Jump to content

Talk:Lily Allen/Archive 2

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

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)

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). And the slur about her dealing ecstasy needs to go.

Anti-piracy hypocrisy

Can we have a new section about how she posted a blog entry supporting the disconnecting of file sharers then it was found that she had stolen the article from techdirt breaching their copyright then she added the source and claimed it was obvious that she meant to add the source originally then it came to light she was a music pirate herself and had illegally distrobuted others works then she closed down her blog and claimed she was quitting the music industry.

also how long people can no longer edit the pages? isn't that the whole idea behind a wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.150.76 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say go for it, just make sure whatever you add is properly cited. Tavatar (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
See Lily_Allen#Social_activism - feel free to expand (with references). Mdwh (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Though I've re-worded the section, it's not Wikipedia's position to say whether it's hypocrisy or not. We can only show (as has been stated above) that which has been verifiably sourced and doesn't infringe on WP:NPOV etc. Cheers Khukri 13:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned at the repeated attempt to remove sources:

On what grounds are they not reliable? Digital Spy in particular is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. What claims here are being disputed? I see no contradiction between these articles and the Telegraph, and surely for the claim "Techdirt later accused Allen of reproducing an entire post from their site without seeking permission", there is no better source than the article itself? Mdwh (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We are required to use quality sources with a reputation for fact-checking. The Telegraph is a high quality source; Digital Spy and Techdirt both are low quality. Also, notability and reliability are two completely separate things. Dynablaster (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the telegraph article meets WP:RS and is referring to the Techdirt article warrants it's inclusion on notability alone, not just being a reliable source. Digitalspy, no need to add more references, the subject would be adequately referenced, with a verifiable link to the story, and where the story broke i.e. telegraph and techdirt, after that nothing else is required. Also it doesn't need to be much more than a sentence.Khukri 12:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
OK I've re-worded the whole paragraph, so it's clear the initial starting point was the copyright text and where it lead, but have added the techdirt link not the file sharing one, the one on the copyrighted text. I've also removed that she recused herself from the discussion, which was incorrect as she eventually took part. The whole section needs to be re-written to read less like a list, every paragraph starts along the lines of, Allen did X, Allen did Y, Today Allen went here. Khukri 13:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
GJ, it's quite unlikely Techdirt and Digitalspy meet the standards require for a WP:BLP. Also editors need to bear in mind WP:Undue Nil Einne (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

She made a personal "tribute" to Michael Jackson at Glastonbury despite labelling him a paedophile the year before. If I can source the quote, I say we include it in the article somewhere. Nobody likes a hypocrite, especially if she's a supergob. Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? We don't want a repeat of this The Sun, Techdirt and TorrentFreak are all low quality sources with zero reputation for fact checking. A bit like you. Dynablaster (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Please no matter how much you disagree with other people's opinions or agenda lets not resort to the personal attacks. I certainly agree that everything must be sourced, though there is no bible on what constitutes a journalistic reputable source. The BBC, and broadsheets certainly have the reputation so get given leeway, but we cannot dismiss out of hand tabloids like the sun if the information can be corroborated. I personally think it would only be included by someone with an agenda, as not every opinion is noteworthy and people are allowed to change their minds, sourcing the information to make it encyclopedic would also be difficult without implying a POV and we certainly wouldn't be casting judgement using terminology like hypocrisy. Cheers Khukri 12:18, 30 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)
Thousands of Wikipedia biographies briefly mention non-notable siblings. They are a part of a person's life, hence relevant to their biography. I've never seen another WP bio that states 'a number of half-siblings'; it is typical to at least state how many and whether they are older or younger. Of course they should not be praised or promoted, I'm merely stating that the article should state paternal or maternal, older or younger. That is basic biographical info, of the kind that is given on bios on many sites. Are you claiming that Barack Obama's biography should only state that he has 'a number of half-siblings'? Are you going to remove all the other info about them from his article using the 'reasons' you've given here? Biologically close relatives are always relevant to a biography, regardless of whether the subject is a singer, politician, or anything else, brielfy mentioning them doed not make it a genealogical article; I'm not suggesting adding second cousins or great-uncles. WP addict 0 (talk) 12:39, 9 October 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)
CNN, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times the BBC, the Guardian and the LA Times have considered TorrentFreak to be a reliable source. Kid Bugs (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
TorrentFreak is a highly partisan source lacking a fact-checking department, thus does not qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia criteria. Advocacy groups are quoted in media almost day-to-day. I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. Dynablaster (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Acceptable source?
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6226690/Lily-Allen-drops-fight-against-filesharing-after-Techdirt-spat.html

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)
- I think it is unfair to have a biased source be a requirement for mentioning this story. Lily and BBC are partners of sorts and they would be shooting themselves in the foot by having an article showing her to be a hypocrite.
- Telegraph
- Prefixmag.com

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.

Arguably, the Daily Mail has it. -- Luk talk 13:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
So does the Telegraph: "Earlier this month, Allen said that she would be quitting music..."

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".

"the critics, noting the singer's musical evolution and maturity. It spawned the hit singles "The Fear" and "Fuck You"

So, if she has 'evolved' and 'matured' to the above songs (inc. the Batman thing), what must she have been like before? GG Allin? I could not tell from the article. 12.162.2.182 (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This page is written terribly and not up to Wikipedia standards

please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptacle (talk • contribs) 10:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOFIXIT, it's not really helpful to not give any form of insight as to which areas you feel need improvement. Regards Khukri 11:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
My stated postion is that it is terrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptacle (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The lead is awful. It states she had a challenging childhood which is rather POV and not balanced by any mention of the fact that she attended some of the UK's most exclusive and expensive schools in this time. Would be more appropriate in an 'early life' section rather than in this muddled lead. Petepetepetepete (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
agreed. lead is terrible and isn't worth reading. LibStar (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Self-made superstar

May I propose a new section on the Lily Allen article? It's obvious this girl has achieved everything through pure talent and pure talent only; it's got nowt to do with coming from a middle class showbiz family with contacts in all the right places. So can we please start a new section celebrating what a self-made success story Lily Allen really is? All discussion on this proposal is welcomed Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove your claim? In any case, such a section would fail WP:NPV. Qpm (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Very doubtful this claim can be proven. Such sections will end up appearing on the Osbourne children's pages, Paris Hilton's page etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.2.76 (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

It's hardly notable, or interesting, regardless of whether it's in The Sun, the Telegraph or confirmed directly to Wikepedia by all concerned parties... I'm amused though that you thought it was suddenly more verifiable when in a broadsheet newspaper, as though size of paper increases truth.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.113.170.97 (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

GA?

Anyone thought of nominating this for good article status? I think, with a little work, it could meet the criteria. I'd be happy to review it if someone were to nominate it. My only major concern is the references which will need information like work, publisher, publication date and access date at least. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversies, anyone?!

Of all the pages that doesnt have a controversies section, its that pro-Menocide Lily Allen. SOmething is wrong with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.141.246 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, find some sources and write one. DP76764 (Talk) 15:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Lily Allen Quitting Music"

Why is there no mention of her quitting? http://www.clashmusic.com/news/lily-allen-quitting-music http://www.metro.co.uk/showbiz/743041-lily-allen-quits-music-for-good http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&&sa=X&ei=XHIoTL--NqG80gS298HDBA&ved=0CBcQBSgA&q=lily+allen+quits&spell=1 -NeF (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes we do have it, it is called the Hiatus section. A blogger with Sky News is not happy how it is written[7]. You are going to have to come up with more reliable sources if you want to improve it. Edkollin (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

picture

why always put up unflattering photos??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianp321 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Because often unflattering photos are the only ones that are freely available for use on wikipedia because they have been snapped by amateurs, released under CC or similar free licence do not breach copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.51.116 (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Social Networking hiatus (2009-)

Lily Allen is back on Twitter as of 2nd Feb 2010. The "Social Networking hiatus (2009-)" section should be updated accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiaknight (talk • contribs) 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Edkollin (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lily never closed her myspace account as stated here. I have read the article reference 82 points to which actually says she closed her twitter account, it does not say she closed her myspace account. She is a myspace friend of mine and would have disappeared off my friends list if her account had been closed. She is still on my friends list which proves her account was not closed. Even if she had closed and re-opened her myspace account, she would not have automatically reappeared on my friends list. The "Social Networking hiatus (2009-)" section should be updated accordingly. Gadgetman39 (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What happened to Lily Allen's second pregnancy and how should we write about it?

It was widely reported to be a miscarriage by reliable sources. The same reliable sources reported that she was 6 months into her pregnancy. Problem here is that after 20 weeks it is not medically considered a miscarriage. So either the tragedy happened before she was 20 weeks into her pregnancy or she did not miscarry, there seems to be little wiggle room. Many articles had letters to the editor and comments including from women who had a pregnancy's not make it admonishing them for this apparent misreporting. So what are we to do?. The truth is we don't know the truth. We don't know how far she was into her pregnancy, we don't know what caused it to be cut short. We know it was reported she was six months in and it was reported that she miscarried, but these reports name no sources. In my view no way should we write she had a miscarriage until it is confirmed by her doctors, Allen or someone officially speaking on her behalf (as was the case with the septicaemia). Usually widespread non tabloid reporting is enough to to get it included in article. But not all the time, many medical articles will only allow medical journals or its equivalent sources. What is such harm in using language that does name miscarriage as the cause of the end Allen's second pregnancy until the facts have been confirmed by her doctors or somebody speaking officially in thier behalf? Edkollin (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know Allen herself announced she was 3 months into her pregnancy in August, so that makes it 6 month in November. And medically speaking, after 20 weeks it's not a miscarriage. But the common person doesn't know that. Stillbirths, etc. are usually referred to as miscarriages in colloquial conversation. That's probably why all the sources are calling it a miscarriage. And honestly, I don't see how calling it a miscarriage in this article would be really bad. It's better than calling it a "pregnancy fail", because the word "fail" doesn't really mean "unsuccessful" to the average person, especially young adults and teens. In today's usage, calling something a "____ fail" means that the person screwed it up themselves (if someone trips, it's a "walking fail"). --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 18:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Pop star Lily Allen is being treated in hospital for blood poisoning just days after suffering her second miscarriage, her spokesman confirmed.
Seems straightforward, to me. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
What seems straightforward is that she had septicemia. After that I am very confused. I can see celebrity journalists using a common but incorrect term, but I can't see a health journalist for a reliable paper using using it. I must be missing something obvious because because I can't see someone like that writing that unless it was said by her doctors or someone officially speaking on there behalf. Where did they say this???????
" And honestly, I don't see how calling it a miscarriage in this article would be really bad.". If you can't see why putting into an encyclopedia information where there is good reason to believe it is false is wrong then we so fundamentally disagree there is nothing to discuss.
"It's better than calling it a "pregnancy fail", because the word "fail" doesn't really mean "unsuccessful" to the average person, especially young adults and teens. In today's usage, calling something a "____ fail" means that the person screwed it up themselves (if someone trips, it's a "walking fail")." I kind of agree with you on this point that is why I changed what I originally wrote. "pregnancy fail" is technically correct and in no way disparages the person whom it happens to. But the language had it stayed would have been widely misinterpreted as saying Allen herself failed not just her body and thus may have violated the Biography of Living persons clause.
WP:BLP a big issue here. When writing about living persons Wikipedia guidelines are considerably stricter then for other Wikipedia articles Edkollin (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding this topic to ask an authorized editor to change the link on the genres list, it says Indie Pop but it's linking to a more general Pop article:

Infobox photo

Edit request from 81.141.226.196, 11 June 2011

It was announced on her wedding day that she was pregnant.

81.141.226.196 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GaneshBhakt (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It isn't exactly an official announcement but this from the BBC is a reliable source. Feudonym (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Done GaneshBhakt (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Lily Allen to Lily Cooper?

Will Lily Allen change her name to Lily Cooper as she is getting married to Sam Cooper?. Please answer ASAP.

MrAmberGold (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)MrAmberGold doubt it will probably still be called lily allen Syxxpackid420 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she is now Lily Cooper. Source. Zylo1994 (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Tabloid, not a reliable source but I found reliable sources that said she changed her name on her Twitter account after the wedding and a interview dine before wedding where she stated her intention to change it post wedding. I altered the article to reflect that Edkollin (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Is it legal yet? and will she use it professionally?. If she is going to use it professionally we have to move the article to Lily Cooper. If it is not legal, the name change in the first sentence and the name in the info box is premature. If it is changed professionally we don't have to change every "Allen" in the article to "Cooper", just the ones post legal change.Edkollin (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Why was this just moved? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
And it's back to Allen, as no Consensus had been reached formally. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
There hasn't even been a discussion. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
And there is no need for one. She is only notable as Lily Allen, the popstar. That's the name on her records, that's the name in the charts, that's the name used in newspapers and that's the name of this article. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I have restored the lede and Allen's maiden name because the source given that supposedly supports the name change is questionable at best. Aside from appearing to be a gossip blog of some sort, this information is only given by an unnamed "source". If and when Allen changes her name and there is a reliable source to support that change, the article can be changed. Pinkadelica♣ 01:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Move Protection

I really don't think this page should be move protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAmberGold (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The page name kept being moved without consensus (See the discussion on Lily Allen to Lily Cooper above). --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Reduced a bit?

Why does the article look like it's been reduced a bit?

MrAmberGold (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)MrAmberGoldMrAmberGold (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the article was originally really fragmented with many sections, making it ripe for information overlap. Fixer23 (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Who Invented Fish and Chips

She sang the lead lyrics for Fat Les 2002 single "Who Invented Fish and Chips?". Should this be added to here and/or discography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.88.53 (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Years active

It says "1988 - present"... Was she really an active musician at age 3? --87.51.163.157 (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Edit: Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motowater (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 December 2011

/* This is the first verse of her unreleased song called "Sit": I sit down and be patient. I close my eyes and I listen. I go to class and I write down my notes. I ask my father, please see me... I've been watching the time and its missing. I kid myself thinking of stimulation, when all I want is more recognition. I wait for the moment, where I feel created. That moment will be as soon as this is real. Contributed by motowater@gmail.com

  • /

Motowater (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Zidanie5 (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Disparaging Remarks About Amy Winehouse

This is wrong plain wrong she did not say anything bad about Amy. She later refuted what the source said stating that she was actually wanting people to toast Amy but the media took it out of context, I will post a link to that article as soon as I find it which completely contradicts what that article says. Lily Allen and Amy Winehouse were very close friends and she claimed that the media were often obsessed pitting women against each other. She frequently denied that she and Amy were enemies so I reckon that we should take this out as not only is it inaccurate as she wasn't insulting her and its the type of thing Lily Allen hates anyway. --Zolfianyarvelling (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lily_Allen/Archive_2&oldid=1142767522"