Talk:Amy Winehouse: Difference between revisions

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)

Annie Lennox blog

I'm really not sure that this addition is an encyclopedic one. Although it's just the edit summary, she didn't really call for ban, per se. It was more like wishing people would quit thrusting her in the limelight. What she said is "PS...Completely different subject...I’m very upset about Amy Winehouse right now...I just want to see her turn it around. She’s a major talent, and it’s so harrowing to see her spiralling out of control like a car crash. I wish somebody could just put a stop to everybody taking pictures of her, and get her out of the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. I want to see her healthy...not wrecked. I can’t stop thinking about her, and I wish somebody could just get her the help she so desperately needs to save her life. It’s so not right." This is all more of a passing comment, on her blog, and despite that it's Annie Lennox, I have to ask how this is relevant, encyclopedic content. She's worried about her. And that's fine, but why does her blog comment merit inclusion the article? This really is one of those cases where just because it's there doesn't automatically render it relevant for an encyclopedia. I'd be interested in hearing opinions from others on this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Every comment by every celebrity should not be included in this article. I don't question the validity of Annie Lennox's blog, but those are her musings, not an official statement. I hardly see how it qualifies as being controversial either. I can see including the Natalie Cole comment because it relates directly to Winehouse's career (which is what makes her notable). I think Lennox's comments are related more to Winehouse's personal life/problems which are already covered. I think just about everyone has been asked about Winehouse at some point in time and we seriously need to draw a line somewhere. If we included every comment every celebrity or person with an iota of fame said about Winehouse, this article would be a mile long. This isn't a fansite where every detail or mention of the girl needs to be documented. I'm all for nixing it, but to be fair, I will wait until more people comment about its inclusion. Pinkadelica 05:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on past history you two will probably be the only ones to comment and even if I am wrong and one or two more editors do comment on it they will agree with you. I am calling it a "consensus" and have deleted it. Sucks that more editors do not participate in these discussions but that is how it goes.Edkollin (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hospital

Winehouse remained in a London hospital on June 17, 2008 after collapsing at her North London home on Monday. Initial tests were inconclusive putting her under further observation.nytimes.com, More Medical Tests for Amy Winehouseap.google.com, Amy Winehouse still in London hospital for tests--Florentino floro (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I took it out. Since the tests as of this writing have have been inconclusive there is by definition no known serious health issue that is worthy enough for article inclusion. Everybody is understandably suspicious that this is related to her drug problems. The tabloids and the singers father have reported these suspicions with some reliable sources reporting on these tabloid reports. "Feedback" which reliable sources reporting tabloids claims is discouraged by Wikipedia policy. The Sun report which has been reported she has been told to quit drugs or die has been denied by her spokesperson[1]. So all that is actually known is that she fainted and quickly recovered a not uncommon occurrence which is frequently a minor issue. Edkollin (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

An editor put in that Winehouse was hospitalized with a chest infection and an irregular heartbeat based on a cite from celebrity blogger Perez Hilton. 1. Perez Hilton is not a reliable source 2. Hilton got his information from The Sun a British tabloid not a reliable source. As of 5:30 PM Saturday New York Time the only thing that has been confirmed by her spokesperson is the chest infection. The source for the irregular heartbeat story is reporting by The Sun and therefore not usable. We had a long long debate about using British Tabloids for this article and the overwhelming consensus was against using them. Irregular heartbeat in no way at this time can be used. Here is what is known based on what her representative confirmed to people magazine and other sources. She has been in the hospital now 6 days. A chest infection is confirmed. Testing as of Friday was still ongoing. While there there is plenty of speculation of a connection between the chest infection and her drug and other problems there is no confirmation of this and therefore this does not belong in the substance abuse and mental health subsection. As said above it is not known if this is life threatening or life altering so at this time it does not belong in my view in the Personal Life section but I could see where one could disagree with me on this. Her spokesperson confirmed it might imperil her upcoming tour dates this summer so I put it there. My POV is that this will turn out to be a serious article worthy personal life matter. I would advise everybody to be patient and not jump the gun. Edkollin (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This debate has been rendered mute by later by unfortunate updated information Edkollin (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is change needed for subheading: Substance abuse and mental health issues

Just checking in to see if a change is needed for the subheading:

"Substance abuse and mental health issues"  ??

Now that her physical health has entered the article, it gave me pause to think that the section could be re-named.

Perhaps:

               Substance abuse and mental/physical health issues

Not wedded to this, and this Just a thought.

And, hope that things improve for her in the very near future.

Thanks, Designquest10 (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it might have been been caused by drug use probably not Edkollin (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Typo and punctuation to fix when article gets unlocked

I just drifted by after reading about Winehouse's father's report of her having emphysema. I am neither a fan nor a detractor, and simply wanted a quick update on the matter -- but when i saw a couple of typos and could not fix them, due to the article being locked, i thought it best to leave a note here, as it is unlikely i will return any time soon.

(1) "cooking a snook at the law" is incorrect: the spelling is "cocking a snook at the law" -- see http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-coc4.htm

(2) "involved in the plot recognizing Fielder-Civil's notoriety tried to sell" is missing some commas, and should read "involved in the plot, recognizing Fielder-Civil's notoriety, tried to sell"

(3) "in the early morning hours, barefoot and wearing only a bra and jeans appeared on the internet" is missing one comma. It should read "in the early morning hours, barefoot and wearing only a bra and jeans, appeared on the internet"

There's a lot more, but obviously this is a contended and not very well written article, so i will leave it at that. Good luck! cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't locked from editing, only semi-protected. Just for clarification on point #1, for any editors who might look to correct it, the "cooking a snook at the law" is a direct quote from the source, and as such, can't be corrected (unless you've a mind to contact John O'Connor and correct his usage thereof). Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Glastonbury performance

should her performance at glastonbury be added?

[2]. I will change the tense. I do think her Jay-Z comments should be added to the controversy section as his appearance at the festival caused consternation in some quarters. I do not feel qualified to make that edit because I do not understand the context of the controversy not being from the U.K. As for the "punching incident" there is just not enough concrete evidence of her intent. I looked at it on youtube myself and I could not tell if it was from anger or just rough play. It is not as clear cut as Sid Vicious hitting a fan on the head with his guitar . I would wait on this Edkollin (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. First breaking news seems to rarely be complete. It really isn't clear from the video what happened, and my first reaction was that someone grabbed at her, she elbowed away, then went back. After that, she goes and drags what appears to be a security guard along with her, so no, it isn't obvious. Whether her remarks about Jay-Z are controversial or not will be determined. The article linked above also states she has emphysema, which isn't what the other reports I've read have said. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"Punch " update: Police have received no complaints and there will be no further investigation[3] so at this time it should not go in. Edkollin (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This still remains true despite another editor putting it in based on this cite [4]. As the fan quoted it the cite said "At the end of the day it is all part of being at the front and being pushed by thousands of people. It is all part of the Glastonbury experience". What it is not at this point is article worthy Edkollin (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Rock en Seine reference

Winehouse did not play Rock en Seine in 2007. I was there, she wasn't. Can someone who has editing privs change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.113.174 (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference is for 2008 festival. Section is in chronological order. The entire paragraph references summer of 2008 and there is a reliable cite that she is scheduled to perform at the festival Edkollin (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also that she could die within three months[7]. is not a sentence. I suppose there's an unnamed subject here, probably her father but I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.184.6 (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Cocking not cooking

"In reaction to the decision, former Scotland Yard commander John O’Connor said it is an "absolute scandal that nothing could be done" about Winehouse "cooking a snook at the law"

I believe the expression is cocking a snook not cooking a snook http://www.answers.com/topic/cocking-a-snook Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you'll note the discussion above, this is within a quote from the source, and it was presented therein as "cooking." Whether it was O'Connor's misuse or the source's, that's what we have to work with. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Should the word Cook be succeded by [sic]? Or is this simply too small of a nit to pick? Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. It's been mentioned twice now. Would you like to do that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bestival is not the same as Isle Of Wight Festival

I removed mention of the Isle Of Wight festival on 7th July. I see that User:Wildhartlivie has reverted it, citing "supported by reference". It's NOT.

The reference - http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKN1151444420080511 includes the following paragraph:

The south coast holiday island also hosts the 30,000-capacity dance/alternative festival Bestival, an offshoot of the Sunday Best label/club events firm headed by BBC Radio 1 DJ Rob Da Bank. The lineup for this year's sold-out dates (September 5-7) at Robin Hill Country Park includes My Bloody Valentine, Amy Winehouse and Underworld.

The Reuters report states that Amy Winehouse is scheduled to play Bestival; it does NOT state that she is or was due to play the Isle Of Wight Festival, which is a different event. and has already taken place, and at which Amy Winehouse did not perform. Therefore this reference should be used to refer to the Bestival appearance, and the Isle Of Wight information removed.

I've never knowingly had an edit reverted before, and since I realise that to repeat yesterday's edit without this explanation may lead to problems. So here is the justification, could someone please verify this summary and reapply the change. --Alasdairmacdonald (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to User:Wildhartlivie for correcting this.--195.152.161.5 (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bryan Adams

Should we mention that Bryan Adams wrote one of her songs<Bryan Adams --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed where in the article it says that. Otherwise, unless it was an unprecedented event, such as the only time Winehouse did a song written by someone else, or it was a huge hit, probably not. At some point, most singers do a song written by someone else. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

He did it when he invited Amy to his cabin for personal reasons. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Eviction

I put in a sentence or two about her neighboors tring to evict her and it was deleted because it was of probably not germane to her career. True or not it is very germane to her personal life. And we have a very extensive personal life section which by Wikipedia rules is the consensus until it not the consensus. I do not see this item is different then many of the items in the section. I found it notable that the local goverment was getting so involved. Edkollin (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I don't much agree with the statement "[it] is the consensus until it is not the consensus." Is this an implication that we need to request comments regarding consensus over whether Winehouse's possible eviction is encyclopedic and appropriate for the article? This is simply one of those items that really is inconsequential in regards to the overview of her life. She's only lived in the apartment for four months, according to other articles. I scanned news articles about other celebrities who have had eviction problems and then checked their articles. Maggie Gyllenhaal, Dane Cook, Corey Feldman, Robin Givens, and others have faced eviction in the last year and no one has included that in their articles. In proportion to the other issues in Winehouse's life, neighbors wanting her eviction is trivial, and I'm not so sure that this doesn't border on a WP:BLP violation, which says "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." When we start including news items that the neighbors are unhappy, that seems to be encroaching on her private life. Because a newspaper/website prints it doesn't mean it is suitable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia does have WP:NOT#NEWS, which I think is applicable in this case. There doesn't seem to be anything in the various news articles about this that state that neighbors going to the local council is an extraordinary occurrence, and actually, at least on the surface, appears to be something fairly routine: Go to the local council about the issue and they render advice. I'm not in the UK either, so I can't speak to whether it is notable in the UK, but at least in my hometown, the town council does sometimes involve itself in neighborhood issues. In any case, this is, in my view, trivial and doesn't stand to be germane to her career, or in the long term, her personal life, either. Lots of celebrities move around, have neighbor issues, and the like without it effecting the overall course of their career or public life. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxegen festival

Is it noteworthy that Amy couldn't stay in Irealnd for the Oxegen Festival 2008 as no hotel would agree to allow her to stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.221.196 (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse controversy

I am so tired of people mixing up Amy´s music and her behaviour. I am happy that the section controversy is separate from other sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.3.39 (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Genres

Folks, this genre switching needs to stop. Winehouse's musical style is a lot unique and borrows from a lot of genres, so everyone seems to hear something different. The allmusic article states that Frank was an amalgam of jazz, pop, soul, and hip-hop and then Back to Black "abandoned jazz, delving into the sounds of '50s/'60s-era girl group harmonies, rock & roll, and soul." Journalist, this is the source you added here. Your "so-called source" specifically says rock & roll was incorporated into the second album. XxJoshuaxX, not everything needs to be changed so quickly. Jamalar, please stop going around imposing your POV on musical genres of artists, quite often it's not so black and white.

For anyone, the way to sort out a difference of opinion is here, not over the article's edit summaries. If it doesn't stop, I'll request the page be protected from editing, open a request for comment and ask the entire Wikipedia community to weigh on to try to arrive at a consensus on what genres will and won't be included. Personally, I'd like to see a source for neosoul and contemporary jazz vs. older styles, since the one reference we have refers to old soul, jazz and R&B as her influences. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sunday Times article

I put a Sunday Times article in both the citations and External Link. The external link part was deleted because it is should not be in both. I understood that when I put in both but did so anyway because of several experiences I have had(not here) where information from an external link has been marked with a "citiation needed" warning or deleted for that reason forcing a revert.

I put several pieces of information related to Blake that has since been deleted such as thier prenuptual agreement that leaves him with none of her money and the fact that he has been mostly jobless. While I understand the delete and will not discuss it after this I put it in because A. Information about her wealth and what she has been paid has been accepted before. B. The descrepency of wealth between her and her husband became an issue in his legal case. Edkollin (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life typo

This line is not grammatically correct "Winehouse admitted she had been violent towards Fielder-Civil when she was been drinking"

Fixed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section trimming

The controversy section is not a mandatory section of bio articles. So, while it is certainly relevant to an article of a person so controversial, it is still a secondary topic. However, it currently dominates the article and, more distubringly, has become a clearinghouse of any comment that anyone has made about her. Opinions from random stars in interviews are not generally notable or reputable. Before adding a statement, each editor should ask why a reader should care, or even know, about each of the opinions stated here? If the comment is notable (eg. the comment affected legal proceedings or the receipt of a award) AND reputable (eg. from her dad, judge, attorney, etc...) it should be included. Otherwise, it's just high-profile gossip. I will begin trimming that section and bringing it more in line with WP policies. Additional discussion on individual portions is welcome below.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue whatsoever with trimming the bulk of this out. I do endeavor to remove the most extraneous and least directly related items, and lately I've thought it really needs reworked, but honestly, I haven't had the initiative to go ahead with it. Thanks for stepping in. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree on this point. Amy Winehouse has generated an unprecedented amount of comment from fellow musicians (as well as others) about her personal travails. Nothing in my forty years of following the news has even remotely resembled this phenomenon . So the fact the Controversy sections are not usually put in is irrelevant for this particular article. If I were to put in every comment a fellow musician made about her the article would be three times the size it is. Of course I am not advocating that but comments should be considered for this article if that person is an iconic or very popular musical figure has a point of view based on experience or is representative of what is being said.

I can not edit the article based on what readers want to read because I am not a mind reader.

I request that before gutting the section give us your proposed modified section and the reason for your changes Edkollin (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If I am going to request you go here before deleting things is fair to ask me to put things here before adding things to the controversy section.

"Sex Pistols lead singer John Lydon criticized Winehouse for imitating black music “in an idiotic way” and said she lacked talent." [5]. Of course Lydon is an iconic figure. The issue of white musicians using so called black styles has been a point of contention for decades. Edkollin (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that whether John Lydon is iconic or not is debatable. What I do see, by doing just a bit of googling, is that he's been quite busy lately thrashing young musicians, both verbally and physically (via his bodyguards). He's lashed out at Winehouse, Pete Doherty, Kele Okereke, Sting, and who knows how many others as he's attempting to revive a mostly dead music career, including appearing on I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here. Lydon's time as a possible music great passed a long time ago, and striking out at the now successful seems bitter and not so notable. Personally, what he's been saying sounds more like sour grapes and jealousy than it does anything newsworthy. This is the sort of thing that really isn't all that encyclopedic. The overriding concern is that Wikipedia isn't news nor a tabloid, which it how it often seems. That's my opinion.

Beyond that, the controversy section is prone to being given undue weight. Some of the content is now old news and does need to be pared. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So Far, the only person abusing verbally and physically is Amy Winehouse. She was cautionned for that. Talmmm (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

As for Lydon there really is little debate about the Sex Pistols importance to the history importance of rock music nor is Lydon’s attacks on other musicians being a part of that. Public Image Limited is credited as important force in the development of the postpunk genre. As for his motives in 1977 or 2008 again I am not a mind reader. But I can say if we are not to use quotes by people who might have a financial motive for such statements we would have to delete many quotes starting first with Winehouse’s spokespeople.

As for old material all cites in the Controversy with the exception of the first paragraph come from this year. Trimming could be done by consolidating statements where people are making similar points Edkollin (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the controversy section should be condescended. Whomever wants to take on that task can go for it because if I do it, I'll be bold and cut a LOT out which will inevitably anger someone. Personally, I think the section veers off a bit. The only quotes or criticisms that should stay in should be about Winehouse's alleged drug use and image being lauded because she's viewed as talented. I personally think that's why she's a controversial figure. I honestly don't see how her being voted as "Worst Dressed" is even worthy of being included. She's hardly notable for her fashion sense and honestly, did anyone expect Mr. Blackwell to applaud her beehive and filthy ballet slippers? Just about everyone who has an iota of fame has been asked about Winehouse because she's a slow motion trainwreck. People who aren't all that newsworthy nowadays (ahem...John Lydon) will take a chance to comment about her because it gets them the attention they're dying for. To be blunt, Lydon doesn't have a high opinion of anyone and I don't see how his opinion about her is at all notable. His place in rock & roll history has no bearing in this at all. Again, every person who mentions Winehouse or talks about her cannot and should not be noted here. Pinkadelica 19:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said every person and nothing like that has occurred in this section. Don't disagree as to why people are being asked about her but the fact is she is being asked about much more then others including Ms. Spears. Just because we may not like this situation is not a reason to ignore this phenomenon. The idea that because somebody's "notable contributions" occurred in the past means they are not article worthy is very very wrong. So what you are saying in the is if we are doing an article on opinions of some foreign policy issue Margaret Thatcher's opinions should not be in that article. As for Mr. Lydon to be blunt what I see is the reason he is not article worthy is because he is perceived to be a prick with an ulterior motives by the Wikipedia editors (for the record while Mr. Lydon is to put it mildly highly critical person he is not critical of everyone. At the time he praised a the Seattle grunge movement as has been very laudatory of Kate Bush). Getting back to the trimming issue even though it will never happen I will say what I said months ago because I am even more convinced of it now then at that time all of the non career stuff should be spun off into a sub article with only a summary here Edkollin (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How are Lydon's comments notable? He is one of about 5 billion celebrities and musicians who have commented on her. I keep up with Winehouse, and I didn't even hear about this remark. But for an opnion to be notable, it really has to make a ripple in the life of this artist. Two, how is this comment reputable? He isn't a music critic. His track record of being unduly critical probably further speaks against the dependability of his opinion.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 11:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a ripple effect on the life of the artist?. I have not seen it proved that any of the comments expert or not in this article has affected her life or career. Quite the contrary she seems to do what she pleases. I have already explained why Lydon rather then some other musicians should be quoted but you have intentionally or not shown me that Lydon is not the real issue here. It the belief that music critics have more expertise then people who actually do it for a living and are exposed to the "lifestyle" issues and experiences. That belief is completely wrong and elitist. But I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on all of this. The consensus is against me so you might as well just do what the hell you want with this section Edkollin (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

introduction

the list of prizes should not be in the introduction, but later on, IMHO Johncmullen1960 (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraphs should be a summary of the article itself, and the reason Winehouse is so notable is the quality of her music, for which she has been given multiple awards (they aren't prizes won in a sweepstakes or contest, they are primarily peer recognition accolades for high standards of work). If it is covered at any length in the article, then it should appear in the lead. The lead gives the awards the proper due weight they should. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is fairly common practice to list awards in the summary section Edkollin (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Years Active

Shouldn't Years Active start when she began her career as a solo artist, not when she released her first album? //Joke (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Health Report

The notion that Amy had developed even EARLY "emphysema" was quickly debunked by medical authorities. Her dad was apparently over-reacting and diagnosing things on his own. She has health problems, but emphysema and other forms of COPD take years, decades, usually, of heaving smoking, usually tobacco products. That heavy use of crack tends to kill in other ways a lot sooner than COPD! I deleted the misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.5 (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Ok I tried to, but it's locked. The information is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.5 (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are misreading what the article says, there is no misinformation. It reports specifically what Winehouse's publicist said, which is that she has early signs of what could lead to emphysema. It does not include her father's early report, but only what he said about her lung capacity and physician warnings about her habits, and what Winehouse herself said about it. Those statements are not presented as physician reports, but from those who are directly concerned. Having said that, it's not true that such conditions develop only after years of smoking. There are those whose lungs are compromised from other issues and develop problems much sooner than others. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a physician myself, I can tell you that there is no way Amy's lungs are operating at 70%. She's too young, she doesn't suffer from, say cystic fibrosis (which is NOT emphysema anyway) and that represents nearly 1/3 loss of capacity! Why should we quote the medical opinions of her publicist and dad, just because the magazines did? She might have blown into an incentive spirometer once at the behest of a nurse or respiratory therapist and scored a "70" with poor effort (she wasn't feeling well, after all...) and her dad was there to see it or someone told him, but that's a huge difference than saying that 30% of the 300 million alveoli in her lungs are destroyed (that's what emphysema is, acquired destruction of lung tissue). It was sensationalistic crap that was actually retracted by other news stories--specificially retracted. Saying continued crack use COULD lead to "EARLY" emphysema is like saying driving a car COULD result in a NEAR-FATAL car wreck someday. Useless information that doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article for one, and in practice, irrelevant to the health of a 25 year old. COPD is not what she has to worry about, unless she continues to smoke cigarrettes, a pack or more a day, for the next 15-20 years. If not technically incorrect, the information is worthless and misleading. My two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.6 (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to your medical education and knowledge, and I am not doubting it or disputing your conclusions, we can only include what is sourcable and there are no reliably published sources that discuss Winehouse's medical reports. We can only present what is citable, and that is all. We aren't quoting medical opinions of these people, we're quoting press statements by them. To draw conclusions based on your medical training falls under the realm of original research. Be that as it may, I'm willing to remove the quotes from her father, but the reliably sourced press statement from her publicist and from Winehouse are relevant and not medical opinions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not "original research" it's basic medical knowledge (see next section). Any medical student knows it, and there are literally thousands of potential sources, starting with your basic medical textbooks (all of them). Regardless, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH AMY WINEHOUSE'S LUNGS; so why confuse the issue and even mention it? Misleading. The publicist was addressing the dad's ill-informed statements, trying to undo them. Why include these statements, if not the original, provoking statements? To me, that represents an even greater error in editing, because now you have a "credible" source (her publicist, right!) expounding upon a non-subject, rather than merely addressing a needless controversy. But, whatever; I've made my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.14.5 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a long debate either, but there are some Wikipedia policy issues that must be considered in this. By definition, what you are proposing regarding this is synthesis, taking information from one source (in this case, public statements by two persons speaking on behalf of Winehouse, as well as Winehouse herself) and information from another source (any medical student knows it and thousands of sources including medical textbooks) and implying a conclusion (there's nothing wrong with her lungs). The public statements have been made, her hospitalization and issues surrounding it are widely published and relevant to the Winehouse article, it's not a non-subject. It's beyond the scope of this article and consists of original reseach as it is defined by Wikipedia, to debunk what has been reported. And again, no disrespect to your education, but you have not examined Amy Winehouse, so it is also beyond your ability to say definitively that there is nothing wrong with her lungs. All you can say is that based on what has been reported, it is your opinion that there is nothing wrong. That's also not allowed on Wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Unless your medical opinion is published in a reliable source, it can't be used to establish facts in the article. (Also please note that entries on talk page discussions must be signed by the poster by typing four tildes). Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As the non medical expert who wrote a lot of that section you have run into the reason why while Wikipedia should be the first place to look in a research project it should never be the last. The strict rules means incomplete information. It means accurate and relevant information is left out most times. Most times there rules mean the information is accurate but in cases where the best we can get is second or third hand sources especially on a subject that requires expertise accuracy as you have proved is problematic. In a perfect world you would have a direct quote from the physician that examined her. If we would go by the a first person expert sourcing rule in this case the most that we could write that she was hospitalized which would be meaningless piece of information for a career changing event. After this summer it was announced she will not be touring for the foreseeable future because of something related to the hospital visit. So I got quotes from heads of the American and British lung foundations who were discussing her case. They were like you experts who have not examined her. I quoted the non medical sources whom it it be very logical to assume would have discussed her case with the physicians who are treating her but who may not have understood what they were being told. If you have a better way to write this within the rules please feel free here to show us. Edkollin (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? I understand the rules and protocols of Wikipedia, but there's no need to lower your standards so egregiously. When something flies in the face of established scientific knowledge (even if it is relatively esoteric, as in the case of the "disputed" medical information in question, which is not disputed at all)Wikipedia shouldn't ignore that.

If an article about a celebrity mentioned the celebrity's experience with or interest in, say, astronomy, and quoted either the celebrity or a fan or even a certified astrophysicist and made some preposterous statement that would be universally rejected by any qualified physicist, and the statement is pointed out and is seen to be patently false--or even, as in this case, probably grossly inaccurate, as you seem to be conceding--then why on earth would you, as editors, leave it in? Even the possibility of a statement being really, really misleading should exclude it from an encyclopedic article. You rule things in, not out! Leaving something in until it is categorically, absolutely proved to be nonsense is irresponsible.

And in THIS case, you have ample evidence to assume its bad information from the get-go: you have her dad speaking out of turn, saying things that even he quickly admits were incorrect, and then you have a publicist clarifying the dad's mistatements with her own, non-expert spin, and you end up with the nonsense about having "something" which could "lead to" the "early stages" of emphysema (like what, HAVING LUNGS, for instance? Because the same could be said for that.)

You are right, I did not examine her, so I can only say that it is virtually impossible for her to have COPD at her age and with her history. I can't say it is entirely impossible, but it's so unlikely that it is practically impossible. I.e., impossible.

But here's the core of my argument: the only reason that we are even debating whether or not she has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is because her DAD said she had it and the one thing we are absolutely certain of is that he misspoke! So apart from requiring a minor medical miracle to be even remotely the case, there's no reason to even suspect it is, other than quoting someone who admittedly had no idea what he was talking about.

WHY QUOTE SUCH A SOURCE? I'm not saying "write it this way," I'm saying LEAVE IT OUT. It's misleading. And even if I can't prove to you that she is no different than millions of others in her situation (and no doubt healthier than millions more with respect to her lung capacity), has enough doubt not been raised in your minds to warrant leaving it out for now, unless you can come up with some convincing evidence that rules COPD back in, something more than dad saying (to paraphrase): "She doesn't have emphysema...I said she did, but she doesn't...but she could DEVELOP emphysema, like anybody else could, if she keeps abusing her lungs..." Ridiculous.

If the point is that she is harming her own health by smoking crack...DUH! But again, crack addicts who perish from their disease die of heart attacks, strokes, seizures, psychotic behavior, murder, infectious disease, etc., etc., NOT, by and large, pulmonary illnesses directly related to the damage caused by smoking itself.

And finally, the news that you are technically correctly citing is that she was mistakenly diagnosed with emphysema by her dad, who then retracted what he had to say. That's the newsworthy item in all that, not that there is actually something quantifiably wrong with her lungs. No credible medical source has EVER said that, period. The quotes are accurate, but one is left with the highly misleading notion that Amy has in some way specifically harmed her lungs which, again, there is no reason to believe and every reason to doubt, given the pathophysiology and epidemiology of COPD.

It would be poor (and rather obstinate) journalism to insist upon leaving those clearly unsubstantiated statements in at this point, based on the remote possibility that they might NOT be totally untrue.

168.38.49.6 (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Apriluno (and that really is the last from me on this topic)  :)

I am not taking the statements out but have reworded things a bit. All mention of diagnosis have been changed to stated or claimed. In addition I did change spokesperson to publicist and noted that the publicist claimed the father misspoke. At some point we have to entrust the readers to make judgments as to accuracy. Edkollin (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What's Really Wrong With Amy's Lungs?

Dad later told BBC Radio 1, "Amy really hasn't got emphysema, there's traces of emphysema. Obviously, if she doesn't quit smoking, it's going to get worse, like everyone else ... with patience her lungs will recover completely." Even he probably has no idea what he means by “traces of emphysema.”

Emphysema is a clinical condition; either you have it, or you don’t...kind of like pregnancy. There are no “traces” and what “traces” is he talking about, anyway? Those “nodules around the chest and dark marks”? Sounds ominous, but doesn’t sound like emphysema. The damage is either extensive and severe enough to cause a clinical syndrome, or it isn’t, and once you’ve destroyed enough alveoli to be symptomatic, you don’t regrow new alveoli; you don’t “recover” lost lung capacity at all, much less “completely.”

Ergo, whatever is apparently wrong with her lungs now (NOTHING, which is my point) is not emphysema, “early emphysema” (do they mean “mild” emphysema, because she doesn’t have that, either) or anything that could or will lead to actual emphysema later…much later. COPD stands for CHRONIC obstructive pulmonary disease. That means 1) emphysema and 2) chronic bronchitis, which are two distinct pathophysiologies which nonetheless co-occur to one extent or another, because they are caused by the same thing: lifestyle lung abuse. In this regard she IS “like everyone else”, so why mention it?

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not doubting she’ll get it, if she lives that long, but she’s also at risk for osteoporosis, eventually. But her dad isn’t warning her to drink less booze and more milk to avoid worsening the pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-pre-osteoporotic condition of her 25 year old bones, is he? I don’t mean to be a sarcastic arse, but saying she has any degree of “early” (mild) emphysema or the beginnings of the beginnings of it is just as ridiculous as the bone example, if not as obvious to the layperson. It’s foolish. You have to be OLD to get osteo; you have to at least be middle aged to get COPD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.6 (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Typo

Her dad said that she WOULD be performing until 5th September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.90.208 (talk • contribs)

Dead Citation Links

Most of the citation links are dead. All sources sited from the Associated Press cannot be found. Do these need to be removed? Matthew Gibbons (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, WP:Dead external links and WP:DEADREF cover this and there are procedures to deal with them. Someone will work on them as they have time. If you want to work on that, read these guidelines for dealing with them. Otherwise, removing them will leave the article with unsourced content. I only see nine dead links out of 159 though. This is what will happen when someone uses an AP story as it appears on Google news or Yahoo, since it deprecates after a few days. Thanks for the note. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have taken care of some of them. It is very bad for Wikipedia that AP stories go away. In the United States many reporters have been fired and most newspapers are relying exclusivly on Associated Press reporting for national,international and entertainment stories Edkollin (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

AP articles don't necessarily go away. I found dead links while running the Checklinks tool, which does offer some alternatives to replace dead links with accurate ones. It doesn't offer alternatives to AP stories posted through Google or Yahoo, which do expire. Thus, linking to those stories should probably be avoided. However, sometimes, these same stories are picked up and covered in newspapers and are available online. One option, before removing links is to run a search for the article's title, sometimes you can find the same story elsewhere and can replace the link. Both the guideline links above cover procedures for fixing dead links. On the other hand, if a dead link is only one of several citations for the same thing, it can be comfortably removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You Edkollin (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dap Kings

i have removed (from the 'early career' section)

Winehouse hired New York singer Sharon Jones's longtime band, the Dap-Kings to back her up in the studio and on tour, giving the group its first real taste of the limelight.

1. The Dap kings worked first 'famously' with Mark Ronson on (throughout) his 2nd album. This was their first 'limelight'. 2. Mark, producing Back To Black, brought in the dap kings again. 3. Back to black.. her 2nd (and latest) album. not early career!.

I have to ask why you didn't revise the statement or move it to the appropriate section, rather than just chuck it?? Taking it out completely isn't productive. Beyond that, perhaps correct the New York Times, since the statement is sourced. Famously would be a relative term, as would limelight. For the moment, I'm returning it, and opening it up for discussion here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Race

I know this isn't exactly important but what race is Amy Winehouse? I know she's British but her skin tone looks Latino?--RandomEnigma (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

She is Jewish. People with roots in the Mediterranean region such as Italians are of the white race but have somewhat darker skin then those with roots in Northern Europe. Also remember that most photographs of her are taken late at night. Edkollin (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Brain damage from marijuana claims

Fox news http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414542,00.html and The Sun http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1051250/Amy-Winehouse-brain-damage-drug-overdoses.html (daily mail was reporting for The Sun) claimed some unnamed doctors and medics claim she got brain damage from overdosing on marijuana due to smoking an "inhuman" amount. I discussed it on an offsite forum, and I discussed it at Talk:Cannabis (drug), and people seem to find that these news companies were printing false information about marijuana causing brain damage so I figured I'd point it out here if it ever is brought up in the future. William Ortiz (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is tabloid reporting even if mainstream press is reprinting it therefore it is unusable Edkollin (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kid Rock

I put this paragraph in and it was deleted it was deleted it should not have been.

American rock /rap singer Kid Rock said listening to Back to Black inspired him to ""go through all my old Stax and Motown records and try to "add a little of that flavour to my music".

Here you had a direct quote from a popular musician not of Winehouse's genre saying Winehouse was influencing him. We had a thread about this before but I still believe the continuing consensus against either acknowledging or seeing the importance of her musical influence remains a grave disservice to our readers. Many other articles about musicians do this. Edkollin (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

At present, what we have is your view that this is a disservice vs. the views of the rest of the Wikipedia editors who have weighed in on this. I'm not sure why it has to be a debate every time someone changes or removes something you've added. This time, it was a different editor who made that edit. I'd add a further comment that Kid Rock has made a career out of borrowing from other musicians and one more doesn't make it unique for him. Aside from that, the goal of all WP articles is to eventually achieve featured article status. I looked at five current featured articles about musicians - Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, Gwen Stefani, Phil Collins and Bob Dylan. The first four comprehensively cover the careers of the subjects, including collaborations with other artists. They have no mention of comments made about them by their peers. Only Dylan's makes mention of this at all - and that is, after all, Bob Dylan, whose article could be rife with influential references. By the way, the peers whose comment were included were George Harrison, who later is discussed in regard to collaborating with Dylan, and a very brief one by Bruce Springsteen, which was specific to a landmark recording (Like a Rolling Stone) and the musicality of the song and to Dylan's voice in specific. Those comments are included in retrospect, many, many years after they were made and the notability of the comments have become apparent. The point of all this is that I'm sure there are articles out there that include such references, but the articles that have reached near-perfection do not, with the exception of the rare very influential, and that only in historical perspective. The article is about Amy Winehouse, not about Kid Rock thinking she's got a sound he wants to copy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the delete was not made made by you that is why I called it a consensus against my viewpoint. I do not edit here with the goal of winning some sort of Wikipidia award but to hopefully accurately inform readers. I do disagree that one has to wait a long period of time in the pop music field to see influence but I can understand why one would disagree with that. The consensus here against this sort of thing is not common in the articles I have edited or looked at. While Phil Collins does not have a legacy paragraph Genesis does, as does Kate Bush (a featured article last year). These articles list a bunch of groups that cite influences. The Libertines article is about a more recent group that has a briefer mention of influence. Edkollin (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Future recordings questions

I noticed there are several entries in the Future recordings section that seem to basically be old news, and I wonder how much of this is just talk that is no longer relevant, since none of the older entries seem to have come to fruition.

• After a surprise duet with Prince at the end of a London appearance, he proposed that she fly to his Minnesota home to work on a musical collaboration.

This is nearly a year old now and has come to nothing. Does this need to remain in the article?

• Meanwhile, George Michael wrote a song with which he wants to duet with Winehouse. Michael said "Amy is the best female vocalist I have ever heard in my entire career, as well as one of the best writers."

Another entry nearly a year old that has come to nothing.

• The singer expressed interest in working with Damian Marley, son of reggae legend Bob Marley, in Jamaica.

Has this happened or was it just a passing fancy of Winehouse's?

• Pete Doherty said that Babyshambles had begun collaborating with the singer on a song entitled "You Hurt the Ones You Love". In May 2008, Doherty announced that he will duet with Winehouse on a track for the forthcoming Babyshambles album. Winehouse is writing the song with Babyshambles guitarist Mick Whitnall. In addition Doherty said that Winehouse was "recording loads of new stuff" and that he is taking a "back seat" in the collaboration process.

This seems to be contradicted by other entries in the article that state Winehouse is not doing much in the way of recording, so was this puffery on Doherty's account? Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything but the Babyshambles should come out. Barring any developments the Babyshambles should stay in until the end of the year. The Babyshambles are different in three ways from the others. The obvious is it the information is still relatively new. The other cases are a wish list while Doherty is quoted. It was Universal Music that reported she was doing nothing in regards to a new album. Winehouse has talked about recording a "alternative" Bond Theme. It is theoretically possible that Winehouse might be recording material not at Universal's studio. It is has been often been reported that there is at least a friendly relationship between the between Winehouse and Doherty. I have not seen any reporting that Winehouse has any type of continual relationship with Prince or any relationship at all with the other two. If this is deleted because the editors think Doherty is making it up it would be another example of this article being affected by editors reading people minds. Edkollin (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

These questions were posed in good faith based on what seems to be iffy-ness in the statements, and I would expect a good faith answer. No one is trying to read anyone's mind and honestly the statement that the article has been affected by editors reading someone's mind is not a good faith comment. The question was whether it was puffery, which was meant as perhaps exaggerating or overstating the situation, no one was conjecting that Doherty made it up. If there is doubt about the Universal Studio report that she's not been recording, then why would it be quoted in the article? In any case, there's no reason for contentiousness in response to good faith questions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it a good situation when the accuracy of seemingly most quotes made by artists recently are always questioned. It can be called it intentionally reviving a career,making things up or enhancing it does not matter. It is possible to be not be in near a studio whist collaborating. If she was not collaborating for a couple of months or so because she was touring as the article implied does mean the statement she is collaborating is false (especially for a future recordings section). I will reword it to be overly cautious. If I see a pattern that is bothering me and do not point it out that is not good faith on my part. You saw a pattern that you did not like and pointed it out (my objecting to every deletion). I did not take that as bad faith on your part. If I said you are intentionally doing so or so for an agenda that is bad faith. Let me make clear here that I believe your objective here is as you stated to achieve featured article status. Edkollin (talk)

Back to topic I said barring any new developments the Babyshambles collaboration material should stay in until the end of the year There are reports not quite article ready at this point in my view that Winehouse is to move away from London to a rural locale to help her rehabilitation. Mitch has confirmed a move but the details are tabloid reporting including a report that she will have a recording studio there. If these reports pan out I would be in favor of removing the Babyshambles section. Edkollin (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Doherty has now been quoted as saying the collaboration have been scrapped[6]. Based on this I an deleting that part. I will delete the whole section in a few days barring objections Edkollin (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

That works. I was waiting to see if anyone else had an opinion on this. One person who is interested in the article is unavailable due to weather. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean we agree on something(LOL) Edkollin (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Um...wait a minute. Do you want me to rethink it?  :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That is up to you.. On a more serious note if the interested editor you speak of if was affected by Hurricane Ike unfortunately it might be a month or so before that person gets his/her power back and as much as we feel sorry for those people it might not be in the best interests of the article to wait that long. Edkollin (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being presumptious, I think she'd agree. If not, whenever she does get back to the internet, she can raise objections, though I doubt it. I'd say go ahead. I'm a bit concerned, they stayed home. I'm sure I'll hear something soon. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Will give it a few more days. What do we do with The Times report about a her inactivity and that it would be a year before a new album could be released?? Edkollin (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is some content in that section that is still viable. Maybe the section could be renamed to "Current projects" or "Upcoming projects"? I'd favor the former. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Edkollin (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is WAY too long

There are more notable musicians and artists who have less prominant wikipedias, why does Amy 'crackwhore' Winehouse get a choc-a-block page? Most of the things seem irrelevant anyways. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.46.83 (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Winehouse's article is edited by interested editors, there is a lot of information out there to include. If you have specific contributions regarding the page, please, by all means, bring them up. If this is just your editorial opinion, please know that this page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not your personal opinion of her as a person. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Winehouse a Manic Depressive

She is a self professed Manic Depressive. When I find the video on youtube I will include a link to it but I don't understand why most people don't know of this. I feel its a key part of why her life is falling apart. People who are bipolar peak in highs and lows when they are in their mid twenties and manic or depressive trips can be heightened when triggered by emotionally altering situations. Britney Spears is also Bipolar which her mother has attested to and hers was likely brought on by postpartum depression. She is getting over that though because her emotions have leveled out to a degree which have made her stable. Winehouse on the other hand cannot control her manic behavior or depressive angst because she is addicted to both hard core drugs. Not just any old drugs though, but extreme uppers and downers such as heroin, crack, cocaine, alcohol and pot. She once OD'd on heroin, coke, extasy, alcohol, ketamine and possibly pot and crystal meth? WTF who does that! SHe is obviously in dire need of a new drug. I know this sounds ludicrous but I think its time for her to see a psychiatrist and get perscribed some lithium or some other drug for Bipolar disorder to save her life. It could really be the only way. My father is bipolar so I know —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownskin1 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your opinion. The problem is, we aren't in the business of analyzing someone's behavior and drawing conclusions, nor are we in the business of publishing something we can't source. But, thanks again. If you're just posting to express your opinion, please be aware this board is for discussing improvements to the article and not Winehouse in general. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In fairness there has been a lot of speculation similar to this line of thinking but unless a reliable medical source agrees or it is officially announced that she has been diagnosed it is not going in the article Edkollin (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC).

"Signature" beehive?

No. That was already done by the girl groups of the '60s, especially the Ronettes. Do your homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.194.17 (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That has little to do with Winehouse resurrecting and it becoming her signature beehive now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It has everything to do with her signature beehive because that comment implies she was the first to wear her hair that way. You're giving her credit for something she was not even the first in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.194.17 (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Her distinctive style, most notably her signature beehive hairstyle, has spawned imitators[citation needed] and been the muse for fashion designers such as Karl Lagerfeld." What imitators? She's imitating people like the Ronettes and Dusty Springfield and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.194.17 (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick Google around shows plenty of sources for the "signature beehive", and I'm not sure she has to be the first to wear one. for example, Morecambe and Wise were not the first to sing "Bring me Sunshine", although it was their signature song. I find no support for the contention that the beehive has actually influenced anyone else, although her having it may have revived the style. As usual, this would need a reliable source. --Rodhullandemu 15:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Death

Is there a way to make a template to easily change from the present tense to past tense after she dies later this year? --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's worry about that if it happens. Meanwhile, if she should die in suspicious circumstances, I'd guess your name would be near the top of the list of suspects. --Rodhullandemu 11:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)