Jump to content

Talk:Jade Goody/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

editsemiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}}

Add ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Goody to languages.--Pie merchant (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Done Leujohn (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Alphabetically it should be between Polski and Scots.--Pie merchant (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Done —SV 11:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Criminal record?

She was arrested a few times; was she ever convicted of anything? Many Wikipedia biographies contain details of convictions and even of acquittals, whether the offences are relevant to their notability or not. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

She was convicted in 2007 of driving on a motorway without full driving licence and proper insurance. That's all I could find. Not relevant to notability, and certainly NOT requiring a specific new section. Dubmill (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone else like her?

Her fame and fortune is inexplicable. Is there anyone who has had similar success without entertaining or accomplishing any notable achievements? If not, the article should explain what made her unique. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong questions. Notability is not the same as uniqueness. She is notable within our standards, has repeatedly been accepted as such, and that's the end of the debate, I believe. --Rodhullandemu 16:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not disputing her Wikipedia notablity - that is clearly established; my comment above says notable achievements. Comparisons to other people have been made by many people, yet she seems to be unique in regard to her having made so much out of so little. Therefore I am saying that the article should (attempt to) explain how she gained her wealth, fame, fans etc, if no-one else similar to her ever has. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Surely any explanation along the lines you are suggesting would be original research. We shall have to wait for history to either forget her or write something that explains it, so that we have our citation. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
There has been nearly seven years of widespread and large-scale media coverage of her - millions of words written, and hundreds of hours of television coverage. Despite that, I've never seen an explanation of her popularity and success. Has anyone else? If so, it can be added to the article. It is strange for so someone to be adored and idolised, with thousands of journalists and fans writing about her, but without anyone ever stating what it was about her that was perceived by so many to be brilliant. Has it ever been explained, or am I missing something? Famous people gain large nembers of fans through attributes such as being very good looking, displaying acting talent, a good singing voice, implementing great political ideas / policies, inventing things that enrich our lives, writing great literature, producing beautiful art etc. This article fails to even approach the subject of how she gained an army of fans from whom she made £millions. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This may be vaugely useful? It's from The Times Online http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article5986113.ece (very sorry I can't work out what I'm doing wrong with the referances!) BananaNoodle (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, good article. Might be worth appending. Rothorpe (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerisa/Cerissa

I am aware this has been discussed in some capacity before, but I noticed that there is another spelling entirely (Cerissa) from what is shown in the article (Cerisa). It was written on her marriage certificate. My apologies for the bad example of the photo of the certificate, it was the first one I found but I'm sure there are others out there. I would think an official document would 'trump' newspaper articles and the like, but I thought I'd throw it out there for debate instead of just changing it. Anyone? Sky83 (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a better photo. Sky83 (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd go with what the offical documents say personally.BananaNoodle (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
What is the spelling on her birth certificate and death certificate? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The link in the first comment in this section shows the professions of bride and groom. Could someone enlarge and improve the quality of it so that we can read what it says? The link in the second comment clearly shows that the marriage was registered in the Essex borough of Uttlesford. Marriages are always registered in the borough they take place in, which proves the marriage location was Essex. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that but from what I can see the first link says "Promoter" although this is not 100% clear and then "Entreprenuer" is the second word under this.BananaNoodle (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Admittedly, I'm new here as a registered person and I haven't ever taken much interest in the subject of this, but I would think that professions on the marriage cert should be proof enough for that to be the description here, since it is self described. Also, as someone who worked within the births, deaths, and marriages admin section, that cert isn't enough to state for the marriage location, and I've noticed this person throwing weight around here before though, so I can't say I'm surprised to see it back in without discussion. I'd remove it myself but I'm newly registered here. Justahollyhobby (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Jack Tweed a promoter? What has he promoted? Justahollyhobby, are you claiming that a marriage can be registered in Uttlesford, which is wholly in Essex, yet have taken place in another county? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I'm not entirely sure about that either but it's what it looks like. We'd need to see a bigger copy to be sure though. Anyway, any ideas on the spelling of Cerisa/Cerissa? BananaNoodle (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The close-up of the left-hand side of the marriage certificate shows that it is spelt Cerissa. Therefore we should state that spelling, as it is the most reliable source we have. Confirmation from birth and / or death certificate would be even better. The pic of the whole marriage cert with just the addresses blanked is unclear, but the word in the groom's profession box is longer than promoter, so I don't think it says that. Entrepreneur seems correct for the bride's profession. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Worth?

I see from the archived discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jade_Goody/Archive_2#.C2.A3millions) that this has been discussed. If anyone finds an updated figure this might be a useful thing to put into the article. What do others think? BananaNoodle (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the figure would be handy, but it would have to be a good source, because there are so many figures that have floated around over the years. I don't have sources to hand, but I'm sure I've seen it quoted between £2million and £20million before, just to give an example. It's very difficult to estimate any celebrity wealth and since most don't confirm or deny reports, the speculation just goes on! But if you can find a good source, I would support it going in. Sky83 (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we'd have to be cautious which source to use. I'll keep a look out. BananaNoodle (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 section

I changed this to 2008 per WP:BOLD, as all of the infomation in this section refers to 2008 and not 2007 or 2009. I also moved non-career related infomation into the section on her personal life. Dalejenkins | 12:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Image placement

The image placed near the bottom of the page currently overlaps the reference section, I do not know how to change this but if you do, please move it. BananaNoodle (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've cropped the image top & bottom to remove extraneous detail and make it more landscape than portrait, and it looks OK to me now. Let me know if it isn't. I've also flagged it as {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} since it's a free image. Rodhullandemu 21:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Cancer and death section

It is absolutely pointless and against policy having a 2 sentence section on her death. This is why, per WP:SECTION and WP:BOLD, I have merged the "Cancer" and "Death" sections together. It really doesn't make much difference, but I've been told to discuss it here anyway so... Dalejenkins | 11:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it makes more sense to merge the "Death" and "Tribute, funeral and burial" sections. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 11:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. Effectively, her cancer and death are the same entitiy, whereas the tributes and funeral etc were after she died. Hope that makes sense. Dalejenkins | 11:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
As you will see, I have reverted your change. This does not yet constitute a discussion. The idea from AnemoneProjectors actually makes more sense to me, although it is probably best to give more editors a chance to have a say as well. Please refrain from hastily changing things again, a consensus on this is more appropriate, especially since there are now differing views on what should be merged. Thank you. Sky83 (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the "Death" and "Tribute, funeral and burial" sections should be merged, unless these sections eventually become so large that they need seperate sections. I would say that Death and Funerals are almost always linked, whereas Cancer does not inevitably lead to death. BananaNoodle (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Merge "Death" & "Tribute...", as BananaNoodle's reasoning. Also both sections are so short, merging them seems sensible. The cancer and her treatment for it are different to the eventual outcome here. The Yeti (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
In her case, her cancer was the sole cause of her death; the funeral and tributes were in direct response to her death. As they were all so directly connected and there was less than eight months between the cancer diagnosis and now, it makes sense for all of them to be in the same section, with subheadings for each. All the aforementioned are currently subsections of the Personal life section, which does not make much sense considering she chose to receive a huge amount of media coverage from her cancer, including having a film crew follow her during her decline, then the footage broadcast on national TV. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and I think all that is needed is to upgrade the cancer subheading to a main heading (=== to ==). Rothorpe (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with that change because it's still part of her personal life. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 20:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I support DaleJenkins. The Cancer & Death sections should be merged as they are clearly one and the same. It make more logiical to me to than merging death and tributes. It was touched upon prior to her death that these should be merged. I see no reason why tributes cant be added to the end of the Cancer/Death section as a subheading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footix2 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, at least revert the turd

To whoever blocked edits on this page - at least revert the turd picture. --Smithfarm (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not there for me... I've purged the server for this page, try purging your cache (ctrl+F5 or ctrl+refresh). – Toon(talk) 20:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, I have removed the following links from the aforementioned section. They need to be intertwined as inline citations. Dalejenkins | 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced them until this discussion has actually taken place, as they are there for the benefit of readers. I'm not sure which parts of WP:EL you're referring to; perhaps other editors will care to have some input. Rodhullandemu 19:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
These seem to have more educational value than the usual shit people add to the external link section. Just saying. — R2 19:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I too am not sure what parts of WP:EL is being used to make this suggestion but that's not to say it shouldn't be done, just need some more detail please. BananaNoodle (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I am in agreement. I think Mr Jenkins might need to come back and tell us of his thought patterns on this one. It's a massive removal, and many of the links were extremely helpful. I'm personally of the mindset that unless there is specific reason (rather than just opinion) that at least some of the links should go back. Sky83 (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I put thise link back into the article. I see no reason under WP:EL why the should have been removed. And the consensus here appears to be that they added to the article. --Footix2 (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Media personality

The opening paragraph of this article describes Jade Goody as a 'media personality'. However the wikilink for that term leads to Infotainment, which 'is information-based media content or programming that also includes entertainment content in an effort to enhance popularity with audiences and consumers.' As far as I can remember, Jade Goody was never involved in any infotainment news broadcasting, so describing her as a 'media personality' in the article would seem to be inaccurate. The reason I put in the 'dispute' tag was that I honestly can't think of a more appropriate term, and hoped someone else could. Cynical (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Grave location

Where exactly is she buried? The media have reported that the location is a secret, but they also stated that many fans have visited it. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think to report the location, especially without any kind of sourcing (which I doubt we'll get), would be deeply disrespectful and against the family's wishes for it to be kept secret. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 06:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Epping Forest Woodland Burial Park, North Weald, Epping, Essex, CM16 6AD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.136.146 (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

OK Magazine picture

Is there a sufficient fair use claim for the inclusion of that image? I think not. — R2 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair use. I do think the link should be used as well: http://www.ok.co.uk/celebnews/view/7670/OK-Exclusive-Jade-Goody-s-wedding/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.104.108 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Note that at present there is no fair use rationale given at the image description page File:OKMag.jpg regarding the picture's use in this article. Wikipedia's policy on fair use images - WP:NFCC - require a separate, specific rationale be provided for every article that the image is used in.
This does not mean that the use in this article is necessarily not fair use, it just means that a rationale must be provided that explains why it is fair use.
As I understand it, if one is not provided within seven days then the image will be removed from the article as a copyright violation without further warning. I don't fully understand all that is required, so questions are probably best directed to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if nobody watching this article is knowledgeable in this regard. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wealth claim

The article had an intro, which included a singular reference:

As of May 2009 her estate had an accumulated wealth of £8 million.[1]

According to this article in the News of the World, her residual estate is valued at around £600,000 at best. I have removed until there is substantive evidence from her will. --86.166.255.148 (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd back the Times over the News of the World any day, but agree that without some definitive answer it is as well to leave it out. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree; "accumulated wealth" is an estimate, and completely different from "residual estate", which is what is left when all testamentary dispositions have been made. I wouldn't expect journalists to understand the legal distinction between these terms, let alone their readers. So, yes, to avoid presenting an inaccurate situation, we should leave it out. Her will, if it's been admitted to probate, will be the definitive source on her bequests, but not necessarily her net worth after death duties (if any). Rodhullandemu 22:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Re-instated the news on Jade Goodys car purchase as it was not part of the article that should be removed under the consensus above.--Judo112 (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack Tweed rape charge

I have just removed a sentence on the subject of Jack Tweed's rape charge, mainly because it was attached to a reference from May about something completely different. However, I do not think it should be added back. This article is about Jade Goody, not about Jack Tweed, and to add information about him unrelated to Goody or her estate would be in my opinion undue. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principle. If we don't have a Tweed article, it's not particularly relevant for Wiki at all. Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if an independant article (and by independant, I mean not CBB 07 or this Jade one) sprung up pretty soon. Sky83 (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Philanthropist?

I removed the category English philanthropists, as she never came close to fitting that description. It was reinstated on the basis of her raising £550 for the NSPCC by attempting to run a marathon. That surely does not qualify her for the cat: a large number of people raise or donate money as a one-off; they are not considered philanthropists. In any case, £550 is a tiny amount for a millionaire. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone had already added it back so it's saved me the job, but this is another example of her donating money. I'm not surprised to see the bias still going strong here. Before removing information, check it out, don't just remove it because it's convenient for your opinion. Sky83 (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Very funny headline... "secret donation" (!) yet Hello magazine knows all about it. Not very secret - credit where it's due she had a good publicist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.187.151 (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

I have nominated this article for deletion. This woman did nothing notable in her lifetime - I naively thought that Wikipedia contributers were better than to be proponents for Heat magazine-endorsed "celebrities", but it seems that I was wrong. This article should be deleted/redirected to Big Brother 2002 - why does she deserve an article over other contestants? Appearing on reality TV shows and then dying from cancer is not notable. This is not an inflammatory anti-Goody sentiment, before someone attempts to simply brand it as such and completely swerve the matter at hand - Goody simply is not notable, and there is sufficient information on the BB 2002 article. Please tell me that Wikipedia hasn't sunk this low? Beef jerky66 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to nominate for CSD an article that has already survived an AfD. I would have done it myself, but someone else has already declined your nomination. --Rodhullandemu 21:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Surely a further AfD assessment should be in order, in that case. Not determined by a singular pro-Goody admin, but discussed here first. Beef jerky66 (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
not at all. The article has a lengthy post-BB3 history and repeatedly seeking it's deletion following her death is nothing more than childish mischief or rampant personal opinion on your part leaky_caldron (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not pro-Goody; I am neutral. However, given that the previous AFD was a "speedy keep" decision, you may well find not only WP:SNOW coming into play, but you being blocked for disruption. And Afd discussions take place at AfD, not here. Please consider this carefully. --Rodhullandemu 21:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The link to the Goody AfD in the comment above does not work. The correct link to it should be added to the top of this talk page, as they are on the talk pages of many other articles that have survived being nominated for deletion. That way everyone can access it. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Has this article only been nominated for deletion once? On other occasions users have tried to nominate it - did those instances not reach AfD? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
There was a second attempt here, a week ago, but it's instructive to note now that both nominations were closed as "speedy keep". Either our notability policy is faulty, or we are getting it largely correct. You choose. Rodhullandemu 23:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is in extremely bad taste to suddenly start nominating an article for deletion as soon as the "mourning" period is over (I agree with Leaky caldron's comment regarding this). This article has existed since at least July 2003, which must indicate some level of notability (more than likely limited to the UK, but notable nonetheless) - surely if she wasn't notable, it would have disappeared long before now? ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 23:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I also think that the recent nomination (the day after she died) was in incredibly poor taste, and the AfD page of the second nomination should be courtesy blanked or even deleted. Arguably, a disruptive nomination for deletion immediately following that person's death, given the article previously survived an AfD, should be deleted out of courtesy to the recently dead and the surviving family members. However, if a deletion of the AfD page for the second nomination would lead to drama, courtesy blanking may be better. Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Leaky caldron that nominating at article that we had linked from Portal:Current events is difficult to take in good faith. Neither the suspiciously new user Beef jerky66 or User:Kittins floating in the sky yay (who use very similar langauge) have cited an argument for deletion with regards to WP:N. This article passes the criteria there with flying colours. (Of course, my cynical brain thinks that it would make a nice story for some lazy journalist to nominate the article, then report it!). The JPStalk to me 07:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Given the propensity of some journalists for just lifting text from our articles, errors included, do you think any would have the wit to do that? --Rodhullandemu 12:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I was the original proposer of this article for deletion so I will add my twopence worth here. I now not only accept that she was notable but that she summed up the vacuous decade that was the 2000s more than any other single person. Let us only hope that the 2010s prove less 'reality TV' and more real.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 08:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability (again)

It is OK to call her a celeb with but extreme caution because celeb status is disputed at most and many disagree that she was a celeb. Let's face it, she never did anything with her life to become notable and going on BB puts in in the back of the queue with the other 5,000 contestants around the world that have been on the show in all it's countries. "Celeb" in quotations. Otherwise we'll next be calling Jeremy Bamber a celebrity. Freedom Bringer (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
This has already been agreed and resolved. Please read the above, it was agreed and resolved 5 months ago --5 albert square (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you may not use WP:WEASEL terms, such as 'celeb' in quotations. Wikipedia is not a repository for your opinions (or mine either). Either there are reliable sources that verify the attribute, in which case the article will say it, or there are none, in which case the article won't. In this case, there are sufficient sources attributing the term for it to be used to describe the subject of the article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

April 2009 Tweed sentence

The Guardian article cited in reference to his current sentence, along with many other sources, correctly state that Jack Tweed was sentenced on 14 April; the latter part of the Personal life section should be amended accordingly. Improver 0 (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've removed the reference to bail entirely, seems pointless now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
If this was in the article, I'd cite "Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case", but for ease of comprehension, minor spelling corrections are acceptable in Talk pages unless they break links from elsewhere. A somewhat pointless pedantry, IMO. Please see WP:BACKLOG. Rodhullandemu 23:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Category: 2007 controversies

I think it would be a good idea if there were some discussion here on this, before the article is locked against edit-warring, and WP:3RR kicks in. The time for WP:BRD is nigh (pronounced as in the Northern Irish, "now"). Rodhullandemu 23:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You go first. AnemoneProjectors 00:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not carrying a flag either way here. I have my admin hat on, and it is up to content editors to reach an accommodation, or face the consequences. Rodhullandemu 00:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh right cos I was just gonna say if you think it should be there I'll leave it to you, I wasn't gonna revert twice. AnemoneProjectors 01:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no opinion either way; but I'd rather discussion took place here rather than through edit summaries, which are necessarily terse and unsubtle. Rodhullandemu 01:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
As Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy exists, with the category on that article, why should the same cat be on this article? The controversy wasn't only her; it also involved Danielle Lloyd, Jo O'Meara and Shilpa Shetty. This cat is not on their articles. Jim Michael (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wife Swap

Is there a reason her participation on wife swap is not mentioned? She swapped with another reality star after all, and it is mentioned in his article. http://www.tv.com/shows/celebrity-wife-swap/jade-goody-swaps-with-diana-ingram-1188645/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.168.217 (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Jade Goody

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Jade Goody's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "no crowd no shock":

  • From Celebrity Big Brother 2007 (UK): "NO CROWD NO SHOCK.. NO REALITY". Daily Mirror. 2007-01-20. Retrieved 2007-01-20.
  • From Celebrity Big Brother racism controversy: Martin, Allison; Methven, Nicola (2007-01-20). "NO CROWD NO SHOCK.. NO REALITY". Daily Mirror. Retrieved 2007-01-20.

Reference named "Shetty fears Big Brother 'racism'":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Title

Is there any reason why her name is italicised? 2.27.212.108 (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The page Template:Big Brother UK was transcluded. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism?

First off, this is not supposed to be used for personal attacks against her. But, I'm proposing such an section to be added to the article - I think it's undeniable that she, "selling her death" has caused extreme distaste and disgust among many peoples, and, provided there are news articles to be found on the issue, I think such a section could be added? I'm currently at work so I probably don't have access to many news sites, but I'll browse from home, if this is okay by someone who understands wikipedia's policies better than I do..--Petrim (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia article have such a section. Goody has, continuously, since she first went into the BB house, polarised public and media opinion. Virtually all of the many millions of people who know of her have strong opinions about her one way or the other; many have ambiguous or changing opinions. Whilst some people wonder what all the fuss is about, very few people are neutral about her; she was an extreme personality that attracts extreme opinions. When millions of people hate a person and, at the same time, millions love him / her, a biography is far from complete without stating why. Only a tiny proportion of people fit that criteria, of whom she is one. That's why the article should state how she was famous and loved by millions for years, despite never doing any good work. In addition, the article needs to address why some of the major media outlets, particularly the red-tops, began hating her "get the pig out!", yet, despite her behaviour and ignorance remaining just as bad, completely changed their tune into championing her. Much of the praise by fans and media sources is vague, such as "she was our Essex princess", without stating how they came to such a ludicrous conclusion, nor how she qualified as such. Stephen Fry said she was "a Princess Diana from the wrong side of the tracks", yet she was nothing like Diana; can anyone explain how anyone could construct such ridiculous comparisons between those two very different young women? If honest opinions, both positive and negative, from various sources, are stated, we would not be violating the neutrality policy. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
There won't be a criticism section added to the article. Wikipedia articles are not written in that manner anymore. Again, keep warped opinions such as "despite never doing any good work" to yourself. This is not a blog or a forum. You have been warned several times. — R2 15:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
If you think she did good work, state what it was; if you can find references you can add the info to the article. My comments on this page are to improve the article by requesting that important information relevant to her life and fame are added to her biography. That is all within Wikipedia policy; I am using this talk page correctly. There are still major omissions in this article about a major media celebrity. Neutral does not mean incomplete. It is not me who is requesting a criticism section; I merely stated that some Wikipedia articles do have such a section. The article needs info that states why and how she polarised opinion. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The section is unnecessary if the article is written correctly, as any criticism will be covered already. And I find it hard to believe that you do not remember the many personal comments you have made about Jade, here and elsewhere. You've done a lot on this article, but your work is being degraded by your bias. I personally have no problem with constructive suggestions for including any criticism in the article, but there is no need for a dedicated section. Sky83 (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
A criticism section is not necessary, but the article is far too light on the vast media portrayal of her and the public's perception of her. Reading the article should give the reader an accurate picture of her life and her fame, without having to read the media articles in the refs section. As it is, it downplays what a polarising figure, hated and loved, ridiculed and celebrated, vilified and sympathised with she was. Academic encyclopedias wouldn't even mention her, but, as a people's encyclopedia, unrestrained by paper concerns of conciseness, we are in a position to write a comprehensive, detailed biography of someone who is perhaps currently the most talked about person in the UK. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that if the the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography lists a professional lavatory attendant,[2] and the popularizer of garden gnomes, they will also, in due course, list Jade Goody. We are merely ahead of the game on that one. --Rodhullandemu 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ The Times - The 10 richest reality TV stars, 31 May 2009
  2. ^ "Fame at last for prostitutes' friend from the ladies loo - Telegraph". telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2009-03-26.

Wikipedia articles should be neutral, but there is rightly no requirement that editors be neutral in their opinions, beliefs etc regarding the topics they edit. Many people collaborate on a high-traffic article such as this. Few people are both interested in Goody and neutral about her; it would be virtually impossible to find anyone who was, due to her extreme and emotive personality. Despite my own strong opinions regarding her, I have made many constructive edits to the article. People who are indifferent to her would be unlikely to read, let alone edit, this article. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I too have a strong opinion about this article subject. Namely that we're writing far too much about her. She was a "reality" show contestant who got bad press for racism. Later she got sick and died. The end. The obsession with minutiae of her life (i.e. WP:FANCRUFT) in this article is a clear case of undue weight being used to push her as more notable than she was, which is both a WP:NPOV and WP:NOR problem, at the very least. Even calling her a celebrity in the lead is highly questionable; I say it's blatant PoV-pushing. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 19:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Tributes

"Her family can be extremely proud of the work she has done to raise awareness of cervical cancer which will benefit thousands of women across the UK." The work she has done? Well....she managed to CONTRACT cancer, thats about it. The media went to town reporting it, but that isn't exactly work that SHE did. Her family can presumably be somewhat less proud of the fact that, had she not been unlucky to contract cancer, she would simply have been known as "really thick woman who appeared in Big Brother, and later shouted racist abuse at a previously largely unheard of Indian actress on Celebrity Big Brother, and.....thats about it." It is mentioned above that she was "unique". I think this old chestnut springs to mind: "Have you ever met anyone like Jade Goody before?" "No, but I have stepped in a few". / Stan Pomeray, 2/4/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.149.5 (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Tabloids not suitable for this article?

Is there a policy based reason for not allowing mainstream papers like the Sun or Mirror to be used as sources? Im not seeing it in WP:V or WP:RS. Unless there is a policy or consensus based case for the removals, Im likely to be restoring the deleted sources over the next few days. This is our article for the People's Princess, not Hegel. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hegel? That's in East Angular right? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 22:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLPSOURCES states: Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. Okay, this isn't a BLP, but does that policy go out the window when someone dies? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 16:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLP specifically states that it should only apply for a maximum of two years after a person dies. Tabloids are sometimes the best sources for key details about popular topics. They are often more accessible for our readers. Folk who prefer broadsheets often have less need of a free encyclopedia. I hope you might reconsider whether mass deleting tabloids really helps the project. On the other hand, Im sure there's something to be said for you POV here, so I guess we can leave your changes for a few weeks, and see if anyone else wants to chime in or even replace your removals with more upmarket sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The large majority of the media coverage of Goody is from tabloids, celebrity magazines and other lowbrow sources. Higher quality sources such as The Daily Telegraph have never been that interested in her, or reality show contestants in general. Hence, disallowing tabloid and tabloid-type sources would make articles like this inadequate.
Who has ever referred to her as The People's Princess? Jim Michael (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability tag

I disagree with the proposer that this article is not notable. She was notable by policy and that's all that is needed. Leaky Caldron 19:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The guideline is clear about people who reaches notability through only one kind of event (BB UK). She will never be heard about in 5 years, so she has no place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.114.24 (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
But it wasn't one event. She had a media career, of sorts, arising from that, and therefore satisfies the general notability guideline. In any event, the tagging was improper since this article has already been through at least two deletion discussions. See here. You can apply for a deletion review, but most editors would consider that to be stale, or renominate it for deletion, which I will instantly close as "Speedy Keep" per WP:SNOW. Rodhullandemu 19:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the anon. Not to delete the article but to change parts of it. For example the opener, she was a celebrity. A celebtrity what? Badminton player? Politician? Ballet dancer? Author? Musician? What have we lost since she went? She went on BB - end of story. The press becamse obsessed with her and kept irritating us on the front pages with her pics/events. All that followed (fashion etc, brands), was a dropping from BB. Mariella Frostrup is not listed as a "celebrity" writer and doesn't need to be, either one is notable or not. Renkaw Gib (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Detail ammended. Renkaw Gib (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted you - although I do see your point. The word 'celebrity' is used (in the UK at least) to describe someone who is famous for being famous - like Paris Hilton or Tara Palmer Tompkinson. 'Public figure' is more usually used of someone who is in a prominent public role, such as a politician. I believe celebrity is the most apt term for Ms Goody.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Celebtrity alone means very little. Please clarify celebrity what? Fencer? Boxer? Opera singer? We don't say @Kimberly Walsh is a CELEBRITY vocalist with the Girls Aloud now do we!! :) Renkaw Gib (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
She was considered to be a celebrity by the people who hired her to appear on Celebrity Big Brother -- that's prima facie evidence. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
BB is members of the public. We don't say "Nadine Coyle is a celebrity" do we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renkaw Gib (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

She was hired as a celeb for being on it "before" not for being notable. It's a miracle I don't renominate it for deletion. She was born a nobody and she died a nobody. Goody Riddance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renkaw Gib (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Renkaw , if you want to assert the fringe view that this amazing young woman wasnt a celebrity, please do it in the body of the article with a source. The existing lede reflects scores of quality sources, and mass public acclaim which of course is what confers celebrity status. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The earlier description, of course, did not say "celebrity" alone, it said celebrity, which links you to an entire article explaining exactly the context in which the term was used. Jade Goody was the perfect example of someone meant by the term "celebrity" as it is now used, ie a person who is famous for being famous, with no real role other than exposing her life and her opinions in the media as much as possible in exchange for money and public recognition. "Person known to the public" is awkward and nonspecific; "public figure" implies someone in the so-called Establishment. Since she passes WP:N and WP:V, and we have to call her something, then "celebrity" is the correct term. Karenjc 18:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

@ FeydHuxtable - "Amazing" woman now is she? Now I've heard it all. My fucking mum died of cancer but I ain't hailing her a celeb. We wanted people to leave us alone, not be in the spotlight. She did fuck all in her life and was a NOBODY.

Its a good thing shes with the angels now cant be hurt by those comments. Her funeral was a major event all round the world with numerous members of the great and the good paying tribute to her. There was even a campaign to rename London to JadeTown in her honour , which Im going to add to the article if it ever gets covered in a good source. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No she isn't, she is buried six feet in the ground. Her funeral was no major event because millions of people were NOT interested. That said, my wedding had a few thousand people there and a live band and DJ but I don't claim to be a celeb. If you think those who paid homage were great and good, that's your POV. I say they are losers. That's my POV. If she was so major, why don't we say 'lets go to Trafalguar Square in J*detown, or I'm flying out of London Jade airport, not Gatwick'

@ Karenjc - pro-establishment figures did more for society than Goody. If she meets the term celeb, why isn't Celeb BB full of Jade Goodys? Instead they are all notable for something. Who were the Jades of the 60's and 70's??? eh?

As I pointed out three months ago, she meets our requirements for notability, if not yours. Nominate for deletion, if you like. I'll immediately close it as "Snow Keep". Rodhullandemu 19:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No I am not suggesting AfD, I never said she weren't notable, she just isn't a celebtrity is the real world sense, just the pseudo-wikipedia sense, that's all. NB I am not editting the page no more because I don't wanna be blocked for 3RR. Renkaw Gib (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
TBH, Renkaw, I have never watched any of the Big Brother programmes or spinoffs so I couldn't tell you who is on them or whether they deserve to be on, or what the criteria are for inviting them. I'm not interested in "celebrities", and I personally found what little I saw of the whole Jade Goody death circus repellent and creepy, and thought the media hit an all-time low, though no doubt they'll prove me wrong in due course. But none of this is relevant here. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place to air opinions. We have a very clear definition of what level of independent media coverage makes a person notable and she meets it, so she's in. And she meets the definition of celebrity as given in the article, so it's not wrong to call her that, whatever your personal opinion of her. Her contribution to society is irrelevant. What people did in the 60's and 70's is irrelevant. You can say she was a nobody until you're blue in the face, and you'll find plenty of people to agree with you, but she meets the criteria, so she gets a neutral, factual article, like our other subjects. If you want to look at getting the criteria changed, Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance is a good first port of call. But until they change, she merits an article and she counts as a celebrity. Karenjc 19:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to say that I agree with everything that Rodhullandemu has said. The woman was a celebrity of sorts before her death, therefore she does warrant a place in Wikipedia. I mean look at it, she was in Big Brother and after that she went on to a number of things including fronting her own TV show. Given that she has fronted her own TV show how on earth does that not make her a celebrity and make her not notable? --5 albert square (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There is another way of looking at this. Goody should not have been notable. She was a nobody. But like too many people in this media-controlled world, she became a "celebrity" by virtue only of being a "celebrity". She is notable, but for all the wrong reasons.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Mixed race

She is stated as being of mixed race. Is there any evidence of that? Her mother is English, and her father's name is British. He may have come from the West Indies, but many West Indians are ethnically British. Is there any evidence that he was mixed race?Royalcourtier (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes this reliable source and this one. Just do a google search - there are plenty more.--5 albert square (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jade Goody. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Filmography?

How does this section merit the title of Filmography? There isn't a single film in the list and the title would be more apt as "Appearances on TV Programmes" That section title is tenuous in the extreme.46.7.85.68 (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jade_Goody/Archive_3&oldid=1140151503"