Talk:Amy Winehouse/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

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” [1] 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 Edkollin (talk) 22:39, 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)

Y Done surprised no one spotted that. GDonato (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Content deletion

First I want to state that personally, I am not a great fan of Winehouse, but I would like to see this article, which involves a controversial and recently highly publicized person, become a good article. I have had no particular involvement with any of the editors who have been involved in this new issue regarding the page. Having said that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildhartlivie (talk • contribs) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

When we're writing about people, we have to make sure we get it right. It isn't acceptable to retain poorly sourced (Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, etc) contentious content on the wiki for one minute while we discuss what to do about it. If User:Sceptre was not previously involved, that's a good thing, not a sign of abuse. He has removed contentious content, and sometimes that has to be done quickly and over the heads of people who don't have such a strong commitment to our policies. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a huge contradiction in logic. In order to adhere to Wikipedia policies, sometimes policies have to be violated? People who are trying to work within the policies don't have such a strong commitment to them? Please. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No policy has been violated. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that huge contradiction in logic is actually policy. Will (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And again, what needs to be done is being ignored. It seems as if everyone is just happy and content that Winehouse now has no private life. I believe Sceptre was arbitrary and unnecessarily extreme in how he handled this article. I'm not so sure that "ignore all rules" is a good defense for hijacking and locking the article from editing. The methods used, to which I object, are secondary to the article itself. Contentious material and/or sources weren't edited out, half the article was cut, regardless of what it was or how it was sourced. No effort was made to edit and improve the article. Do either of you plan to make a meaningful contribution to this article, or is it a matter of "it's done and over with"? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Discuss the articles and not the editors, please. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

At present, that doesn't appear to be possible. The article was locked prior to any specific objections being made and none have been mentioned in the nearly 12 hours since. It would seem to me that if material was objectionable or questionable, it would fall to the person who removed it without discussion to bring specificities up. To quote an editor: I think, to get a widescale change, you'd need to have some sort of centralised discussion. No one can read minds here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the entire personal life section was not sourced from tabloids. The entire section should not have been deleted because one person didn't agree with some of the content. That content could've easily been deleted leaving the other content in tact. WP:BLP doesn't say that a biography can't have a personal life section. Quite a bit of content that is perfectly acceptable for an article was deleted without even a mention on the talk page. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP pretty much trumps everything. Potentially disparaging information about a living person needs very solid sourcing. It is no great loss if people need to go elsewhere than an encyclopedia to hear about the latest scandal. Amy Winehouse merits mention in an encyclopedia because she makes music, not because of her personal life. We should try to give responsible coverage of that personal life, but we should also keep our focus on what makes her legitimately notable, not on what makes her tabloid fodder.
In general, large unexplained cuts are bad, but the material can still be found in the history: it's not like you are being prevented from looking at it to redo it, and it's not as if there was a misleading edit summary. I'd suggest that you try to come up with a well-sourced, unsensationalistic version of same. Keep in mind, we do not need a blow-by-blow level of scandalous detail, and none of us know how her life will turn out. You might look at the Marianne Faithfull article for an example of how this has been handled for another famous British singer with a legendary (but less recent) history of drug abuse. (I haven't closely checked the quality of the sourcing there; I'm thinking more about how the article is written.) - Jmabel | Talk 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's acknowledge a few things: (1) Everyone here agrees, that anything substantiated by tabloids can be out rightly removed according to a policy; (2) a substantial part of Amy's fame is her personal chaos; (3) proper weight of that chaos in this article is the central controversy here. So let's actually consult the policy. WP:WEIGHT (the relevant portion) says in full: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Now, does anyone here think that an article devoid of information about Amy Winehouse's turbulant legal, drug and emotional problems is balanced? Of course not. Yet, that is what we currently have. And because of unilateral decisions of mass deletions, page protection and the like, without so much as discussion on the talk page, that is the only article we will have into the foreseeable future. Worse, prior to these actions, we had several non-admin editors, who had actually resolved disagreements before peacefully (see previous discussions above) who now can only sit on the sidelines - furthering alienating editors who are actually involved in the article. The only issue remaining is where do get proper sources, and what needs to be trimmed, re-worded, included to represent this aspect of Amy's fame/notoriety. This issue is hashed out in thousands of articles on Wikipedia everyday much more effectively, and very poorly here. I invite any editors who are concerned primarily with improving the content of the articles to a comment to that effect below and make any edits to the subpage. I will also investigate the best way to proceed with unlocking the article and reintroducing the missing information in a collaborative and .--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"...a substantial part of Amy's fame is her personal chaos". Well, no. Her notoriety (a term I notice that you use later) may come from that, but her fame is another matter.
Again: I don't think this subject matter should be omitted. I do think it must be well-cited and should be handled with perspective, written in a way that does not blow things out of proportion just because they are recent.
I have no objection to un-protecting, but if someone just goes and reinstates poorly sourced material, it will probably rapidly be protected again. - Jmabel | Talk 07:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Noteriety is also grounds for inclusion of information (eg. jeffrey dahmer). Regardless, I believe at the very least discussions are underway, so the article can be unblocked and information that is not supported by tabloids can be reintroduced into the article. I am not saying that what can be introduced is in good condition, and shouldn't be altered, if not outright deleted later on, but by the normal wiki-process. Unfortunately, the editors and admins who blocked and deleted have not proven to be in any way involved in fixing the problem, so the block has failed to serve its purpose. It is only hindering the progress of the article, since the majority of the persons active in these discussions are non-admins.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Misquote: Camden Town

Her quote from the Grammies performance is actually "Camden Town ain't burning down." This should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattCoon (talk • contribs) 00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose a sub article be created to deal with her non music issues limiting them to one paragraph in the main article. I will admit it seems nuts at first to give a celebrities personal issues that sort of weight. But it is not us that gave them this weight it is The Times of London, New York Times etc and the era we are living in that has done this Edkollin (talk) 08:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I assure you, it will be deleted faster than you can say "no, no, no". Will (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Edkollin, I second you motion and was thinking of proposing the same myself. So I am delighted to see that you have made this proposal. I feel this situation has taken legitimate concerns and turned them into a power war, but working on a sub-page can restore the collaborative nature of the project. I will create such a subpage now: Talk:Amy Winehouse/Personal life and controversy. Any further discussion about inclusion should take place below.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think all that is needed. Move and trim the drugs related stuff into "Personal life" to about three paragraphs at the most, and integrate the controversy section into talking about her music. Will (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
We have Pete Doherty's controversies and Amy Winehouse's are surely just as notable. I disagree with Will that it will be deleted quickly, and opposed his views on Corey Worthington as another example. At the end of the day, WP:NOT#PAPER, and we should aim to be as comprehensive and provide as much sourcable information as possible. The only thing that really makes such articles of dubious worth is WP:BLP. Getting back to tabloids though, it's really sad to think that what half of a nation reads every day has to be written off as 'misinformation' if used on Wikipedia... although yes, I do oppose the tabloid press and the lies and ignorance they promote, but this is not a political forum. Been thinking too much today.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
At least, we used to have Pete Doherty's controversies but it must have been merged.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
A whole other article focusing on her controversies is a bit much. I think there's plenty of room for it in her own article if all the tabloid fodder is left out. Every instance of trouble and speculation needs to be left out and nothing should be sourced from tabloids. Pinkadelica (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that 90% of your reliable source reporting is just quoting from British tabloids anyway.(San Francisco Chronicle),(Denver Post) I still fail to see why this is ok but using The Sun directly is not. If tabloids are not to be used these must go also. Getting rid of it all will 1. Negate the need for a separate section because all that will be left is a paragraph or so. 2.Strictly uphold Wikipedia Standards 3. Ill serve a portion of the readership. Edkollin (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you miss the point. There is no section at this time. Debating the finer points of tabloids vs. no tabloids is moot. Unless one can write a section saying she got married, she had a bit of problem, people expressed concern, but her next album is (whatever), it's likely not going to be allowed to remain. It's quickly becoming more hassle than I personally care to deal with, since we've been given the dictate of how much can be here and where it should go. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a question what I or any other editor considers to be a reliable source. The fact remains that Wikipedia does not consider tabloids reliable sources, that's Wikipedia policy and I doubt that will change anytime soon. It's not unusual for what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable publication to cover the same thing as a tabloid, however, reliable publications happen to fact check. For the most part, tabloids do not which is the main reason they're not considered reliable. This whole issue has been covered above. I don't see the point in doing away with an entire section because it can't be filled with tabloid fodder. Loads of featured articles have personal life sections so what's the problem here? It's fairly simple to state that Winehouse was married on such & such date to whomever and she's had some drug problems and went to rehab. I personally would find it odd that such info was omitted from a biography on the woman because that is very much a part of her persona. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the more salient points about the reliability of the newspapers you list above, EdKollin, is at the very top of the San Francisco Chronicle page which says, in part:

On February 20, 2008, SFGate.com reprinted the wire service report below, which was written and distributed by World Entertainment News Network Ltd. SFGate.com has since learned that the headline below erroneously reports ... SFGate.com regrets this error.

They admit when something was proven to be wrong. That is the difference between a tabloid and a legitimate newspaper. They fact check and correct what they print if errors occur. They may have quoted a tabloid on some point, but it was doublechecked before press. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It was corrected after it was posted on their website after Winehouse's spokesperson specifically denied that charge(I am not sure if it made the print edition). The Denver Post did not correct it as far as I know. It is much much more then they have quoted a tabloid. Most stories in "reliable" sources outside of Great Briton about Amy Winehouse's personal life are using non AP,UPI wire services who are directly taking information from the British tabloids. There just is not any comparison between Personal lifestyle section articles and the day to day coverage of the singers travails. Personal lifestyle sections have a writer who might spend an extensive amount of time on the subject. With more time you get more careful editing. In day to day coverage of major news events you have the papers major resources working on it. The Winehouse and other gossip type articles what you get the interns or the newly hired or maybe a music reviewer whose expertise is music not journalism. The point is Wikipedia can have any policy or guideline it wants but in the real world Winehouse articles from "reliable sources"(outside of Great Briton) are not any more reliable then The Sun because they are the third generation rewrite of The Sun. Wikipedia policy is great but they are guidelines and I would guess the reliable source policy was written with regular news stories in mind. Edkollin (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The retraction to which I was referring was about Nicolas Cage and tax issues. If you feel so strongly about the ONE source I used, then by all means, take out the citation, but take out the material the citation covered too, until you find a better source. From now on, I won't contribute to this article. The last 4 days has worn me out on Amy Winehouse, it's way more headache than I care to have from Wikipedia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I do understand how you feel as I have quit editing other totally unrelated articles for similar reasons. The SF Gate article I was referring was about her allegedly causing 6000 pounds of damage to her hotel room. Her spokesperson has denied the allegation so I never added it. But the larger question for any remaining editors when a "reliable" source writes a third hand account from an tabloid article what should be done?. 1. Use the reliable source because it because it is irrelevant how the reliable source got its information and it is acceptable by Wikipedia policy. 2. Do not use it as the still tabloid information so while not violating the specific Wikipedia policy it violates its spirit. 2 Use the tabloid cite directly because a reliable source said that the original information is ok so why not use a first hand cite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edkollin (talk • contribs) 06:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Worrying about who covered the story first is a waste of time. All you need to do is provide a source that Wikipedia considers reliable. Quite a few tabloids get inside information first, but the problem with tabloids is that they may get correct info first, they also might (and usually do) add additional information that is not true to add to the story. Most mainstream news outlets don't do that and again, if they get misinformation, they will retract. Tabloids don't do that unless they're sued. If you're uncomfortable with the policy, just don't add content that you feel might have been covered by a tabloid first. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I am only uncomfortable with the policy because it seems to me you are making readers get third hand information (actually fourth when you consider our rewrite). Now matter what the source at some point as an editor we have decide does this go in at all if it does go in what part of it goes in. So as far as sorting irrelevant information in part that is our job. As an editor if their is a direct quote by Amy Winehouse, or a family member in The Sun regarding an issue relevant to this article but it is not picked up by a reliable source I would not have a problem putting it in. But according to policy as I understand these arguments I can't. This type of thing happens with Amy Winehouse more the any public figure I have ever seen. The same tabloid likely pays somebody to crash her party and gets and alleged "crack" video but since the Times thought its ok so no problem. This is exactly what I meant by "can not see the forest from the trees". When Wikipedia made its policy my guess is that they had the second situation in mind not the first. And I really do not know about mainstream news organizations retracting false information on celebrity matters. In the matter I mentioned above a Google News search shows the denied information printed many times with no retractions. But of course there are a couple of Wikipedia policies that MIGHT cover this Wikipedia:Use common sense,Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules Edkollin (talk) 06:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)