used then in other articles without that source being challenged  Edkollin (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * iTunes may have 80% of the online music market in the US (70% worldwide), but that doesn't mean its enough to measure an artists popularity especially refering to album sales (only 15% of total album sales in the US). Reidlos (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For most artists having a performance go well is not article worthy. However do to her endless problems reliable sources do think it is important. Same thing with these private concerts. What we editors think should or should not be important does not count. It is reliable sources like the BBC or The Times that decide what is important and if we find their judgment galling to bad.
 * I agree, but to make clear that high profile performances by Winehouse were/are very rare in 2007/08/09, you can't just say e.g.: "She performed at the MTV Europe awards".
 * I see where you are coming from and agree Edkollin (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of 2009 the old idea of releasing an album then the first single and second etc does not apply in many cases any more. Singles are released that are not a part of the an album, things are released to the U.S. in another way the the U.K. things are released via the internet first etc. we have to report it. Most musician articles that I have looked accept this to some degree.
 * Still it's possible to summarize the single releases into one paragraph.
 * Agree as I said above with summarization Edkollin (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Grammy's bounce in popularity should stay as it was of obvious import to her success.
 * True, cause none of the other nominees see a gain in album/single sales. Wait a minute they do! (sorry for being sarcastic)


 * And if as if other artists saw such a "Grammy Bounce" it is usually mentioned in their articles and if not it should be. Previously the highest it had "Back to Black" been was number 7 after the Grammy's it was at #2. 368% increase is a big number. Anything that causes a big increase like that should be mentioned. That fact that a "Grammy Bounce" had helped other artists before is irrelevant Edkollin (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, but then it should at least say that "it entered the chart at #7 previously" in the same paragraph and not in the beginning of the section. IMO these kind of info should be in the "Back To Black" article.Reidlos (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed Edkollin (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, guys. Here's a problem for me. I couldn't quite tell heads or tails in the first part of this of who was saying what and I found it hard to know what to respond to. Could we please take each thing separately and decide on it before moving on to the next, rather than trying to discuss everything at once? I have comments, but I'm not sure where to start. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Me and Riedos seem to agree on these broad principles
 * Singles from Back to Black can summarized in one paragraph. Edkollin (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for breaking it down, Ed. My vision problems make it difficult to work back and forth from one revision to the next to see who said what. Meanwhile, I agree with this point. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For each single the only the highest chart position the single reached needs to be written about.
 * The date a single was released need not go in the article. Edkollin (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Depending on how it is written, that's agreeable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The paragraph on the her rise in popularity after her Grammy wins can remain but needs to be rewritten. If we write that after the Grammys her album charted at number 2 we should note its previous high was number 7 Edkollin (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you know (I think) my opinion on popularity. I think that is the wrong word. Popularity is too much of a subjective thing, and basing the idea of "popular" on what would be a biased sample (people who like and buy her music). If it says that her sales increased as a result of the Grammy appearance, that is quantifiable. How popular she was doesn't necessarily equal sales numbers. I didn't buy her album after the Grammies, but I became interested in her music. I think this needs to approached in an objective quantifable manner. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "A wax sculpture of Winehouse went on display at the London Madame Tussauds on 23 July 2008. The singer did not attend the unveiling, although her parents did."
 * This needs to be moved from the International Success section to the Artistic Impressions section. Edkollin (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems logical. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We disagree on the article worthiness of the ITunes download charts. Edkollin (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems like this goes back to "popularity". The first thing is how does one measure that? Downloads and album sales doesn't necessarily translate into popularity. Something might sell (numbers out of the air) 500,000 copies over a given period of time, but an extensive tour might pull numbers far exceeding that - a 30 concert tour that pulls 30,000 people each is close to a million. Which is the more definitive figure? In any case, I have issues with the concept. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of other issues that we barely discussed or did not discuss. Edkollin (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose my point was missed. Please try not to go back into the imbedded discussions above and insert things. As I said, it is quite difficult for me to discern them because of my vision. Whatever was done with the Ivor Novello award, a citation was also removed later, which I returned. That change left the citation from Times Online at the end of the sentence "Rehab", a Novello winner for best contemporary song in 2006, also received a 2008 nomination for bestselling British song., which is not covered in the source you moved, and it left the previous sentence unreferenced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for removing the source, it wasn't really my intention.Reidlos (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, it just shows how easily it can happen. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So...
Could we try to work on the problems, I stated at the beginning of this section? Reidlos (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a change I believe needs to be made. Granted it's nothing crucial to this article, but there is a false point included. Yes, "Rehab" did win the Grammy award for Record of the year. That is undisputed. However, when the article further talks about the album nominations/wins themselves, Back to Black is listed as having won Record of the Year and nominated for Album of the Year. Again, the Album of the Year nomination is legitimate. However, there is a clear difference in the Record of the Year nomination. That particular award is only presented for a single song, but this article contains it has the album having won the Record of the Year. This is the reasoning behind this post because, instead of the Record of the Year award, the album itself actually won for Best Pop Vocal Album. I've tried to change this according to the winner/nominee list by actual sources saying that, yes, "Rehab" did win the Record of the Year award, but the album didn't. Like I've said, I've tried to alter and change this, but it keeps getting changed back to be false. This needs to change. Drakehottie (talk) 5:27, 28 January 2010

So... Pt.2
I made some minor changes (some of them were discussed above). What do you think? Reidlos (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Changes Pt 1
 * Changes Pt 2

Voice
"soulful, POWERFUL contralto voice"??????????????????? do you know what's a powerful contralto voice?--93.151.244.41 (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, Kathleen Ferrier's. Meanwhile, is there a point to your somewhat overpunctuated post? -- Rodhull andemu  20:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Direct quotes or named source in tabloids
We have been allowing this. Should we?. And if we do should we heavily qualify it? Edkollin (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought about removing the divorce part earlier but thought I'd wait and see what came up today. I don't think we should include such things directly from tabloids, which is why I removed one source someone added and tried to find more reliable sources about the divorce and her statments besides digitalspy and dailymail. I think once it is reported by CNN, MSNBC and Reuters, it can be considered reliable, which is why the partial quotes were included. I also think it is more accurate to include a new relationship prior to divorce, since that is how it appeared chronologically. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't argue with chronological because that's how everybody does it at Wikipedia but I have always hated reading it in that style. I guess that is because as an avid news reader I am used to news organizations giving you what happened first and then background and they also tend to put the more "important" items on the top of the article. As for the main question I am lean somewhat towered allowing it but do not have a total comfort level with it. Edkollin (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The criteria on other pages has always been that once it is reported by reliable sources, then it is acceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that is my question who is the source in this case Winehouse or the tabloid?. Edkollin (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, the source is CNN, MSNBC and Reuters, reporting a story they would have confirmed prior to publishing it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I had in mind this case it when it was just her interview with a tabloid. The situation where a celebrity interview appears in a tabloid with no mainstream coverage is a common one. Who is the source in that case? Edkollin (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be who published it, if otherwise, every interview of a notable person would have the source as the interviewee. Someone has to publish it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Add Motown to eclectic mix of various musical genres?
Songwriter Lamont Dozier of the Motown songwriting team Holland-Dozier-Holland had this to say about Winehouse "Amy Winehouse has a lot of feelings she’s borrowed from us, which is cool".. Since he is talking about "feelings" and not musical style per say should the addition be made? Edkollin (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He's not really saying she uses a Motown style, which I'm not so sure is an actual genre. It's more an affirmation of a soul style, I think. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Typo
Under the section titled "Legal Problems" there is a citation of husband Blake Fielder-Civil as "Blake-Civil" instead of "Fielder-Civil." I tried to change it, but this page is protected. Denisedc (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wildhartlivie changed it. Reidlos (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Error
In the article abt Amy Winehouse, in the "Club nights" section of Touring and Appearances,

in the first sentecnce:

On 10 July 2008, Winehouse launched her own club night, Snakehips at the Monarch, in the Camden Monarch venue in London. Although billed as a DJ battle between she and another DJ,

The phrase "between she and...." should be "between her and...." The word "between", a preposition, requires the objective, not nominative, case of the pronoun.
 * ✅ -- Rodhull andemu  20:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures and glamorisation
I can see from the history of this article, that an opposing group here has rejected, reverted previous pictures of Amy which showed her everyday and sadly, her drug induced condition, instead ensuring favor and the upload of biased pictures which portray her as an healthy individual creating a false image considering her drug use. Not only is this biased but reverting and discarding the upload of pictures showing the normal Amy is in itself an attempt to hide the visual effects of her drug use, in return down playing the devastating effects of drugs on her life to many readers of which many are young.

Also, the drug parts of this article are written in a pro-Winehouse fashion, that glorifies Amy Winehouse and attributing her drug use to a factor other than her own character and descision in itself implying that she is a victim, rather than a junkie or an addict. This is out of line, and biased when comparing the style of writing to other celebrity articles on Wikipedia who have stepped on similar areas. Wikipedia is not a place for Double Standards or Article bias specially due to religious reasons.

I suggest atleast one picture if not 2, showing Amy Winehouse as she is post drug addiction (there are many that are without copyright), to not only communicate to reader the reality of her drug use, but also visually display the facts of daily drug use to others but particularly young readers who visit this article. This article attempts to hide, run away from and avoids communicating the devastation of Amy Winehouse's drug use, and it being her own fault, blaming her actions by filtering of the distressful pictures and the non-encyclopedic wording style of writing which strays away from making Amy look like a bad role model or idol due to her character and drug engagements.

Infact, this article make Amy sound like a wonderful idol for her fans. Either the style of writing has to be changed to bear zero opinion or in the least it should balance the negativity of Amy Winehouse as a person and personality side to side with the already "wonderful idol" impression this article gives. --93.97.181.187 (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose you have not bothered to look as some very basic Wikipedia rules and tenets before you posted this. There are policies that govern biographies of living persons that would stop editors from writing an anti-Winehouse article such as you suggest. There have been no images culled from this article that show her - what did you say? - everyday and sadly, her drug induced condition, as none have ever been put in it. You did not find a history of the article that reflects an attempt to remove tabloid images, that's simply not a true statement. This is not a tabloid, it is an encyclopedia article which does, in fact, not glamorize every aspect of her life and does cover her issues with drugs and alcohol quite well. On the other hand, the article doesn't exist to uphold Amy Winehouse as the poster child for bad behavior, tabloids have done that quite well already and it's beyond the scope of this venue to carry it on. I'd be quite interested in your pointing out just what articles you've found here on other celebrities that deal with substance and alcohol problems in a "less biased" way. This article covers Winehouse being photographed bloody and bruised, high, wandering in public in a bra, drug overdoses, being recorded smoking crack; it covers her health issues, her brushes with the law, in fact, every thing that has occurred over last year and a half. That the article doesn't denigrate or make judgments or pronouncements about her attests to its neutrality, not a bias. I'm afraid you simply don't know what you're talking about. I'm quite sorry if you don't think it preaches enough about the evils of her behavior. It isn't within the scope of this venue to do so. And honestly, I have no idea what would make you bring up a bias based on religion. There has been nothing regarding that anywhere. Oh, or is it because the article says she is Jewish? Does that mean we only trash an article subject if they are, or if they aren't, Jewish? I'm thinking you are only complaining because she hasn't been publicly trashed enough and you think Wikipedia ought to take up the slack. There are some editors who think the article already dwells too much on her personal life as it is. The article is fairly comprehensive regarding her personal life issues. Sorry if you're disappointed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Scheduled Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival deleted
Winehouse's spokesperson was quoted in the Mirror as saying she will not appear at the festival because she has been denied a visa following her arrest. While I have not put this visa matter in the article in hope of getting a better source, I did decide to delete the line about the scheduled appearance because there is now more then enough doubt to be in violation of WP:FUTURE. I have to wonder if ANY announced plans for her violates WP:FUTURE. Edkollin (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone has announced the cancellation of an event appearance, that's fine. It doesn't really violate WP:FUTURE if an engagement has been announced in the media and is still pending. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I wrote this there are reliable sources quoting the spokesperson saying she will not come to the U.S. due to legal issues. I will edit the article accordingly. However I still have doubts as to the reliability of any plans she has announced. Edkollin (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this article worthy?
I leave this one up to other editors as I do not have a Facebook account so I can not confirm the report.Edkollin (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's true, I'm sure it will be reported by a reliable source in due course. We can wait for that. -- Rodhull andemu  21:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The opposite was reported by Amy Winehouse in a reliable source. Will put that in article. Edkollin (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for article protection
The vandalism has been occurring often enough that there should be a request to temporarily limit editing the article to users Edkollin (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ semi-protected for three months. Rodhull  andemu  11:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Edkollin (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed in other places that she gets a tremendous amount of flak from tweeny Americans (in particular), often from guys who haven't heard much beside "Rehab" and the drug sensation stories. Many Americans seem to think she started her career with "Rehab" and that she's always been a 'junkie singer'. Now it's not unique that kids are fighting and saying about some media face "hey that tart is worthless" but with Amy it really goes beyond style fighting. IMO she sticks in the eyes of Americans because:
 * 1.they often don't get that she comes from jazz, so her "loose" style of singing confounds them.
 * 2.they feel she's infringing on their "birthright" of doing black r'n'b and selling millions of records in that style, when she's a white British girl. I think this is not just a black perception, it's just as widespread among white US kids.
 * 3.they feel pissed at a girl showing all this rock'n'roll attitude. Deep down they feel that kind of easy, angry style is only for the boys.
 * 4.She's not playing down to the sugary/slick'n'naughty in the way Madonna or Beyoncé do. Too rough and bitchy, too disinterested in fitting into the dating game. Not a good role model for their girlfriends.
 * Strausszek (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering a few things here. For instance, why was this posted in this section and how it is relevant to asking for page protection? For another, what is your point and how does this relate in any way to making improvements to the article? And another would be why you would be making such sweeping and condemning generalities and what are you basing that on? This isn't a forum and I see no valid justification for such a posting that makes semi-veiled comments that Winehouse a) isn't well liked in the US b) such feelings have a racial basis c) rankles some sort of ill-defined idea Americans have about how a woman is supposed to act and d) American perceptions of what is appropriate in regard to rock and roll music. You're way off-base in your conclusions that don't seem to understand much about actual American attitudes. This is not suited for a page discussing ways to improve the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was aiming to get behind the amount of ill feeling about her I have met at one or two other places (not dedicated Amy Winehouse sites, I'm not a fanclub member). mainly last year when she was in the news all the time but it's still around really. And it bursts up completely unprovoked - it's not as if it's in reply to an excess of fan adulation. It was darn plain that many of the folks who got into violent dismissals and diatribes about her were American suburban adolescents and tweenies (I'd say age 16 to 25); you could see it from other things they referred to, from the time windows they would post in, plus their language and so on. And they'd post stuff like "I wish she'd die in a plane accident with all her winos", "hang that bitch", "she should be shut up in jail and raped for her odes to doping up ppl", "haha she's gonna lose her voice and DIE!!" (referring to the emphysems reports). It happened with a staggering frequency, some of those people seemed to post forty times a day that they wished Amy Winehouse should die and that only jerks could like her. And obviously this page has had a fair share of derogatory vandalism too. So I shared my view on where it comes from.
 * Of course I'm aware that my opinion is a personal one - so is any opinion that tries to explore, beyond the technical, why music matters - and that it wasn't strictly cited from things that have been posted here, but sue me, I do sense potent sexist and racist elements in this avalanche of venom. You never hear this kind of stuff in anything like that amount about Rihanna, Dolly Parton or even Massive Attack or P.Diddy. Why? Becase they don't step outside what is considered okay for a person of their gender, nationality and race to do in the way Winehouse does.
 * It's good that the page's been semi-protected for a while. I hope it won't be sucked under by a flood of graffiti now that it's open for edits by anyone again.Strausszek (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of something from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, wherein the pair discover they are the targets of a relatively small number of uninformed and largely ignorant fanboy postings on a few sites (mostly "moviepoopshoot.com" in the film) which mostly diss them and reduce them to shallow, cartoonish figures of the real thing. When they finally have their "movie money" and proceed to carry out their desire to travel around and beat up the people who were posting about them, they discover they are relatively alienated, young, pipsqueak adolescents with little independent life who post vitriol online from the safety of their parents' basements. Their opinions don't represent the mainstream, they are part of a small, self-reinforcing and anonymous group and the posts are generally fairly ignorant about the actual facts and their views aren't supported by the majority. In the same way, I don't think you can summarize a general attitude or viewpoint about someone from such places. I don't think you can fairly determine from such things the why someone feels the way they do about one performer vs. another on the basis of whether someone steps outside some arbitrary boundary. In fact, I think you're quite wrong. There isn't a general opinion in the US that female performers must act a certain way and perform only certain music nor the same for male singers. I could begin to cite examples that squarely contradict every conclusion you've drawn - from Janis Joplin to Pat Benetar to Alanis Morissette to Missy Elliot to Courtney Love to Melissa Ethridge to... the list goes on and on. In that, you'll find white blues singers, hard rock guitarists and singers, rappers, angry and outspoken women who push the boundaries, and none of them are scorned for crossing racial or gender lines in their musicality, despite the fact that they do or did. The only attitude I am aware of that can safely be assumed is that talented or not, gifted or not, her disintegration and nearly killing her career with the drug use and the way her personal life overwhelmed all of that would be the main factor behind negativity you might find in the mainstream. Those opinions you read on those sites don't reflect the general attitudes here. To my knowledge, most attitudes are that she is a tremendously talented singer and songwriter whose personal demons are overshadowing and possibly destroying her potential. That's sad but not derogatory. Then again, pay attention to what happens here when any public figure, singer or actor, dies and see how many "deaths" are posted in their wake. The day that Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett died, no fewer than 12 other "deaths" occurred too. It's not so much malicious as it is juvenile and immature.


 * This page actually hasn't been the target of derogatory vandalism per se, the protection was to prevent multiple violations of WP:BLP in people inserting unsupported claims about her then current status. We don't actually try to announce when the page's semi-protection expires so as not to encourage the return to that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All Amy Winehouse songs broadcast by Mark Ronson 2006.01.06-2007.02.02
East Village Radio - Authentic Shit with MARK RONSON
 * Played on 2006.04.28
 * Amy Winehouse - In My Bed
 * Amy Winehouse - Hot Shit


 * Played on 2006.05.05
 * Amy Winehouse - Rehab (Demo)


 * Played on 2006.06.16
 * Amy Winehouse - I'm No Good (demo)


 * Played on 2006.07.28
 * Amy Winehouse - I'm No Good (Rough)


 * Played on 2006.08.25
 * Amy Winehouse - I'm No Good
 * Amy Winehouse - I'm No Good (Instrumental)


 * Played on 2006.09.01
 * Amy Winehouse - I'm No Good


 * Played on 2006.09.15
 * Amy Winehouse - Rehab


 * Played on 2006.09.29
 * Amy Winehouse - Rehab
 * Amy Winehouse - I'm No Good
 * Amy Winehouse 	He Can Only Hold Her


 * Played on 2006.10.06
 * Amy Winehouse - I'm No Good


 * Played on 2006.10.27
 * Amy Winehouse - Rehab


 * Played on 2006.11.24
 * Ghostface Killah feat. Amy Winehouse - You Know I'm No Good
 * Amy Winehouse - You Know I'm No Good feat. Ghostface


 * Played on 2006.12.01
 * Ghostface Killah feat. Amy Winehouse - You Know I'm No Good (prod. Mark Ronson) ...back to Doug


 * Played on 2006.12.08
 * Ghostface Killah feat. Amy Winehouse - You Know I'm No Good


 * Played on 2006.12.15
 * Ghostface Killah feat. Amy Winehouse - You Know I'm No Good
 * Amy Winehouse - Rehab


 * Played on 2006.12.22
 * Amy Winehouse - Back To Black (Live in Studio)
 * Amy Winehouse & DANIEL MERRIWEATHER - Lately
 * Amy Winehouse - Love Is A Losing Game (Live in Studio)
 * Ghostface Killah feat. Amy Winehouse - You Know I'm No Good


 * Played on 2007.01.05
 * Amy Winehouse - You Know I'm No Good
 * Ghostface Killah feat. Amy Winehouse - You Know I'm No Good


 * Played on 2007.01.12
 * Mark Ronson feat. Amy Winehouse - Valerie
 * Ghostface Killah feat. Amy Winehouse - You Know I'm No Good


 * Played on 2007.01.19
 * Mark Ronson feat. Amy Winehouse - Valerie - Version (Columbia)
 * Ghostface Killah feat. Amy Winehouse - You Know I'm No Good


 * Played on 2007.01.26
 * Mark Ronson feat. Amy Winehouse - Valerie (Version Revisited)
 * Amy Winehouse feat. Ghostface Killah - You Know I'm No Good


 * Played on 2007.02.02
 * Amy Winehouse - Rehab

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the notability here. Winehouse's music has been played thousands of times by different media. Listing then all would create the longest most unreadable article in the history of Wikipedia.Edkollin (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't understand the point, which is basically why I ignored the post. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What are we, on CNN here? Why are we pretending we don't know this is spam?  MrBook (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Divorce
I am not a British divorce law expert and am a little confused. Can describe Blake-Civil as her ex or then husband now or do we have to wait until August 28 when the divorce is "final". The media is describing the marriage as "over" and the divorce as "granted". Either now or on August 28th all material about Blake-Civil that is not related to Winehouse should be deleted. Edkollin (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think British divorce law is much different than American, which is to say that it isn't final until it is finalized. The divorce is granted, but there is a period of time between that status and the finalization date that allows for the finishing up of paperwork, finalizing any settlements or private agreements, etc. Nothing should just be deleted as if it didn't exist without it being considered in the overall context of how it applies to Winehouse and her life at the time. Having said that, enough time has passed from quite a number of the events in the article that each probably should be re-evaluated in terms of how much weight it is now being given in relationship to the rest so that what may have been bigger incidents or episodes when they happened don't continue to carry the burden of weight relative to now, if that makes sense. An example comes to mind of the Grammy appearance that was televised because she couldn't get a visa in time to arrive in the US for the event. I seem to recall it has a bit more detail than it needs to have in retrospect. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In any event, there appears to be no consensus to have a separate section for this topic, consisting as it does of three sentences. I suggest this is discussed here. Rodhull  andemu  17:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Less detail about the Grammy incident is fine but I do not think it should be deleted entirely. And I do not think we need as separate section for what will be a small amount of material. But let's not deviate from the questions I asked. Edkollin (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is deviating from the questions you asked. I answered to the best of my ability about what is considered divorce. And I answered to the best of my ability concerning content regarding Blake Fielder-Civil. I said it shouldn't just be deleted without it being considered in the overall context of how it applies to Winehouse and her life at the time. I gave the Grammy incident as an example of how larger amounts of content should probably be better summarized to minimize it to its relevance, that's not different from what I said already. It may not have been the best example, but there is always a tendency on any article for content to lean toward recentism and it's always a good idea to revisit it to better put it in perspective. Meanwhile, the issue that Rodhullandemu, who has been a great adminstrative friend to the article, is addressing is something that's been an issue the last couple of days. Some IP has persisted in breaking out three or four lines of text into a separate section called "Divorce", which is silly to do considering it is in a section discussing the marriage, its deterioration and finally divorce. It's all relevant to Winehouse's biography and what is in it and how it is presented. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So would you wait to August 28 to change Blake-Civil to ex-husband? Edkollin (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would. At that point, it actually becomes "official" so to speak. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Death references
I suspect we'll get a few references to amy's death today and in the next few days perhaps. the sun news paper had a headline "Amy 'Died in my arms'" (two years ago) which is a gross miss-quote of the "Nearly died in my arms". of course we know that the Sun is the epitome of accurate and non-sensationalist journalism...... see this for a more accurate account of the story: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6728810.ece  Whitehatnetizen (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Blake is not a reliable source as to what occurred as he was "out of it on drugs as well". Also there might be a BLP violation, because in the same interview Blake made an criminal allegation against Winehouse Edkollin (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I just thought we should add to the death section, after the time, BST to make it clear at what time it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.155.84 (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Flagged revisions" trial policy for articles on living persons to be implemented within weeks
Edkollin (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

Changing to "ex", "former" etc.
Ed, I know you have the best intentions, but we don't generally insert qualifiers such as "former" and "ex" into articles when a status changes. We usually treat the content in the "now" of narrative - if it happened and they were married, we don't go back and change the time frame. The best example I can think of is in articles such as Michael Jackson, where the content discusses meetings with Ronald Reagan. We don't call him "former President Reagan" just because the status changed - we treat it in the time frame it occurred. Just saying. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it ok to change something like she is scheduled to perform 15 of August to she performed 15 August ? Edkollin (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. That isn't a standard way to format dates. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Relationship section
As has been commented on this article has gotten to long. With Winehouse's divorce becoming final Friday I felt that matters relating to Blake were now being given to much weight. I deleted the subsection related to Blake's legal matters. I moved Blake material that was in some way related to Winehouse to the relationships section. I still feel the section is a bit to long. Specifically we do not need a blow by blow account of the divorce. Just say she was seen with somebody else, Blake filed for divorce on grounds of infidelity, and it was granted. This all might change if the tabloid reports of her wanting to get back with Blake come to fruition. Right now the sourcing for this is not good enough to put in the article but I personally feel it has a ring of truth. While these rumors did give pause for thought I can't edit an article based on something that might happen. I still feel the title of the section should be changed to "Tumultuous marriage to Blake Fielder-Civil". Being neutral does not require a lack of forcefulness. "Tumultuous" is an accurate description of their marriage based on reliable sourcing. The section is not at this point about her relationships. The material in the section is not a discussion of every relationship she has had but of hers with Blake. While another relationship is written about it is only there because of its relevance to their divorce.

On a more personal note I will have little if any time to edit Wikipedia this week as I am doing something on a trail basis. So feel to continue to clean up the article the way you see fit. Edkollin (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not criticizing the rearrangement and major changes you made. I'm only noting that as a matter of style, we don't go back and change what we call someone after the status changes. Blake was her husband when the incidents covered occurred and we don't usually go in and add "former", "ex", etc. to the description. As for the "tumultuous", it may be an applicable descriptor, but it would be our description of it and thus POV. The content speaks for itself and to interpret a description is touchy, we leave that to the reader. She will have other relationships and they will be covered. When that occurs, then a subsection title of "Blake Fielder-Civil", "John Doe", etc. can be added. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC
 * I was not specifically reacting to the 'ex' section. If I was doing that I would have added a comment in that discussion (as I will do now). I was just letting other editors in general know of the changes I made and the reasons for them, while specifically reacting to "Tumultuous" Edkollin (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

P-Nut
The article claims that Winehouse settled a copyright dispute with P-Nut.....the link for P-Nut brings you to the the Wikipedia article referencing P-Nut from 311, but the link for the reference list a different P-Nut. This should probably be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvinlusk (talk • contribs) 02:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Took out link. What is curious is that both are songwriters and producers. So my guess is that either the Yahoo music article or the uncited Wikipedia article is incorrect. My inclination is to delete the paragraph due to the possibility of the unreliability of the source. But I will wait to see if anybody is familiar with the one or two P-Nuts. Edkollin (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted line due to these issues Edkollin (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Zalon and the other guy
I think when people picture Winehouse, they see her and those two black dudes dancing and singing beside her. They are a major part of the act, yet I can only see a Zalon link in an image caption, and no mention of the other guy, who I think is called "Aday" or something. Any thoughts on this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.129.102.75, 7 April 2010
Having taught at Southgate School for 26 years I don't ever remember, nor can find record of, Amy Winehouse being a student. I could be wrong but I think she is and old Ashmolean. Sid Owen (Ricky from Eastenders)did spend at least his GCSE exam term at Southgate.

81.129.102.75 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Need a reliable source to verify though.  fetch  comms  ☛ 19:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Sun?
Why do people of this site cry so much about reliable sources, when you accept The Sun as a reliable source? That's just a joke! 94.168.37.41 (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please delete the material you found sourced by The Sun, as it is a tabloid and certainly considered an unreliable source, and thus a flagerent policy violation for this and any Wikipedia article. Edkollin (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would but the page is semi-protected and I can't edit those pages. 94.168.37.41 (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. When I get the time I will do so. Edkollin (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Done. Thanks for pointing this out. Edkollin (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for getting rid of it. 94.168.37.41 (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Way too negative
I hadn't read this Wikipedia article before, and my first impression is that it is far too negative to be a balanced biography. Amy Winehouse is, it's worth remembering, a musician, primarily notable for her singing career. However, the greater part of this biography is made up of the 'personal life' section, containing 'Relationships' (six pretty negative paragraphs), 'Substance abuse and mental health issues' (ten paragraphs), 'health issues' (two paragraphs), 'legal problems' (six paragraphs). The following 'paparazzi' and 'other pursuits' sections aren't negative, but there then follows another eight paragraphs of 'controversy' and three paragraphs of 'artistic impressions', which are.

Simply put, this is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper or gossip blog. We shouldn't be detailing every unfortunate development in someone's life, and we shouldn't be writing our biographies so the 'scandalous' parts overwhelm everything else. This article needs to be seriously rewritten; frankly, I'm tempted to suggest turning it into a stub and restarting from scratch, because at present it arguably violates the spirit of WP:BLP policy. Robofish (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand where you're coming from, however, from what I have seen, the coverage in the popular press has been critical most of the time for some years now. However, some of it could be trimmed I suspect. The other thing to do would be to buff and improve what she actually does which is her music. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Placing the paparazzi section at the top of the personal life sets the tone. I think 'legal problems' covers alot of the same material as Substance abuse and mental health issues' and can be folded in. I would not recommend wholesale removal of cited material as I suspect would be reverted. Maybe a call for positive material is a better step. A post on BLP and WP music noticeboard perhaps?Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * She has not produced much new music since 2007 although there are strong indications this is changing. Most coverage since that time even in reliable sources has been celebrity in nature to the point it could be argued that at this point in 2010 she is more known as celebrity then as a musician. Edkollin (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd agree with that. Tricky article to navigate indeed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposing changes
For instant:
 * The album spawned a number of singles. The first single released from the album on 23 October 2006 was the Ronson-produced "Rehab". The song reached the top ten in the UK and US.[28] Time magazine named "Rehab" one of the 10 Best Songs of 2007, ranking it at number one. Writer Josh Tyrangiel praised Winehouse for her confidence, opining, "What she is mouthy, funny, sultry, and quite possibly crazy" and, "It's impossible not to be seduced by her originality. Combine it with production by Mark Ronson that references four decades worth of soul music without once ripping it off, and you've got the best song of 2007."[29] Also in 2007 Jay Z remixed the song by adding new verses.[30]


 * This kind of info shouldn't be in a biography, because it is in no way relevant. It hasn't changed her life or the course of her career. You could probably say that it may have introduced her music to mainstream audiences, but that should be included in the song's or album's article.


 * A deluxe edition of Back to Black was also released on 5 November 2007 in the UK. The bonus disc features B-sides, rare, and live tracks, as well as "Valerie". Winehouse's debut DVD I Told You I Was Trouble: Live in London was released the same day in the U.K. and 13 November in the U.S. It includes a live set recorded at London's Shepherds Bush Empire and a 50-minute documentary charting the singer's career over the previous four years.[33]
 * Do we really need to know every detail about the deluxe edition and DVD?


 * Frank was released in the United States on 20 November 2007 to positive reviews.[34][35] The album debuted at number 61 on the Billboard 200 chart.[36]
 * Seems so out of placed when mentioned in the middle of the "International Success" section. It should be at least explained why they released it...


 * On 13 January 2008, Back to Black held the number one position on the Billboard Pan European charts for the third straight week.[47] In January 2008, Universal Music International said it believed that there was a correlation between number of albums sold and the extensive media coverage the singer had received.[48]
 * Is this in any way relevant? What do you think?


 * On 20 February 2008, Winehouse performed at the 2008 BRIT Awards, performing "Valerie" with Mark Ronson, followed by "Love Is a Losing Game". She urged the crowd to "make some noise for my Blake."[49]
 * I think that belongs into the "Touring and appearances" section, otherwise I'd remove it.

There's more to come. Reidlos (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse is jewish
Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.19.210 (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct: It's noted in the articles "Early Life" section. Edkollin (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Substance abuse in the lead
In regards to her abuse of drugs and alcohol, the section for it is finely made, but I'm just feeling like the mention of it in almost directly the second sentence in the lead is kind of putting on too much spotlight. Think of it this way, the article is focused upon the person's music, and not so much the personal problems they've had in their life, yes it can be notable, but the point I'm making is when meeting a famous person, you don't directly ask them of their drug problems and I kind of felt bad for her reading this as one of the first few sentences for the article also because it's something that already will haunt Winehouse for at least the next three decades I suspect. A team and other editors and me worked on the article for Jonny Craig, who also has gone through heavy drug use (and ironically is also a soul/R&B singer), but even without discussion all editors that visisted the article never made a point to put Craig's drug use on blast. It's nothing these people are proud of (they both visited rehabilitation for their problems) and nor is it exactly notable within contrast to what they got famous for; their music. I'm not directly asking for this sentence to be moved, but it's more of just making statements from what I have thought. • GunMetal Angel  05:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will delete the sentence about 2005 because 1. That sentence in the lead paragraph discusses only one year 2. Her personal problems are already discussed in the lead section and paragraph. Her personal feelings have and should never have nothing to do with it. The reliable sources state at this point she is known for her personal issues as much as music. As far as haunting her the rest of her life not necessarily in my opinion . A few years back Britney Spears was mostly known for being "toxic", now it's mostly about her music. Edkollin (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest developments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13828023 please add it somewhere--93.137.160.85 (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"Retirement"
Her latest managment have "retired" her due to her recent drunken performance in Serbia where she was booed off stage. Should this not be the current status rather of her career? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobsdad (talk • contribs) 18:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Find reliable sources that claim this happened Edkollin (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Protection
Why is this page protected? There's absolutely no need for it. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. No need to over zealously protect this page. User:matt.whitby


 * Semiprotection, surely? &mdash; PretzelsHii! 16:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's pretty standard to full protect articles when it's a possible death.  Pursey  Talk 16:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's protected to stop the page being a warzone as information is coming in. I am sure it will be a good candidate for unprotection in as little as a couple of hours (and it was already semi-protected, and unsourced stuff was being added). U-Mos (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Over-hasty protection prevented me from adding an RS. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It already was semi-protected. &mdash;Neuro (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see unprotecting it worked well. Apparently she's now dead AND the child of satan.  Pursey  Talk 16:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Request for re-protection/locking? There's been a hell of a lot of editing in the past 10-15 minutes. Tb2571989 (talk)
 * "a lot of editing" is not reason to protect. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've updated my original full protection request to confirm I still support it. U-Mos (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Lock article
Amy W is dead. Lock article due to vandalisim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awoluser (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Bender — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.27.168 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by vandalism? Like someone will vandalize her house if they read here that she is dead? Can you explain what you mean by that? Thanks so much and sorry for the inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.83.247 (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:VAND --DannyDaWriter (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism of the article. 72.191.112.164 (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As in her Wikipedia page might be vandalised by speculative Wikitroublemakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.154.246 (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Example: When Anna Nicole Smith died, someone added that she died of a "sex overdose" (!) (which I don't believe was ever proven)Codenamemary (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't it stay unlocked to registered editors. The 'death' section is appallingly badly written and needs tidying up Martyn Smith (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)