Talk:Lily Allen

Godfather

It is innaccurate to say Joe Strummer was her Godfather - he was not —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whisky2 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Biography Edkollin (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Telegraph says "Godfather" was a nickname not literally true. So will change article

Reported fling

On December 23, 2008 I put in an entry where Allen is quoted as saying her life has changed and she is eating at posh places with older people and talking art. Later tabloid reporting said she was in a relationship with a 45 year old art dealer. I did not enter it as it was tabloid reporting but put it in in when The Telegraph reported it. Now the tabloids are reporting the relationship is over. Although tabloid reporting I felt it raised enough doubts as to the truth of both the statement that she was going out with this person and is currently eating at posh places with older people talking art that I deleted both lines. I do not feel a one month fling even if confirmed is encyclopedic unless Allen or other reliable sources say differently. Edkollin (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Lily-related article up for deletion

Just incase anybody is interested - [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Allen's 10 Best of British]. Dalejenkins | 22:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Her comments on her wikipedia article

In a NYTimes interview, she commented on some inaccuracies in her Wikipedia biography. I think these have now been addressed. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I expect Jimbo must have a big smile on his face. I know when I was reading the NY Times article, I thought, hooboy, another Wikipedia BLP is gonna be shown to be completely full of crap. She seems to have thought the article was mostly accurate except at the end. --C S (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough Allen's official webpage has a link to this article Edkollin (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Music tour with Natalie Portman's Shaved Head

As many probably know, in Lily Allen's upcoming tour in April, she will be bringing along a band from Seattle "Natalie Portman's Shaved Head" the current wikipedia article shows a link to "Natalie Portman" which doesn't relate to the topic at all. This needs to be fixed to show a link to "Natalie Portman's Shaved Head" not just "Natalie Portman". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.64.225 (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 06:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Record label

I'm pretty sure she is signed with Parlophone, not Regal.

Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.95.132 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?

In the childhood section:

While not literally true, Strummer was close to and mentored Allen.

Umm, what? Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The late Clash guitarist Joe Strummer is also referred to as a godparent. While not literally true, Strummer was close to and mentored Allen.

Joe Strummer was not Allen's legal Godfather. Allen however called him that because Strummer was close to and mentored Allen. Mentoring refers to a more experienced person guiding or helping a less experienced person on a somewhat continual basis about professional matter mixed in with some element of personal mattes. The cite details how Strummer “mentored” Allen with her music.

I understand why Allen would call Strummer her “Godfather”. When I was a kid my parents were very close friends with another couple. The families visited each other weekly. I referred to them as “Uncle” and “Aunt” and their children as "cousins" even though they were not literally members of my family. I have heard of other people doing this. I have no idea how widespread this custom is. I can see why people who have not done this would find the concept incomprehensible. Edkollin (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that is a really bad place for a full stop then. As it is, the sentence is saying that Allen and Strummer were not close. Perhaps we should say:

The late Clash guitarist Joe Strummer was close to and mentored Allen (for how long or during what period?), and although Strummer is not officially a godparent of Allen, she (anyone else?) also refers to him as a godparent.

Or something similar? Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is what the cite said.

Behind her, leaning against a wall by the kitchen sink, is a black-and-white photograph of Joe Strummer. Strummer is often referred to as her godfather – this wasn’t literally true but she has fond memories of him, particularly of the week and a half they would spend together each year at Glastonbury as part of a regular collective centred on Strummer and her father. She says that his musical past only really came into focus for her after he died. 'He was just great. I remember once when I was 14 or 15 I said I wanted to go up and meet some friends of mine in the travellers field and he said, “I’ll walk up there with you”, and we stayed up there for two days, just me and him. He was the person that would bring the sound system with all the good music and he’d put all the flags up, and get the hay bales in. He had a thing about him where he could be really out of his mind but still really cool… I don’t actually like going to Glastonbury now that he’s gone, because he’s actually the one thing that held all of that stuff together and made it nice. Rather than just a bunch of drug addicts.’ Edkollin (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias, biographies, and rational editing

Folks - the principle to observe here is that not everything that is known must be in the article. The object of the article is to be a useful and encyclopedic biographical reference; that doesn't mean including every sordid detail of her life ever reported or misreported in the global press. Verifiability is not the only test for inclusion, particularly on a BLP, and before any of the so called "personal life" information is added we should discuss here the appropriate level of personal trivia that should be included. Including what was essentially a list of unfavorably covered events violates the principle of undue weight, and overall results in a low-quality article. Avruch ^T 01:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved deleted section here for easy reference and possible partial restoration. I tried with the references because at some point sourcing should also become part of the discussion. But a lot of them were defined in other sections. Edkollin (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to know where to start so I will start with the most general concept. A personal life section with "tabloid" type stuff should be included as to be consistent with other articles about people whom at least part of their notoriety comes from their "tabloid" image. I don't know your views but I do understand that there are a large school of Wikipedia editors who want an online version of a 1950's encyclopedia article. Another words the year someone is was born, where they grew up, parents occupation, Marriage if that occurs and date of death.

If we decide against the bare bones model at the very least events that have affected her career. That would probably include her miscarriage, dealings with the paparazzi and visa issues. Consideration should be given to include major personal problems/issues like the suicide attempt. Many bio articles discuss people someone had been "linked with". I in no way favor including that type of material.

At this point we a relatively consistent with other bio articles. Other articles of should be used as a guideline but we are not bound by them. If the unfortunate consensus is reached that we should use the 1950's model so be it. But as I am sure you have guessed I feel the exact opposite especially in Lily Allen's case. We are dealing with a different phenomenon in this article. Ms. Allen publicly discusses highly personal issues probably in unprecedented detail. The BLP guidelines as I understand it were written to prevent Wikipedia from being sued. Has Wikipedia been sued or has a suit against Wikipedia even come close to being successful?. I am not a lawyer but I fail to see how Allen's own words can be used to sue Wikipedia for libel. If Allen is known for this at least some examples of this should be printed.

I write here to inform with as accurate material as possible readers. I feel I would be failing in that mission I look to exclude material instead of looking at ways to include material. What is so wrong about letting readers decide what type of material they want to read.? The attitude of tell them to go elsewhere if they don’t like it will lead them material more likely to be inaccurate.

But we and our reliable sources do get it wrong. When I started editing I had it hammered into my head over and over again that what separated reliable sources is that they print corrections. You did not like me using Allen to correct errors so suggest a better way.

I suggest until the matter is decided we put it the deleted section back until a consensus is reached. As hard as it might be to believe based on the above I have on occasion deleted sections (usually for lack of citing). But I do give very ample warning before I take action. It has been my experience that when article editors hard work however misguided is regularly deleted without warning or discussion articles stagnate and attempts at talk pages discussion result in little or no responses. 09:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we can come to some middle ground between including the entire spectrum of media reports and a bare bones "1950s style encyclopedia article" (I'm not sure what that would be, really, anyway). Our objective should be a complete but not needlessly exhaustive biographical treatment -- clearly we can't do that without some reference to the media controversy that swirls around her, but I think we can describe that in prose without turning it into the list of scandals written above.

In normal circumstances, I'd agree that we should leave the text in the article while its debated. But this is a BLP, one that has been criticized already by the subject in the press, and we should aim higher. I'd like to see everything above condensed and mixed with other, non-scandalous elements of her personal life - perhaps into as little as two paragraphs. I'll have a go at it later today or tomorrow if you haven't proposed one before then.

As for the purpose of BLP... The policy is connected to the threat of lawsuits, sure. But the Foundation has a pretty solid immunity from most content-related lawsuits, so the threat of losing a lawsuit is really not the major motivator at this point. I'm happy to get into a debate about what the true purpose of the BLP policy is and why its important, but I'm not sure this is the right place. The policy itself goes into some detail explaining its philosophical basis, and the talkpage archives (as well as archives of various proposals and related discussions linked to from the WT:BLP archives) hold a lot of insight as well. Avruch ^T 13:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary is a good idea. We did that with the public persona awhile back. A summary of the reasoning for BLP would be welcome as would specifics of why Lily Allen's own words would violate it as it is important to this discussion. Edkollin (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving a a discussion a few hours after it began that is an intimidating gesture of bad faith Edkollin (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't my intent - while the box says "archived" that is just the default. I'll replace the hat/hab with subst'd templates and change the wording. I just put the article content in a collapse box to make the discussion portion of the section easier to follow; the discussion itself was outside the box. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Avruch ^T 15:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem Edkollin (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Edkollin, the information you posted was wholly false. You breached WP:BLPs duty of care. It was libelous. Leaving the information in place and adding a correction is a breach of WP:BLP, as is restoring it after I removed it, as is publishing it on this talk page. Given this, please justify the first paragraph of your original edit [1] -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The information in the first paragraph [2] was discussed by Lily Allen herself in an interview with a reliable publication Lily Allen: 'I'm not the show-off you think' The Observer Music Monthly 7 December, 2008. Printing "embarrassing" information by itself does not violate WP:BLP. If Allen wanted privacy in these matters she should not have blogged about them or discussed them in a newspaper. You did not ask but I should explain the two Wikipedia items she disputed. I put in an item about an illness because The Australian Broadcast Corporation supposedly a reliable source published an article where somebody they claimed was Allen's mother was discussing her daughters illness.Kawasaki disease genes identified Australian Broadcast Company 9 January, 2009. Claiming Allen had an illness was wrong but it was not defamatory or libelous. People get sick as infants and later in life. As for the paintings that was sloppy editing on my part. The Telegraph a reliable source did claim she bought one of the items and Allen was quoted as saying she was looking to fill her bedroom with art in her new house and that she owned the other piece of art in question. It did not say those pieces were in her bedroom. Lily Allen seeking solace in retail therapy Telegraph 17 April, 2008 The information printed while incorrect is hardly libelous in fact it speaks well of her. Why is printing corrections in The New York Times considered responsible journalism but when done in Wikipedia it is libelous?. Because that is how some editors interpret the BLP guideline. In fact the WP:BLP article does not address corrections nor does it address the matter of a person publicly discussing so called embarrassing matters. Edkollin (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"The information in the first paragraph [3] was discussed by Lily Allen herself in an interview with a reliable publication Lily Allen: 'I'm not the show-off you think' The Observer Music Monthly 7 December, 2008. " Having just wasted my time reading, no it wasn't. As I said I was referring first paragraph of your original edit [4].

"You did not ask but I should explain the two Wikipedia items she disputed." Wrong, I did ask.

"I put in an item about an illness because The Australian Broadcast Corporation supposedly a reliable source published an article where somebody they claimed was Allen's mother was discussing her daughters illness.[5]." This is the information I was referring to. You've again failed to justify it and have repeated the libel and breached WP:BLP policy. Examine the article with more care, and then describe how it is connected to the subject of this article. Then describe how your edit satisfies WP:BLPs "Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so" and "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page."

The other entries which you've written about have nothing to do with the issue I have raised. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I wrote all of that material at various times I did not understanding what you meant by "original edit". If you ask me explain my actions I have to refer to the material involved in order to do so. I DID NOT violate the WP:BLP the WP:BLP does not cover these two situations. The BLP guidelines ask you to double check to make sure your sources are considered reliable. The BLP does not prohibit negative information and allows usage of the quotes by the subject of the article but it does not refer to these two exact situations. The first subject I believed to be true because it came from what is considered a reliable source. If true would have been major event in her life and thus encyclopedic. The second subject shows a positive side to Ms. Allen contrary to the usual depictions of her so I felt it would help with the neutrality of the article. Repeating false information when stating it is false as I have done is clearly not libelous or unethical. It is unethical to print false information and NOT correct it. Since you are not a mind reader you have no idea what I considered or did not consider. I most certainly did consider the legal and ethical implications at the time and decided that there was not a problem. It is your prerogative to profoundly disagree with the conclusions I reached. It is my prerogative to believe you have violated WP:GOODFAITH by repeatably accusing me of a crime. Although it is considered good form I was I was not required to explain anything and am certainly not required to answer to what is I believe is becoming dangerously close to a trail like cross examination. Edkollin (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"If you ask me explain my actions I have to refer to the material involved in order to do so." That's what I'm asking you to do. The ABC article you use as justification is 28 lines long and it's a matter of looking at the 5 sentences which refer to Allen. In the circumstances, I fail to understand why you haven't examined it - please explain. This issue really is very simple - I'm giving you every opportunity to correct the damage that you've caused. Please stop obfuscating the issue by referring to other issues. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, lets all calm down. What we should simply do on these couple of disputed points on frankly trivial details is exclude them (such as this Kawasaki disease or whatever it is). Lily has said in interviews that it's all false, so it should stay out. rootology (C)(T) 16:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm thank you. Far from being trivial, libeling someone (including repeating a libel) is a serious act, indeed the subject of the article, Allen, has referred to this articles defamatory content, indicating to me that harm has been caused. Needless to say that this is also a breach of Wikipedias WP:BLP policy. Because I think it's important for editors to put right any damage they cause, I'm giving Edkollin every opportunity to understand and remove the libel using the WP:oversight process. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the same page as you, and interested in the subject's (Lily Allen's) protection here under BLP. Even if the little factoids were true, they're trivial at best, since she's repeatedly said they're false in reliable sources that have backed her up on that--like the NY Times--we can't say that junk. That was my point. rootology (C)(T) 16:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't forgotten about this - just got a bit busier than I expected. I think we should let go of the accusations about past history, for the moment; the object is to get the article to a good place, and come to some agreement on what of the removed text should be restored and in what fashion. Libel is a particularly harsh word that should be avoided for a variety of good reasons. I'll come up with some proposed text for the media interaction stuff this weekend, promise. Feel free to preempt me, however. Avruch ^T 16:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Edkollin is now editing elsewhere and has apparently refused to recognise or correct the libel, I'll explain why I removed it. The reference he used to support the statement was a transcript of an Australian local radio show where a mother with a different christian name to Allen's mother was talking about her daughter, Lily's, disease. A bad example of careless news release consolidation into Wikipedia, at odds with WP:BLP. As for the word libel, it's an accurate description for what has occurred and the worst example of which, due to it's apparent plausibility, I've seen in years of using Wikipedia.

The priorities, as I see them are - firstly to put right the damage, and once accomplished, to continue editing. Firstly, as a matter of ethics, I think that the libellous material, wherever it has been repeated (article, talk page, BLP noticeboard etc), should be subject to WP:oversight. Secondly Edkollins edits need to be examined and monitored for further instances and if that can't effectively be done his continued participation in the Wikipedia project should be examined. Thirdly, the general business of improving the article can continue. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I've seen far worse examples of libel than this; I'm not sure this could constitute libel in the legal sense. In any case, labeling it as such (as opposed to less inflammatory descriptions that argue for the same response) doesn't help matters proceed towards consensus.

Having looked over the collapsed section above, I'm honestly not sure any of it should be returned to the article. This is a biography, not a complete record of every comment she's made or every event worthy of a short article or blogpost. I'm still open to the idea of a paragraph or two that puts her history with paparazzi, media and mental health into a narrative whole (or perhaps two narrative parts). I think that would be far better than scandal bullet points. Also, as a general note, references to blogs and certainly to MySpace should be avoided on a BLP. Avruch ^T 14:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Mental health section?

According to my edit history [6] , there was a section called "Physical and mental health" What happened to it? Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The page was a total mess of every last pointless tabloid detail about her spammed across it's entire length. The UK media reports if she trips on the curb in 100 point font on their front pages. Her article is a BLP, and must be written in summary style, so we don't need disputed "facts" about her "mental health" and other things that she's disputed in the media before. rootology (C)(T) 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I can understand BLP concerns. However, removal of a whole section without leaving any note of it (I didn't see anything in the history) is not the best way. Do you have a copy of the section, so it can be reviewed? Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Go up to the Go up to the top of the previous discussion and look for “removed content from the article collapsed for readability”. Click “Show”. Also as in any article you can go to the article and click the history tab and look at past versions of the article by clicking “prev” on the left side. There are several other options to look at changes ,additions etc. Edkollin (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Voice type

She`s a soprano - light lyric. Somebody should put it into the text. Sources: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/02/16/085236.php http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/05/arts/music/05alle.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/A/Allen,%20Lily —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.218.250.237 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs a section on her new gay-positive song, Guess Who Batman (Fuck You Very Much)

and the current link to another song more-or-less called Fuck You Very Much is going to need a redirect. The song's a shoutout to George W. Bush, "Guess Who Batman".

Touring location

Under the tour section it says lily allen is doing a tour of the United Kingdom in november and december, but she's also playing Ireland. Can we have it canged to United Kingdom and Ireland please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepkeyyellow (talk • contribs) 05:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Also put things in date order and changed wording to reflect tense. Listing every festival is hard on the eyes Edkollin (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal life

Maybe an idea to add a paragraph about her personal life? Anorionil (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Miscarriage

It seems odd to me that the miscarriage is mentioned twice as a reason for delaying an album, but is never mentioned in any other manner, such as in a non-music-related bio section. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could rectify this? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Half-siblings

The Childhood and early career section states she has 'a number of half-siblings'. The article should state how many on each side. WP addict 0 (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't include anything about her brothers and sisters, unless they had something to do with her notability. Wikipedia is not a fan site, a genealogical site, or a promotional site. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

File sharing

The article on Torrent Freak calling her a hypocrite because she copied text from another web site and put it on her own blog without mentioning the original author. http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing-heroine-lilly-allen-is-a-copyright-hypocrite-090921/. This article should be inserted as a refrence to the word hipocrite in the description of her. Jan Aagaard (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Torrent Freak is not a reliable source. Dynablaster (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

On Sept 24 2009 boingboing.net reported that Lily Allen had provided copywritten music for download from a variety of artists http://www.boingboing.net/2009/09/23/lily-allens-copyrigh.html#comments. This is of particular interest in light of Ms. Allen's publicly expressed opinions about file sharing and music piracy.

These pro-filesharing 'tech' blogs are not reliable sources. If BBC Online, The Guardian and, say, The Telegraph all covered the story, then it might be worth mentioning. Dynablaster (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

She also stated that she is "quitting music" and never putting out another album ever again, because of file sharing. Then again, this was only said on her own twitter and mirrored on her own website, so probably not a "reliable news source" either.