Jump to content

Talk:Amy Winehouse/Archive 1

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

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)

An Anglo-Saxon Israeli would be notable, so is being an English Jewess, as England isn't, never has been, & never will be Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.77 (talk) 07:49, 16 March 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)

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)
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?

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)

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)

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)

  1. ^ music from Grey's Anatomy - Time After Time
  2. ^ Grey's Anatomy: Episode Guide: Testing 1-2-3
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amy_Winehouse/Archive_1&oldid=1136516599"