Talk:Amy Winehouse

Please don't spoil 'Personal Life'

I spent a long time re-writing this section and weeding out any segments that were uneccessary; please don't undo my hard work by duplicating content, including unecessarily long quotations or adding trivial information. Feel free to make additions, but try to follow WP's guidlines(WP:TRITE) and/or discuss them here. Thanks. --194.143.169.82 13:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Be critical about your sources

I removed some stuff here, that has no good sourcing. Remember, it's a living person, we are writing about. Please remember, that it's a common practice for gossip sites to make news up. Let's be careful and critical about it. Gossip sites will not do on Wikipedia.

Thanks. Jaan Pärn, Erikupoeg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikupoeg (talk • contribs) 11:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

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)

Winehouse's brother trivia

From the article: "Winehouse's former dwelling in Camden is now occupied by her older brother Alex. A die-hard fan of the 1985 movie Commando starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Alex has turned the residence into a shrine to the movie with various memorabilia and costumes from the film."

Does anyone have a source for this? Can't seem to find anything through a Google search. Laalaaa 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, but how brilliant would it be if it was true???The globetrotter 22:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Template

Hi, I was looking on Rehab and You Know I'm No Good, and I noticed no template had been made for the songs she has done in her whole career.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oriana is cool (talk • contribs) 15:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

I was looking to know who wrote the song "You Know I'm No Good".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.210.211.143 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

She wrote it herself. 217.42.52.197 10:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Why add religion like an adjective?

I think that religion could be only present in biographical section, not just after the name of an artist. Why "Jewish English Jazz and Soul singer"?..."English Jazz and Soul singer" is better, because otherwise we could be obliged to indicate religion of all singers like an adjective. Sorry for my poor english. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.74.206.202 (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Personally I don't care either way but Jewish is also an ethnicity and a cultural heritage. The use of the term imports more than her religion. In fact, she could easily be an atheist and still be described as "Jewish" while the same cannot be said of say, a Christian or a Buddhist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.12.16.176 (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Italian is also an ethnicity and cultural heritage, but we don't describe Sylvester Stallone as an "italian-american actor."

Sorry I can't figure out how to post so I'm just editing this whole thing: I've heard Stallone referred to as an Italian-American actor several times. It seems just a subtler form of ostracization, to note one's jewishness everytime we introduce him/her. --216.254.119.186 06:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

1) Noting her religion/ethnicity as an adjective *doesn't* mean that we are obliged to note every biographied person's religion/ethnicity as an adjective. That's the only flaw I see in the original poster's statements; and I think this is the only post so far to address that poster's intended point directly. We're not obliged to note nationality, or any other particular trait, as an adjective, either. I also note that perhaps Wikipedia has some style ideal of which I am unaware, which in turn makes me wrong :) .

2) To subsequent posters: Noting such things about persons, particularly in biographies, is both common and relevant to a biography. I don't know for a fact if such is always, or has ever been, said of Sylvester Stallone. But people do talk and write about "African-American this person" and "Asian-American that person" and "Italian-American the other person" and so on all the time. Doesn't seem like a big deal either way, note included or not, since it doesn't go on to use ethnicity or religion as the basis for anything else. The article merely notes the fact in passing. Such a fact is indeed biographical, by which I only mean "a fact about the person". Interesting to some, and not to others, I suppose. Such a fact may not be necessary to inform you about her singing or her composing or, for that matter, her driving, eating, or many other things -- but it does inform one about her. 134.48.128.239 06:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I for one think it's interesting, since I am Jewish and, from my personal obsevation, Jews who deal with personal difficulties through drug and alcohol bingeing are the small minority. Jews usually don't have addictive personalities - they tend to be overly sensible (on the flip side, "anal") and not impulsive. Of course, this is a broad generalization, hell even a stereotype, and the next person will say, "but I know such-and-such a person who...". The point is, I do find her Jewish ancestry an interesting biographical fact. Midtempo-abg 20:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is interesting that she is Jewish, from a biographical perspective. However in terms of her music, what shines through in her music is her Jazz/Soul/Blues; not any Jewish ethnicity or cultural heritage. So I agree with the first poster: "Jewish English Jazz and Soul singer" does not make sense, and I understand how it could be considered a suble form of ostracization. The right spot for noting religious or ethnic background is in the biographical section, unless that religious or ethnic background plays a significant part in the artists music. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.53.62.34 (talk)

Now that you mention it that way, I agree with you on that. Someone has fixed it to read simply "English Jazz and Soul singer." Since Jewish themes are not integral to her music, but nationality is relevant to nearly any musician, this is more correct. The article does mention that she was "born...to a Jewish family" and quotes Winehouse as calling herself "the little white Jewish Salt 'n' Pepa" in a childhood amateur rap group she was in. These brief mentions probably describe her religion and heritage enough, since it's not integral to her music - I think this aspect of the article is right now. Midtempo-abg 00:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

When did this turn into an Amy Winehouse fan blog? Buster 02:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Throws more in*, why are we calling her an English etc etc etc, are her songs particularly about England? No? Then why note her nationality but not her race/religion? Shouldn't they also be in another section? (Just pointing out the arguement is flawed) - CharlieHAus 12:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I think nationality plays a role because it is extremely common to describe famous people with a nation of origin. The argument (that you consider flawed) is "how many qualifiers should we have surrounding a person's name" - the consensus and answer seems to be one: nationality. You are, however, making a slippery slope fallacy in your argument (if A, then surely B, C, D will follow). --Popoi (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, her religion (is she even a practicing Jew?)is noted a paragraph below in the correct context ClimberDave (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone please remove the term "Towel Head family" from the description of her early life. 72.77.82.244 (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't Go to Strangers

This song is by Arthur Kent and Dave Mason, lyrics by Redd Evans. Jeremy 08:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy, in the future, when you have something to add, you should really add it TO the actual article directly, rather than adding it to the talk page. I moved this into the article. NickBurns 21:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

She married in May

I added the section from the article about her marriage. Piratescat 02:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Source for name change?

Is there any source that would confirm that she did, indeed, take her husband's name as her last name rather than keeping Winehouse?

Range

I think Amy Winehouse hits a whistle register note in this video (3 mins 45 secs) which would permit you to add her to whistle registers singers[1] Amy winehouse Take the Box]

That note is absolutely nowhere near a whistle.

Removed category

Removed the category:People with bipolar disorder since there is no mention or reference that she has it. If anyone can referece and add it to the article then you can put the cat back--Migospia†♥ 06:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Also isn't she half Indian or Italian, has anybody ever heard that?--Migospia†♥ 06:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse's real fame came from Wine, her torchsong later

The article about Amy Winehouse's personal life was actually quite kind. In late 2006 and early 2007, she could be found on page 1 to 3 of the British tabloids in some sort of inebriated state. The article fails to mention her many missed and botched gigs because of her proclivities for intoxicating substances.

Kristopher Irizarry-Hoeksema

The article doesn't "fail to mention it", the information is not relevant in an encyclopedic context. Just as you said, it was discussed in the British tabloids, and that's exactly the type of information we are not interested in documenting here. Eli lilly 23:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but this characterisitc of hers is so defining, its mention would be justified. I was also thinking it was the kindest article I've read about her.

One the other hand, Kris isn't saying "it was discussed,"- but that there are pictures (usually found on front pages of British tabloids) There is also some question as to how important her public image as a "bad" girl is to her sales as an artist, as after all, her first hit in America is named "Rehab!!!" Cuvtixo 21:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Only time will tell if she will be the next Marianne Faithful, but I think some confirmation of the autobiographical nature of her songs is appropriate. Cuvtixo 21:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"You Sent Me Flying"

Does anyone know that song that starts a bit after halfway through You Sent Me Flying is actually a different song, or just part of the song? --Criticalthinker 07:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The song that appears on the same track as 'You Sent Me Flying' is called Cherry. On Frank they both appear together as Track 2 but I kinda see them as two different tracks. Like the extra songs after Amy, Amy, Amy Bulbabean 10:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It can't be "Cherry". The song at the end of You Sent Me Flying is not Cherry. --Criticalthinker 06:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You lose. 86.142.226.27 (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is Cherry. Jonwood2 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a hidden interlude, so it would be considered, with You Sent Me Flying, one song. There are two hidden songs after Amy,Amy,Amy as well, but my opinion is that each track should be listed as one whole track with a mention of the hidden songs on the main song's page. NoirFemme 04:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Musical influences

This list seems rather long to me, unless it could be cited in an interview with her. Matt Adore 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Because of the tags, this article is listed in the NPOV dispute backlog. However, I don't see much active discussion. I thought the article was very good and informative. It includes information about her personal life, but it seems to be properly sourced and her comments are also quoted. Can the regular editors here resolve their differences and remove the tags? Or you could put out a Request for Comment. Thanks for the effort with the article. Itsmejudith 20:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cancelled shows

Winehouse has cancelled so many shows by now, I feel it may warrant a section of its own. Goodnewsfortheinsane 00:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"After a string of canceled tour dates (due to "exhaustion," natch), UK bookies started taking bets on whether or not the "Rehab" singer would turn up for her next gig, offering 1 to 2 odds against. So, are there any laws against overseas betting here? 'Cause as far as we're concerned, that's easy money" Long Island Press [2] Edkollin 02:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Song appearances

I've removed this info from the article as it has the potential to turn into a very long list of songs that have appeared in any TV show or film. However, the info could be worked into the articles on the songs themselves. Brad 13:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• The track "You Know I'm No Good" appeared on the show Grey's Anatomy. The episode it was on - Time after Time - first aired on April 19, 2007.
• The track "Wake Up Alone" appeared on the show Grey's Anatomy. The episode it was on - Testing 1-2-3 - first aired on May 10, 2007.
• The track "Rehab" appeared in the pilot episode of the show Hidden Palms.
• The track "You Know I'm No Good" also appeared on the BBC1 soap opera, EastEnders.

Personal life

I significantly reordered this section. The last incident in which she went into a coma and her own comments about the variety of substances she ingested that night makes this incident by far the most serious of all the incidents listed and the reason I reordered the section. I put this incident it on top of the section. I changed it from a chronological listing of incidents to grouping them by type. Drugs and Alcohol went below the coma paragraph, eating disorders and related info in another paragraph etc. The drugs and alcohol paragraphs following the coma paragraph should be changed into a summary. An incident by incident listing of these incidents is overkill. The point is more then made by the first paragraph that she has serious problems in that area. A summary is probably needed just to say that the last incident is a culmination(I hope) of things.

The only deletion I made was to cut the engagement sentence. Saying she is married is makes the engagement sentence outdated Edkollin 18:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User put in cite from TMZ.com than the singer and her husband have gone into rehab a subject that there have been conflicting stories about. Since according to Wikipedia this website has broken many "celebrity" stories first I will move this on top Edkollin 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

She's in the UK tabloids all the time because of her drug and alcohol abuse, but it should be remembered that per WP:BLP and WP:HARM we should only report something if it is sourced reliably, and some tabloid newspapers are known to make up stories that are not true just to sell themselves.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

TMZ isn't precisely a tabloid. Despite the disgust I hold for them and similar entertainment publications, they are rather accurate and typically require more than the average amount of fact-checking. RvLeshrac 06:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

For the reasons listed above the long list public incidents of intoxication pre rehab has been narrowed to a summary sentence. All the cites are still there. Each aspect of her personal life has its own paragraph. And the usual constantly updating and changing facts which is why I added a current events notice on top of the section. An external link to a Guardian Unlimited article discussing her crash and what it might portend for her future career has been added Edkollin 19:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this section should be placed in chronological order. And does the first paragraph need so many citations? I feel only two or three citations can back up a paragraph of text. THE evil fluffyface 13:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC);

The chronological order would work if their is a summary on top setting the scene so to speak. With the rapid fire of changing events it would prevent all the moving around and rewriting of paragraphs. Also even though my separating the drug use from eating disorders made the article a somewhat cleaner read they are probably related in some way. I agree there are to many citations in that paragraph but left them because I did not feel qualified to figure out which ones to delete. But with the chronological order method you could leave them in. Edkollin 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put "personal life' back to chronological order with year subheads. There will probably be a lot more incidents in this slow-motion train wreck over coming months and years, and chronological order will be the only way to go. But other structural editing could be done. Really 'Personal Life' should be a subheading of 'Biography' (actually 'Personal Life' as a heading is probably not needed, 'Biography' could just have the Year subheads and sections folowing on from 'Early life'. I think the sections on the albums should come in a main section separate from biography, could be just headed 'Albums'. There should probably also be a main section headed 'Performances and appearances' (or separate 'Performances' and 'Other Appearances'), there are some miscellaneous performances listed under the 'Back to black' subheading which should be moved. The 'other appearances' could be integrated with 'Performances and appearances'. Rexparry sydney 01:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How would you handle something like Sept 1: Couple goes back to rehab Sept 3: Couple announces separation Oct 8: Couple leave rehab announce they are back together Nov 6-10 Amy in hospital for major weight loss: Dec 6: Record company drops Amy Dec 1 thru Dec 20 Amy in hospital for major OD Dec 7: Husband files domestic abuse charges?Edkollin 04:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• 'Within hours of the publication release, Amy Winehouse finally decided to cut "up the highway."'. ?? What does this mean? - sirop, 31 August 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.117.4 (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You are going to have to give the cite for this then we might be able to figure out the context for this and decide if it is article worthy Edkollin 18:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This was a reference to her attempted suicide. ("Remember kids, 'Down the road' not 'across the street'!") RvLeshrac 06:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes lol I know what the idiom means but unless a reputable source says that, we can't use it. The article already mentions her claim that her husband saved her, while she was cutting.Merkinsmum 01:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've added a proseline tag, as the personal life section seems to be a series of events in chronological order, rather than an encyclopedic paragraph summary style. I don't think that this article can be anything more than a B-class biography until the controversies surrounding her personal life become more stable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

She has claimed she is cured and is going back into the studio to record the next album. Maybe things can calm down enough to make the section more encyclopedic. Maybe Edkollin 06:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Summary on top should mention personal issues

Since her record company has now given her a last warning I would like to append this sentence to the summary paragraph. "In 2007 her career was in jeopardy after the much publicized emergence of drug dependency and other serious personal issues". Edkollin 18:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Subsection Personal Life

In all my years of reading about musicians personal troubles in no case have I seen so many other musicians commenting on another musicians troubles. The other musicians commenting on her have varied greatly in age and musical genre. I propose a subsection on the reaction to her troubles which including these comments and also how it is affecting her career. Please comment on this. In many articles including this one lack of participation in these talk pages causes a section to get sloppy causing invariably an editor usually unnamed to get frustrated and decide the he/she needs without discussion to clean that section. This results in the whole section being deleted or in this case a scalpel approach being used that causes many relevant pieces of information to deleted. It takes a short amount of time to hit that delete button . It takes a longer to retrieve the information and to put it back. Many times I might be my intention to just look at the article to see what updates have been made but I end up spending an unplanned hour or two regenerating a section causing me since I mostly edit Wikipedia just before going to bed to lose sleep. Edkollin 08:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Her voice / Her accent

is she a soprano or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.137.111 (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

She sings in alto on her songs, but there is the possibility that she is a mezzo-soprano. but given the way she sings at present i would class her as an alto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.237.167 (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, what's up with her accent while singing? Is she imitating?

Halloween Costume

The popularity of Winehouse as a Halloween costume speaks directly to her popularity and iconic status. It's more significant than any one of the awards she has won. And it meets notability criteria, which is all that is necessary for relevance. Vagary 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What does a Halloween costume have to do with an article about her life and achievements? I've deleted it, it is meaningless trivia, I think this article deserves better than that. Sue Wallace 02:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is not "about her life and achievements" - it's everything about Amy Winehouse. I don't see why a fan, such as yourself, would be offended by a hallmark of her iconic status? Wikipedia has no policy against trivia, that is not sufficient reason to remove the content. Vagary 02:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So you that piece of information adds to the quality of this article? And I don't think it "is a hallmark of her iconic status" at all, I think it's insulting. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Sue Wallace 02:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, if it should be added anywhere, it should be added to the Halloween costumes article, not on a living person's biography article. Sue Wallace 02:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you "think it's insulting". It satisfies all the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please cite an actual policy against this sort of information; don't let the fact that you're a fan colour your editing. Vagary 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think I'm a fan? Where did I say that? I edit all kinds of articles, I don't consider myself a fan at all.

1. WP:LIVING - Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links.
2. Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.
3. WP:HARM - Is the information already widely known? If it has appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over an extended period of time, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article. If the information has only appeared in a few tabloid sources, local newspapers, or websites of dubious quality, or has only been the subject of fleeting and temporary coverage, then it is not appropriate to include it. BTW Halloween has been and gone now, is it still news worthy? Sue Wallace 07:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider ABC News, USA Today, and the Ottawa Citizen to be reliable and of non-dubious value. There are loads of other sources in Google News. It's temporary coverage because it's a temporal event, just like lots of other information in the article. It only stands out as unusual because there's nothing about other pop culture references. Vagary 07:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you've re-instated it even though it is supposed to be being discussed on here. So do you think this little nugget of information is still going to be newsworthy in 6 months time or 2 years time? Sue Wallace 08:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Sue that it doesn't belong here. Also, Vagary seems to have it the wrong way round; it is not for the person wishing to delete the info to justify; the onus is on the person wishing to retain the material to justify it. I agree with some of Sue's arguments above; also, per WP:RECENT, will this still be interesting in 6 months or a year? Finally I would strongly endorse the idea of discussing here rather than edit-warring. --John 17:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This a ridiculous and completely non-notable piece of trivia which I believe should be removed. and I'm not a fan. Pawnkingthree 19:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've taken it down. I'm not a fan either, not that it matters. --John 23:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, people. Maybe because you all are NOT fans is the reason why you don't think it matters. You don't care. Fans do. And fans are the people that mostly will read the article. Get off your pedastool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.185.121 (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. so if we are fans thats why we don't want it in, and if we're not fans thats why we don't want it in? How about it's not notable enough to be in a wiki biography article? Sue Wallace (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sue. Honey. Just because you think you're right, doesn't mean it's true. Hate to break it to you. You stated earlier, " So do you think this little nugget of information is still going to be newsworthy in 6 months time or 2 years time?" Well, let's think about this, shall we? If it is making enough headlines as of right now, don't you think this will just happen again next Halloween? I highly believe so. Exactly what does it hurt for fans to know that Amy Winehouse is a inconic artist and is being transformed into an legend? None, I believe. And just because you Personally don't believe that she is becoming an inconic artist and is being transformed into an legend, doesn't mean you're right. Again, sweetheart, sorry. Get over yourself. Please.74.167.185.121 (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope for your sake you're taking the piss. 82.43.182.51 (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"The popularity of Winehouse as a Halloween costume speaks directly to her popularity and iconic status."

I agree with this. And it is notable six months later or six years from now because it reflects how well known she is at this point. She probably won't become a "legend" or "icon" which is why this should be in for posterity. It's actually more relevant as time goes by and people forget about her and how famous she is/was at this point in time. Obviously this user is a little wacky but he/she is right on in this case.68.166.68.188 (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Booed off the stage

Here's the video link: [3] Rklawton (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sniffing on stage

Hello, I think this should be added to the current article: "Amy has a past of alcohol and drug abuse, and it seems to surface up again. In fact, here she is caught on video by a fan attenting concert sniffing something on stage: http://www.koreus.com/video/amy-winehouse-coke.html " Sad but true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.56.236.89 (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I put in a mention that she was photographed with white powder on her nose in an emaciated state. I said the tabloids were speculating it was cocaine. By itself it might not have been article worthy as it is a continuation of earlier reports but with friends reporting she might go back to rehab that news needed context. Decided not to put in reports that she killed a hamster. It is trivial and pure speculation at this point. If she is arrested for animal cruelty I would put in the article. This is the toughest article I ever had to edit just because there is so much material from from questionable sources and it is sad because she is so talented. But her personal life is effecting her career and so it needs to be in Edkollin (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I bet. Especially that you might be a fan... Plus, I heard today that all her concerts have been canceled for the moment: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/entertainment/7115689.stm (BBC) 81.56.236.89 (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep all concerts are off and that is now in the article. Yep I am a fan but from a purely article standpoint I have never seen a situation where personal matters and career are so intertwined. There was no way it could be otherwise after she made the declarations she did in Rehab. We have a situation where the tabloids have been reliable sources and her spokespeople unreliable. In most situations the spokesperson says singer is in hospital for "exhaustion" everybody snickers and that is that. This singer goes to the press and gives blow by blow (pun intended) details of her bender and says that exhaustion thing was really a coma. Then her parents and friends can not run to the press fast enough to give personal details of the internal feuding between the families etc. Then there are iconic figures in the music scene a business usually where people are very myopic weighing on both her talents and issues. I have been following music since the 1970's and there have been many drug and personal issues over the years but never so many of them in such a short period of time. Nothing has come close to this situation. Back to the article where does the singers concert disasters go the Personal or career sections? Beats me Edkollin (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

She got six Grammy Nominations on the same day it is announced she has begun treatment for Drug Abuse. Only Amy Winehouse Edkollin (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tour manager claim

I have deleted tour manager claim. Several articles put this claim in doubt [4] Sue Wallace (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Especially since your cite kind of knocks down a claim from its own reporter. And also despite what I intimated on your talk pages they did take it from a British tabloid. It was not wrong for original reporter to put the claim in as there seems to be no disputing that he made the claim. It was wrong for the original ABC reporter and the editor who checked her article not put it in context and seek reaction to the claim. Edkollin (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

External link worthy?

This is an opinion piece by a Belfast Telegraph show business journalist advising the singer what she should do to save herself and her career. It discusses her abilities and what she means to the UK music scene[5] Edkollin (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it come under personal opinion? It's just a journalist giving their opinion, it's not a music journalist, and I can't see where she/he claims to have any personal links to the singer that would give any 'insider knowledge'. Besides most of that stuff is covered in the article already to a greater or lesser extent but in a neutral way, ie tour cancelled, drug problems, rehab. partner problems etc. That's just my opinion, don't know what others think. Sue Wallace (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

genres

uh, amy winehouse sings 1960's pop, girl group, and pure doowop, not just r&b, jazz, and soul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybiggestfan123 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Times of London Drug Treatment claim should be put back in

The tabloids as we have talked about do put a negative spin on things to sell their newspapers. The publicists job is to put a positive spin on things to sell her music. This publicist has not been a reliable source IE she was hospitalized for "exhaustion". There are disputed claims as to what treatment the singer is receiving. Wikipedia editors need to deal with disputed claims all the time. The Times of London is an extremely well regarded paper and thus a reliable source. The editors at that paper felt that not only that the drug treatment claim should be mentioned but that it should be in the headline. Edkollin (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you try to assume good faith, I did a general tidy of that whole section. The reason I took out the drug treatment issue was because the article was vague about it, and it doesn't state who is claiming she is currently having drug treatment (at home?) she's not in hospital. Also I thought it still mentioned that she was due to have drug treatment after Christmas, further up in the article, though I see it has since been removed. Sue Wallace (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I re-added the info, what do you think? Sue Wallace (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I took out in good faith some of the more cynical elements of my original request and updated it to what is in the article now. After the ABC retraction the vague nature of the claim was the reason I specifically stated it was that Newspaper making that claim. Also of note a google search as of about two hours ago shows no other story dealing with this topic. This is probably due to the focus on the Grammy nominations (A cynic might wonder if that it was why the publicists statement released was when it was). Edkollin (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it's best we go with the official line, it's not like she's denied drug use. Personally I think she's probably been put on tranquilizers and/or anti-depressants, (and AD's make you feel much worse before you feel better) and they would explain her 'confused', emotional demeanour lately.

I hope things die down for a while for her anyway. This [6] article in The Times pretty much sums up how I feel about the behaviour of the paparazzi right now. Sue Wallace (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That Times article would be a better External Link then the one I proposed. The thing is this type of press is relativity recent for America. It was not that way when I was growing up. Unfortunately the celebrities have learned to play the press and some of this is staged. I don't think this is so in her case. Agreed she needs the a long period of professional treatment not just for the drugs but to fix whatever is inside her head that is behind all of her problems. And her family and extended family should butt out and not run to the press. In this case this is as much their fault as the tabloids. And fire that PR person. Edkollin (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

TABLOIDS

Seems I'm beating a dead horse (or really a live horse that has just been beat a lot), but please use reliable sources, and fewer tabloids. I am not in the UK, and (1) I don't readily recognize the tabloids in this article and (2) it seems the tabloid system works differently (eg - there are tabloids that run daily, hence seeming more credible?) but for those editors on that side of the Atlantic, please be more scrupulous in deciding which are credible sources. For editors in North America, the same goes for us. Also, while her drugs, drink and antics have almost consumed her literally and figuratively, once that fact is reasonably established (which I believe it has been) then every single incident doesn't need to be chronicled in detail—only the especially noteworthy ones. While the bigger offenders probably won't even read this, for those editors trying to improve this article, please keep these matters in mind.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(fixed heading) Totally agree with above. For those not familiar with the UK press, one of the main culprits at the moment (as far as Amy Winehouse is concerned) seems to be the Daily Mail/Sunday Mail, also to a slightly lesser extent, The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Star and News of the World. Not suprisingly, they all seem to be sued on a pretty regular basis, I found this interesting with regards the Mail and pretty much sums them up I think : [7], also this [8] and [9], [10] etc.

The Times is pretty reliable, also The Telegraph, The Independent, The Observer, and of course the BBC. So I think we should treat anything in those first newspapers with the "pinch of salt" they deserve. It's very easy to add exaggerated, wild claims in the press, but we should remember this is a biography of a living person article and it should be balanced, I really wouldn't like to see this article become a long list of harmful, libelous, tabloid driven rubbish. Sue Wallace (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Back to Black section...

...needs massive work. It is a hodgepodge of semi important facts, kind of randomly thrown together, and needs trimming, copyediting and better prose. I have been gradually trying to improve the article in general over the last couple days, but that section very nearly makes me want to give up (at least for today :) ) Anyway, I welcome any sanity brought to that section. Maybe the section needs a new name to reflect what it is actually about: International success, or maybe "Ascension to stardom" or even "2006 to the present".--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 22:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're doing really well, don't give up! I think a lot of that stuff can be reduced by being cut and paste onto the actual album article instead, (if it's not there already), so that would make it much more manageable, ideally the Back to Black section should as a rough guide be about the same size as the Frank album section above it. The Grammy noms. paragraph could be under its own sub-heading, if it's deemed important enough. What do others think? Sue Wallace (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

okay back to black got in at number seven in amercia which makes it bein the second highest in the billboard album charts buy a british female solo artist (behind joss stone)should people put that in look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.206.205 (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Suicide Pact

http://dzrbenson.com/blog/?p=169 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.116.90 (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Story disputed by singers father[11]Edkollin (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Legal troubles" sub-section

I've added one to the "Controversy" section since, regrettably, it now looks like there may be a lot more material to add to it in the future. I put both the copyright infringement and pot bust in there - although the former might be more smoothly integrated elsewhere. Ribonucleic (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea; this does seem like an unfortunately necessary section now. I moved it to the Personal life section, since her legal battles are generally private matters (except for the P*nut incident), versus things that affect her career or the public. But if you have objections let me know.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I added two blurbes based on the singers fathers comments from a Sky News report. The father said that the arrest had been in the planning stages for three weeks and that the singer is "perfectly fine with talking to the police". The addition was deleted by an editor who said the remarks are not notable. I put the remarks in because I felt it added context to the story. There has been speculation that the singer was intentionally trying to avoid the police. If a person is guilty and trying to avoid the police she would not be fine with talking with them. The father is a person with firsthand knowledge. I feel it is best to put the information out there let the reader decide reliable information or spin. It is the same as what we do when we put her spokespersons remarks in the article Edkollin (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

The former opening sentence has been removed twice, suggesting some editors disagree with it:

"As Winehouse's personal demons have become less manageable, her public image has been a dichotomy of admiration for her talent and disturbance at her personal turmoil."

However, no one has replaced it. The section needs a thesis statement. I don't mind taking a stab at it, but prose-wise, the section can't just start with no introductory sentence. This is far from the only prose issue with the article, but one that seems to be a little more controversial. The sentence essentially needs to state that Winehouse has a paradoxical public image of runaway commercial success and critical acclaim while at the same time drawing dirision for virtual career self-sabotage. Fortunately, the information there is already abundantly referenced, an into sentence is just needed.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Misleading

"The singer's (and her husband's) struggles with self-harm, as well as drug and alcohol addictions became regular tabloid news in 2007" Struggles with self harm? This is not what Amy has been regular tabloid news for. It is the fact she is a heroine addict, cocaine addict and even does it on stage. Adding that she is a drug addict AFTER the self harm meerely makes it seem she is mostly known as a self harmer. The fact she self harms is debatable...this rumour came about as a fact she has been seen wearing plasters etc and covered in blood.

Amy is a drug addict...this is what has made her such a major tabloid star, despite the fact she is well known for her music! NOT a self harmer. Dont try and brush over the fact she is a druggie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.192.11 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Edkollin (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Guitar

Does Amy play the guitar? The "English female guitarists" category is included in the page, but the only mention made to guitar in the whole article is the sentence, "After toying with her brother's guitar, she received her first guitar when she was thirteen". Funk Junkie (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, she does play guitar, and she plays it live sometimes.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 03:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

MySpace Link Missing

I looked in the References section and noticed that Amy's MySpace page isn't included [she's one of my friends on MySpace]. If someone could add it [as I won't mess with the article at all, 'cuz that's how they get locked], it would be nice. Thanks.

(Wikieuphoria (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

Winehouse to be Cleared?

Reports are surfacing that police do not have evidence to convict her of with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice[12]. I think the cite did not meet wikipedia standards to put in the article now but if this is confirmed while leaving in her husbands information I would shorten the rest of the paragraph to say something like "After a thorough investigation Winehouse was cleared of involvement in the alleged plot to pervert the course of justice". The details of the police investigation would then be a moot point.Edkollin (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to Protect the article

Due to the major recent vandalism the article only users should be allowed to edit this article for a the next few weeks Edkollin (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for 48 hours. We'll see how it goes after that.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

She isn't dead

What's with the following:

Amy Jade Winehouse (14 September 1983 - (5 February 2008) was an English soul, jazz, and R&B singer and songwriter.

I suggest the person who decided to lock this page sort it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanshothebaliff (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

2008 deaths?

Who put this article into the category "2008 deaths" - and why?

Vandalism sucks. We might need to put this page under semi if this behavior continues. adnarim 20:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, it's already protected. adnarim 20:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we need to keep an eye on this page, as yesterday people were using it to insult Winehouse, and we simply cannot tolerate that any more than we can tolerate vandalism of the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

They really should wait until she actually dies before they do that. Who knows, she may even make it to 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.112.2 (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

            Funny, for all the wrong reasons. I'm no fan but would miss this musically talented drug-addict if she were to go soon. One of very few 'real' things in music these days.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.95.221 (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 

Grammy Performance

here's the external link of her via sattelite performance http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=c8786997-fa83-4ab4-8f77-2c1d59a919bf

and her acceptance speach for 'Record of the Year'

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=a1084e54-401a-4dc0-bc2f-6a9d42d73c96 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.220.2 (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Crack whore? wtf?

Researching for a social studies course and I searched Wikipedia for 'crack whore'. It automatically redirected me here. I know Amy's been having problems lately but surely she's not the definition of a crack whore. I don't know how to fix redirects so can someone please revert the redirect changes. 217.200.200.53 (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

New ending section is clearly promoting POV, needs modification

The ending now reads " some have questioned whether she should have been honored with the awards". The 'some', in terms of exact quotations from people of note, is *one*, - Natalie Cole , and the other quotation is from an incredibly obscure campus/local newspaper. There's no problem with keeping Cole's objection, but a) the current phrasing implies the objections from 'some' could have been on quality grounds, and b) there's some POV pushing going on.

Lr676t (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One is from an oscure source, but the other is from USA today, which included many notable music critics. You can probably find teh article online.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you are reading into this section that the objections could have been based on quality, then that is your own personal opinion filtering it, as nothing in the paragraph addresses the quality of Winehouse's music. Natalie Cole's quote clarifies this completely. However, I will add the phrase "given her recent personal and drug problems." There is no need for copious quotes to ram home objections. As soon as I re-find a couple of other references they will be added (one from Janet Jackson which I inadvertently lost). But yes, Esprit15d's point is that the USA Today article DID have more than one person's opinion on this topic and clearly support the phrasing that some people objected. The only POV in the section is that of the world of her fellow musicians and music critics. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Location data at the beginning needs filling

as per the usual standard, London should be highlighted in the passage "Amy Winehouse was born in the Southgate area of Enfield, London .." Ray54 (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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” [13] 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 69.114.117.103 (talk) 22:37, 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

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)