Talk:Amy Winehouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amy Winehouse article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


Contents

[edit] "the album"

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

[edit] Hair

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

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

[edit] Whenwillamywinehousedie.com

Dunno if it's wrth mentioning in the article, but the site got mentioned in the Times today, [1] so that might count as notable. clearly getting attention, anyway. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not in a million years is that worth mentioning. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
That is not worth mentioning but I did put the report itself in the controversy section. The report did not mention anybody in particular but all of the stories about the report mentioned her. Edkollin (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
To be quite blunt, it does not belong in this article, period. Because a couple news sources said, in effect, "for the Kate Mosses and the Amy Winehouses of the world," does not make the UN report specifically relevant to this article. The UN did not target Amy Winehouse and to include it here is asking for problems. I suggest it come out immediately. Neither of the sources included say anything close to "suspect that Amy Winehouse was one of the celebrities the author Hamid Ghodse had in mind." The New York Times commentary blog said it was irresistible to suspect that Winehouse's song "Rehab" came to mind, not that it is generally suspected, as the entry into the Winehouse article would lead one to believe, that it's Winehouse herself. The BBC article didn't even come close to that connection. This is a world wide release, it's irresponsible for us at Wikipedia to make it about Amy Winehouse. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Wildhartlivie, I agree completely.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Who would he have in mind the editors of Wikipedia?. I did write the the report did not mention specific names but if you feel my language implied that it can be rewritten to something like "the singers name was widely used in media reports as an example" etc and more sources could be added. Every reliable source I have read did use her name in their articles about the report and that is notable Edkollin (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Who would he have in mind? It should be fairly apparent that the UN didn't set out to conduct a story about Amy Winehouse. As interesting an aside as this all is, the good editors over at the Kate Moss and Pete Doherty articles - both of whom were mentioned in the sources given on this - didn't feel compelled to jump in and add a passing remark about an otherwise unconnected UN drug study to their articles. This article has to walk a very fine line between tabloidism and whitewashing. Adding a passing remark by the press to an otherwise unrelated study isn't the way to do it. Gosh, who else could the author have had in mind? What about Aaron Carter, Lindsay Lohan, Courtney Love, Nicole Richie, Paris Hilton, Brad Renfro, just to name a few. Gee, just run a Google search for "celebrity drug use", the list could be astounding. In any case, unless it involves an incident directly involving Winehouse, it's just sensationalism and doesn't belong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not say the press mentioned only her name just that her name was in all of the articles I read. And they were not tabloid sources. If you are saying your reliable sources are engaging in tabloidism that goes back to the previous subject of how more reliable they are in these matters then the Sun. Again we could put in language emphasizing Winehouse is one of among many celebrities cited as an example. I do not know if we should edit this article based on how other other celebrity articles are written but be that as it may the few I reviewed do not have a separate "Controversy" section. Their "issues" are handled in their "Personal Life" section. Since the U.N. report is not part of their personal life it probably does not belong there. The difference is probably (U.S. and England have some differences) is that unlike most of the celebrities you mentioned is that Amy Winehouse is not one of the celebrities mentioned but the main one[2]. The controversy over her Grammy victories mentioned in the controversy section is in similar territory as this. Saying that should be in because her name was specifically mentioned by that complainant is nitpicking. Should the "Controversy" section be there is another issue but if it is to stay this is the kind of thing it was created for. Edkollin (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say reliable sources were engaging in tabloidism. What I said was that this article has to walk a fine line between tabloidism and whitewashing. The point is that we do not need to add a note to this article every time Amy Winehouse gets mentioned in a publication, which often tends to be the case. Yes, "Rehab" was used as an example in the articles on the UN study. But then, as I said, other celebrities were mentioned too. It would almost behoove the article if new items were not added to the article until a week later, just to see if it even matters in a week.
Be that as it man, we have a mandate not to be a gossip rag. Throwing little tidbits like the mention of the whenwillamywinehousedie.com website and the eagerness of journalists to cite celebrity examples of drug users is going to keep us from that course. As far as the Controversies section, actually, if one would check further up the page, removing it was one thing the person who cut out the entire section suggested doing. Personally, I'm all for removing it. The article needs to continue to move slowly toward a clean article. Right now, that is a chore. I say let's just cut it altogether. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Controversy section aside for now (I still have mixed feelings on the matter) you may not like that journalists create a link when the report did not. You have a right to and are probably correct in that opinion. It is not up to us to decide what is gossip and what is news reliable sources do that in in this case such papers as The New York Times,The Times of London have decided for whatever reason the her personal issues are worth tones of news space,columnists time and in one case an editorial and in the matter of the UN report they decided to make that link. If it a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia where is the violation of policy? Apologies for reusing the same Times link that started this section.Edkollin (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the logic of having a section on "controversies" when there is already one on "personal life". All the controversy around Winehouse is related to her personal life. Another possible structure for the article would be to relate everything chronologically and weave between events related to her artistic output and those that are about her personal life and how it has been portrayed. Since sources usually mention in the same breath her success as an artist and her troubled personal life the most straightforward path to a good article would be to do the same. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If editors want to look at an bio article that is in chronological order but still has intensive coverage of personal issues See Britney Spears. If you want extreme chronological order another option is one summary paragraph here and link to a not a separate article as I suggested earlier but a pure listing by date Edkollin (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The Spears article doesn't have intensive coverage of personal issues. It has coverage of the main points. It doesn't go into explicit details regarding her day by day press coverage and it doesn't delve into everything she says and does. For instance, Adnan Gliban isn't even mentioned in the article. It's not as if none of us have neglected to look at other articles. What I'm not clear about is why you alone are so persistent in wanting to include so much of what is essentially tripe. This isn't a no-holds barred detailed biography of Winehouse. It's an encyclopedia article, and the mere fact that the article had tended to divert close to gossip makes it unencyclopedic. This sort of material has already triggered controversy on this talk page. The article needs to be pulled up from the mire, not to continue to have mire introduced. Just because something doesn't technically violate policy does not by definition mean it belongs in the article. There's a wide berth between fair game and good taste and judgment. It appears to me that a consensus is beginning to develop about this sort of issue, and it's not leaning toward the inclusion of each and every piece of press that occurs. The issue of a separate article covering controversy has already been decided. No one agreed with it. Should I go back and count how many people said no? Instead of asserting that it doesn't violate policy, why not try to cover how a UN report which says celebrities are let off lightly by the justice system in regard to drug related crime pertains to Amy Winehouse, to my knowledge who to date, has only been arrested for marijuana possession. Yes, we're all aware that she likely does a lot of other things, but it's hard to slam justice system treatment of Winehouse when Winehouse hasn't actually been arrested or charged for the drug use being covered by the report. At some point, someone has to say enough is enough in these inclusions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Wikipedia policy cannot cover common sense, good taste and judgment, that's up to each user. Winehouse is included here because she is a musician, first and foremost. Her personal life and problems are covered because they have become part of her persona. I think a good example of someone who had (and will probably continue to have) a turbulent personal life is Courtney Love. That article touches on her troubles, but mainly focuses on her career because that is what makes Love notable. That is how the Winehouse article should be treated as well. People need to remember that Wikipedia isn't a fansite or a blog and every time a celebrity is mentioned in the press, that doesn't need to be added to their article. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The Spears article like this has a large percentage of it devoted to personal issues and it in chronological order. I have no idea what other articles editors look at. It was suggested chronological order might be a better way all I was saying was here an article that leans that way. As for my separate article suggestion being shot down three or four or five against editors against it a consensus does not make. The suggestion was made because I agree that Winehouse is a musician first and foremost and that at most there should be a summary paragraph here. Both this article and the Spears article (never edited it no plans to) is to clogged up with this material. Since reliable sources think this is notable a more detailed sub article/list or whatever should be written for readers who want detail on those matters. What that should include or not is for possible later discussion in that articles talk section and out of here. Edkollin (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The Spears article has 26.92% of its content devoted to personal life, the Winehouse article has 33.33% devoted to personal life. That's quite a difference. I'm curious, then, what a consensus would be, if not when four or five editors weigh in against a suggestion made by one or two. If Winehouse is first and foremost a musician, then why should there be a detailed separate article covering her personal travails? Is that not, in and of itself, sensationalistic? You obviously want to write a more elaborate and detailed controversy article and I'm really growing tired of debating this same thing over and over, so what I'd suggest you do is go start a sub-article and then fight out its retention when it is nominated for deletion, which I can assure will be the case. And no, the Costa comment does not render the basic issue moot. It will still remain at issue over how this will be treated in the article. The prevailing viewpoint remains that anything like this be handled with attention toward neutrality and no preponderance of weight. As with the news reports, Winehouse was not solely singled out and now the drug problems of the world seem to equally be Eric Clapton's fault. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As the article now stands (See Below) Costa's commentary [3] this does belong and I put it in. I tried to keep it short and neutral and made specific note that Winehouse was not solely singled out. If you are referring to this article Costa did not say the drug problems of the world were equally Clapton's fault and unlike Winehouse he was only mentioned once but that is the Clapton editors problem. As with anything the wording can always be changed. Unless you find a specific rule violation do not delete it but of course you can put it here for deletion in an up or down vote Edkollin (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC).
I feel this site does belong in the article, and I in fact had added it to the external links only to have it subsequently removed. This is how people see this person and her celebrity, this is her public persona, people are throwing into a pool because of her outlandish and ridiculous behavior. Wiki should be all inclusive, including someone or some group's detractors. Tens of thousands of people have guessed when Winehouse will croak and that IS NOTABLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipingrock (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 April 2008
There are a lot of reasons why this site is inappropriate and won't be kept in the article. One is that Wikipedia has a policy regarding living persons, which precludes it from printing defamatory material. Another is that this is basically a spamsite, with nothing more substantative than a few photos taken from other sources that are copyright violations and nothing besides their self-titled "pre-condolences." Finally, the site requires one to register, which is not allowable under WP guidelines. Beyond all that, it's simply distasteful and tacky and not notable for anything except exploitation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drug use belongs in lead

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

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

[edit] Personal Life and Controversies how much weight?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Dispute addition

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

I agree. Speculation does not belong in an encyclopedia. Unless this event had a profound effect on Winehouse, so much so that she spoke in depth about, I could understand its inclusion. Again, people need to remember that every bit of info or quote cannot be included. Pinkadelica (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Opinions are only included in Wikipedia if they are from reputable sources. Her father's interpretation of her music is neither here nor there.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
So the rule is nothing her father says should ever be in the article because he is not a reliable source?. What about this? "The singers father said she had a seizure in August 2007 caused by her drug and alcohol addiction and that further seizures may be life threatening"[4]. He is not a doctor so this should not be in? Edkollin (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that would be a problem because the source is a dead link and can't be verified from the link given. However, as stated, that example would really need to be clarified to explain that he doctors did say so, otherwise that would be his opinion as well. Another problem with that is that a seizure wasn't caused by her drug addiction, but either detoxing in drug withdrawal or the effects of drugs and/or alcohol. But no, that's not the issue. The issue is that he was rendering his opinion of the meaning behind her lyrics, which basically is irrelevant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed broken link. True not the original issue but the original issue is a rather small one about song lyrics brought up the much larger issue of using immediate family members as reliable sources. In the article there is no direct quote of him saying the doctors told him this. Common sense says that this is not his opinion but something based on what he was told by medical professionals treating her that he got the gist of but misunderstood or misspoke botching the difference between "direct cause" and "effect". So because of this we can not use this. And to reedit the line to note these differences is Original Research since one would have to go into medical journals to retrieve this information. So this and other potentially important information cannot be used denying our readers important information. Very unfortunate. Edkollin (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Absolutely indisputable talent and drug problems

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

[edit] Dental gap

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

[edit] A weird tidbit

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

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

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


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

[edit] recent stuff in the press

[5][6] Shall we include any of this yet or wait to see how it pans out? Merkin's mum 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless it becomes a major life issue, I'd say no. We can't even begin to note every bender someone goes on since it wouldn't be encyclopedic. This is just more of the tabloid-esque fodder that has attached itself to Winehouse to sell a few more magazines. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Two issues here. A strong consensus has been reached against using British tabloids as source so no to the Daily Mirror. As for People magazine it seems to be their reporting and they seem to have a direct statement from the police. I do not know what the consensus is of the reliability of People magazine. As of this writing Fox News and the San Francisco Chronicle are reporting this quoting a “British Tabloid”. Other British tabloids are reporting this as part of a pub crawl and posting pictures of her with a alleged marijuana cigarette. So it is best to wait and see if police investigate the photos and how the standard reliable sources handle all of this Edkollin (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
On the BBC site now [7]. Merkin's mum 17:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
She's been cautioned, so there'll be no further action but it will stay on her record. [8] Merkin's mum 16:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This has been put in the article. I put in the legal section and not the Subsistence abuse section that a doctor concluded she was "unfit for interview" since the doctor did not say it was a chemical that made her unfit. I did put in the Subsistence abuse that there were fears that the drug rehab efforts have failed as The Telegraph reported this(UK Telegraph not Australian Telegraph which is a tabloid). The Telegraph was not quoting from a tabloid therefore if was not "feedback". I could not put in the tabloid marijuana pictures as unlike the crack pictures the police and reliable sources did not pick up on it for whatever reason. Edkollin (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

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

[edit] Touring Section

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

[edit] singing style ?

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

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

[edit] "Musical Legacy"

Winehouse is considered a “massive influence” in jump starting the success of a wave of British females who have unique take on writing, producing and preforming American music from the past. British female singers whose success occurred following Winehouse’s such as Duffy and Adele have been described as “New Amy’s”. In the United States this wave has been dubbed a British Invasion[9][10][11].

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

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

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

Correct on calling me out on the Wikipedia British Invasion cite. As far as validity I might have been more clear that other editors did not want the designations because they disagreed with the validity of it. I have always understood that point and mistakenly thought I was communicating that. That being said it is still editors deciding validity not reliable sources. We have the POV that reporters using these terms are lazy or are repeating some press release. But that is our educated guess. Nobody has given any proof at all that these are the motivations for the use of these terms and basing article worthiness based our opinions is wrong. The whole point in my bringing up marketing was to make a point about sourcing for pop music not to go off on a tangent about motivations Edkollin (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The music critic for the Montreal Gazette disagrees with the Wikipedia consensus [12] Edkollin (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] error

The word "soul" in the first paragraph should link to "soul music." I would change it myself, but Wikipedia won't let me.

Findright (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson Mandela typo

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

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