Talk:Amy Winehouse/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Booed off the stage

Here's the video link: [1] 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 [2] 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[3] 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 [4] 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 : [5], also this [6] and [7], [8] 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[9]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[10]. 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)

She's not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.15.38 (talk) 17:30, 17 March 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)