Talk:Jade Goody/Archive 2

Middle names

As much as Jade would like us to believe her middle name is Cerisha, its actually Koresha. Do a search on 192.com or Companies House and it will come up with "Jade Koresha Lorraine Goody". Motwu (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not one single Google hit for Jade Koresha Goody; if you can find a reference, post it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And I've also checked armadillo.co.uk. They seem to be the only source of hundreds saying this, so the inference is that perhaps they've made a mistake. Considering they've also mis-spelled my own name, I'm not surprised. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the Birth Indexes held by the General Register Office in London (available for viewing online by subscription) which are transcripts of the information on birth certificates for England and Wales. Her information is transcribed thus - GOODY Jade Cerisa L. Kelly elf (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Elitist"?

The first paragaph accuses her of making elitist comments. What kind of elite can that be? Wikipedia defines an elite as "a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, ...". Maproom (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

POV Clean up needed

Wow, lots of POV issues here. It's really written in an anti Goody tone. Also, look at the rankings at the bottom, none of them are particularly nice, but wasn't she also voted the "fourth most influential person in Britain" or something along those lines before she went into the celebrity version. Clear cherry picking of negative info. — Realist² 05:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup, would editors remember that this isn't a joke. Our work can be copied by other publications as fact. We could play a part in potentially damaging someones fucking image. — Realist² 07:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Polls removed until the section can be displayed in a neutral manner

• In 2003, a poll taken by Channel 4, revealed that Goody came fourth in the 100 Worst Britons poll.
• In October 2006, Jade was named the seventh richest "Chav" celebrity after the like of Victoria Beckham and Wayne Rooney.
• In December 2007, a poll taken by Now magazine, says that Goody is the third most pointless celebrity, after Celebrity Big Brother 2006 winner Chantelle Houghton and Paris Hilton.
• In 2008, according to a poll taken by the Daily Record, Goody was voted by the readers, the number one person that they would least like to have dinner with, next to Pete Doherty.

— Realist² 06:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As regards Goody's image, she's hardly a role model for, well, anything, really except how to make something (I'm not sure what, however) out of not much. It has to be said that she hasn't done herself many favours, but then, she didn't really have much raw material to work with. As for the Polls listed above, I'm not sure they shouldn't just be cast on the scrapheap; they look on the face of them to be trashy tabloid stuff, and therefore unlikely to be reliable sources. What tabloid readers think of this or that celebrity is neither here nor there, in encyclopedic terms. As for her reputation, she is the architect of that. She's got people around her who no doubt tell her stuff like "any publicity is good publicity", and I'm sure she's made money out of the bad publicity too. I doubt if this article can ever be neutral, simply because, well, neither can its subject be. You is what you is, and you get what you get. --Rodhullandemu 01:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree entirely, but we can point out her...character flaws... without turning into a tabloid ourselves. There is nothing wrong with writing the cold hard truth just as long as it's done in a manner that is disconnected. As long as "we" aren't saying it and we respect the core of basic human dignity (yes, she is a human being) and don't seem to enjoy making a mockery of her. Avoiding undue weight and tabloids is a good start. — Realist² 02:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

She's a quadroon

Can anyone justify why the description of Jade's father was changed from the specific mulatto to the vague 'mixed race'? It is verified fact that he had a negro father and a white mother. Therefore he is correctly classified as a mulatto - that is the anthropologically correct term. The only excuse for changing it that I can think of is that the term is considered by some to be 'politically incorrect'. However, actually correct outweighs 'politically correct', and Wikipedia is not censored. Removing a specific term which definitely applies, and replacing it with a vague term, is a form of censorship; thereby against Wikipedia policy. Therefore, her father's description should be reverted to mulatto. Werdnawerdna (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

She was involved in a high-profile race row, in which many people, and some media sources, wrongly classified her as white. That, along with the fact that a large number of people still believe she is white and are unaware that she's a quadroon, makes the need to clarify her extraction as accurately as possible even more important. Werdnawerdna (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthropology is irrelevant here. I don't describe myself as "Caucasian", and neither does anyone else. The term "mulatto" I haven't heard used in over forty years, likewise "quadroon". Race is these days a more subtle concept that mere labelling; it's also a matter of self-identification; myriad government forms now require the completer to select their race from a list. The term "mulatto", however, as well as being outdated, is not generally accepted as a self-reference these days, and for us to apply it without a very reliable source is not only forbidden original research, but also in the circumstances, does not represent a neutral point of view. It should remain as "mixed-race", which is both sourced AND neutral. --Rodhullandemu 16:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthropologists almost definitely avoid using such simplistic terms nowadays anyway so saying it's anthropologically correct is highly misleading Nil Einne (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

New health prognosis

I would just like to say that since Jade's prognosis has taken a turn for the worse (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7869090.stm), could people here remain respectful. I know that Miss Goody has been somewhat of a controversial character for some time, but please refrain from editing this article in a disrespectful way. Thank you. Sky83 (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? Facts are facts. As long as its encyclopaedic and neutral - kid gloves are not necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.104.140 (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the morons who abuse someone on here. They believe it's okay because they can hide behind their computers. Facts are fine, abuse is not. It shouldn't be tolerated at any time, least of all when someone is terribly ill.Sky83 (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This part of policy is worth reading, and if there's any disruption, the article will be protected for as long as necessary. --Rodhullandemu 20:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First moron (IP address 81.99.228.20) has now stated that they hope Miss Goody dies. Would anybody support a protection on her article? I see this happening repeatedly if the animals are allowed out of their cages. Sky83 (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Rodhullandemu 14:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :). I'm not a huge fan of Miss Goody, I just can't stand the lack of morals some people have when putting their 'opinions' across. Sky83 (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

She has now been given 4 weeks to live according to Tweedy's lawyer. She also underwent surgery recently to relieve her pain after being admitted to a hospice due to hallucinations. I think this is a significant further turn in her health that should be added. 81.106.80.55 (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is encyclopedic about a blow-by-blow account of her medical prognosis - and from an indirect source - Tweedy's lawyer leaky_caldron (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we really don't need daily updates. The general public have a fairly good understanding of what happens when someone is dying of cancer. — R² 20:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect date

Date referenced to latest cancer prognosis is incorrect [79][80] - This date should be 4th February 2009 and not 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bru tkd (talk • contribs) 10:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it wasn't me who wrote the sentence, but I have changed the date. Sky83 (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Businesswoman"?

Jade is classified by this article as a business woman, is that category merited? Does she spend a significant amount of time proactivly managing her assets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.134.195 (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Also in October 2008, Jade opened her second beauty salon named "Homme Fatel", catering exclusively for men.[67]"; she's also had more money than I am likely to make, from her Fitness videos. I'd say that puts her into the category. --Rodhullandemu 22:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering her lack of intelligence, I guess she only puts her name to her products and ventures, whilst other people come up with the ideas and work out the financial and logistical side of things. Hence, she can be classified as a businesswoman, despite probably doing very little work. If someone can prove what I just wrote, that can be added, but I guess the people involved keep the details quiet, due to the £millions that are being made. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to remember how many fitness videos were made by Alan Sugar, Clive Sinclair and Richard Brandson, I'm not sure but I think the total was none. Facetiousness aside, making money alone is not sufficient to be considered a business person! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.134.195 (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever been suggested that she is a tycoon or a mogul; however, the lady at the end of my road who runs her own shop might be considered a "businesswoman", and this would appear to be so even if she merely sits back and takes the profits generated by her employees- her name is on the books. Without more detail of Goody's legal relationship with her salon or fitness videos, it's difficult to tell; however, if I had any assets which could generate income, I think I'd capitalise on them, pay tax on the revenue, and I think that would make me a businessman. However, is there a generally accepted definition of the boundary between being, and not being, a "businessman"? I doubt it. --Rodhullandemu 18:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Successful multi-millionaire - how?!

Prior to appearing on Big Brother in 2002, she was unknown. For the first couple of weeks or so of the show, she was generally hated by housemates, viewers and the media. She quite narrowly avoided being evicted, and her housemates could not understand how she managed to repeatedly avoid being voted out by viewers. She was undoubtledy a hate figure at first, yet it there is no attempt to explain on the article how she managed to turn the viewers in her favour, and get to the final. Also strange and unexplained is her continued presence in the media for the six and a half years since the series ended, when the vast majority of BB housemates are forgotten about within months. For millions of people, it is very difficult to understand the popularity of someone who has no positive qualities, and whose only entertainment value is her extreme lack of knowledge. Kate Lawler, who won the same series (and hence was more significantly more popular at the time) that brought Jade to the public attention, is both likeable and very attractive (Jade is the opposite of both), yet Kate has not had half the media attention or financial success that Jade has. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Jade was spectacularly unpopular with the public for most of the third season, however she wasn't actually nominated for eviction until very late in the run.

P.S. doesn't "Multi-Millionaire" rather put the lie to the belief that the Goody Cancer Road-Show(tm) is just to make money for her kids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.134.195 (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In respect to the above, this Wikipedia article is not the place for us to be passing judgement on her motives for remaining in the public eye after her cancer diagnosis. --Footix2 (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is the place to discuss why the media and such a large proportion of the British public have remained so interested in her continuously for over 6 years. She has been on the front of national newspapers, magazines etc hundreds of times - how that has happened is something that the article has yet to address. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with that, it does need addressed but it has to come with neutraility. There are several factors - the British love of an underdog, her rather colourful personality, some clever career choices, some scandals, a good publicist and sadly what will be a very tragic demise. Watching her life has been like passing a car crash, you dont want to look but cant help it.--Footix2 (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Siblings?

Did either of her parents ever have any other children? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned here, Jade: I'll visit my estranged dad's grave she has estranged brothers. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Parents

Have either of her parents ever been married? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Perfume

The statement that Jade Goody's second perfume has yet to appear is out of date. The Perfume Shop's website says it is available and that it was launched in 2008. I didn't want to edit without finding another source, as I am not sure if a link to a seller's website is appropriate. Any ideas?javascript:insertTags('Johnstaf (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)',,)

I believe that while the rules would require you to find other sources than the seller if you were trying to make the case as to how good the product is, if you are just looking for evidence that it is on sale, then the seller's website is the key source. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the bit about the second perfume as it is availble to buy so has been released.BananaNoodle (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms

Should not a section be created in the main articles that acknowledges the full extend of critisims leveled against her. Or at the very least showing the love hate relationship she has with the media, particularly dealing with the extremes in the media, i.e. the tabliods either praising her or the colomists looking down at her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt4k (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, criticism sections are discouraged. — R² 18:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if a separate criticism section isn't needed, the fact is that she is notorious for having received a huge amount of criticism from the media and the general public. As such, more of the criticism she received should be worked into the article. The article does not adequately mention the massive negative reception from the public during the time she was in the BB house in 2002, owing to her appalling behaviour in there. Since the Shetty incidents, Goody became known in India, and Gordon Brown was dragged into the media circus around the clash between Goody and Shetty. Since 2002, Goody has polarised media and public opinion, with millions of people having strong views on her, whether negative, positive or ambiguous. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think she was hugely unpopular in BB3, in fact there was something of a ground swell of support for her in the face of what some percieved as mild bullying. Of course an accusation later levelled at her in the Shilpa Shetty saga. Her popularity in the latter stages of BB3 was certainly fuelled by the media (tabloid newspapers), her growing unopularity seemed to be also fuelled by this. The Shipla Shetty saga simply became a tabloid fuelled bandwagon, in much the same way the recent Ross/Brand affair seemed to snowball away. She polarises opinion so much we have to be careful to maintain neutrality IMO. --Footix2 (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Education

Much has been said by the media, the general public, and her, about how uneducated she is. Does anyone know where she went to school, if she attended regularly and when she left? Her qualifications, if any, should be mentioned. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This myspace profile [1], which claims to be her official profile, states she is a 'college graduate'! Such a claim seems ridiculous considering the fact that she recently said she didn't have an education. Is the page really written and / or controlled by her? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people 'claim' they are 100 years old on Myspace, or earn '$250,000 a year, or higher'. The latter would obviously be true in her case, but essentially what anyone 'claims' on their Myspace page is not to be taken seriously. A lot of people treat it as a bit of a joke. So I am afraid you are using an invalid weapon to beat her down.

Clearly she is not educated but intelligence and education are by no means the same thing. This has been said hundreds of times before. Dubmill (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Myspace is not a reliable source. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just had to remove more BLP crap from Nietzsche's post, stop using every opportunity to make personal comments. — R² 14:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In England a number of people will claim to be a college graduate when they leave school. I am sure she left school. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As I have already mentioned, personal details on Myspace pages are ROUTINELY COMPLETELY FALSE. Although many people treat the information they provide on their pages as serious, a great many others do not and regard it as a kind of game. Posting such false information should not be regarded as the equivalent of claiming to be a college graduate on a CV or job application and so on.

The second point worth noting is that, as reported recently re. Twitter, many celebrity pages are fakes.

So, for all those reasons, no credence should be given to this, nor any conclusion drawn about some dishonest intention behind it, allegedly typical of 'a number of people ... in England'. Dubmill (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack Tweed

His own article?

Has a separate article for Tweed ever been created? Does his engagement to Goody, his appearance on CBB 2007, and the media attention he has received, make him notable enough for his own article? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No I wouldn't think it would. Notability is not heritable. Check Suri Cruise (Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' daughter) for an example. She is certainly more internationally well-known that Jack Tweed and her link redirects to TomKat (the article on the two of them). There are many cases where someone is known because they are related to someone famous or because they are with someone famous; most don't have their own articles. People are notble for what they do not what their partners do. Check WP:N for more information. :) fr33kman -s- 21:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Placed level 4 heading

Hello, in a "drive-by edit" I have placed a level 4 heading around Jack Tweed's section of Miss Goody's Relationship section to enhance readability. I have also linked his section in the CBB article (see: CBB 2007, and the diff of my edit made there) pointing back to the new level 4 heading. Bye, fr33kman -s- 21:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Should we move the redirect for Jack Tweed to this article instead (and move the majority of his info here)? Currently it links to Celebrity Big Brother w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done I would say that it makes sense to change the redirect to #REDIRECT[[Jade Goody#Jack Tweed]] for two reasons; a) he is best known for his relationship with Miss Goody and only appeared in CBB because of this, and b) his section in the CBB 2007 article now points to his section in this article. I have done this under WP:BOLD.  Not done have not moved his information here as it more correctly belongs in the CBB article as it relates to what he did on that program. You could copy some of it here, but probably not needed. fr33kman -s- 18:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Length of relationship

When did Goody and Tweed's relationship begin? Their miscarried baby was conceived in late March / early April 2007. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Relationships

Is she known to have had personal relationships with anyone other than Brazier and Tweed? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a look and apparently, she did have a short relationship with someone called Ryan Amoo (after the split with Brazier and before meeting Tweed), who apparently is/was a footballer. It's not significant enough to add into the article though and that's all I could find. Sky83 (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Goody and Amoo lived together; Amoo has his own article, which mentions their former relationship. Therefore it is important enough to be included in this article, which it now is. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Article needs reshuffle

The article shouldn't be split between her career and person life, all the information should be presented in a chronological order. Split into dated subsections. — R² 14:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do that. Many of the things in the article do not have dates on them, or only vague dates. It still isn't stated in the article when each of the three personal relationships of hers began and ended. We would need that info before even considering it. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Perception of Goody outside UK

How much coverage has she received abroad, and what is the tone of it? In particular, how is she perceived in India, where she received attention from early 2007 onwards? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you quit with the personal comments please? There was no need for that final comment (which I've just removed). — R² 09:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link from the india times, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Editorial/COUNTERVIEW--Have-we-completely-lost-it/articleshow/4151048.cms 57.66.49.133 (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

CBB

Clashes with Shetty

It should be pointed out in the Celebrity Big Brother section that (at least some of) her clashes with Shetty were (perceived by many to be) class / upbringing / intelligence / educational level-based. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Did she actually deny any wrongdoing?

Because I thought she apologised straight away, both in the house and outside, admitting virtually instantly that she had been wrong. Can anyone remember? Because I'm inclined to remove that section of the lead because I am almost certain it was O'Meara who denied wrongdoing and not Goody or Lloyd. Sky83 (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the lead gives an inaccurate account of her response, during and after CBB. She definitely admitted her behavior was unacceptable, after Davina showed her the footage, I remember that vividly. — R² 10:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have had a quick look around the article about the 'incident' on here and other articles externally, and I've reworded it. She did apologise in the house and outside, her eviction interview being the first occurance of this. The more I read that point, the more it seemed incorrect and almost POV-ish. Sky83 (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

For the large majority of her time in the house, Goody seemed to believe she was entirely in the right. It was only towards the end of her stay there that she accepted her behaviour was wrong. Even then, it seemed to be more because she feared a negative reaction from the viewers and general public, than a genuine acceptance that what she said and how she said it was bad and unnecessary. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

But that's your anti-Goody bias speaking, we have no idea what was going on in her head. — R² 22:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

£millions

The infobox used to state how large her fortune is. Does anyone have a good idea of how much money she has? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Her lifetime earnings were cited to be between £2 million and £8 million by this point.[27][28][29] - This was back in 2007. Safe to say, in 2009, we are looking at £5-10 million. Not bad for someone who came 4th in Big Brother. — R² 14:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Salons

The Comeback section briefly mentions her second salon, but the only mention of the first is later down the page, in the Television appearances section. Are both salons still in existence? If so, who is running them now? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe her 1st salon, Ugly, closed down: http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17592639&method=full&siteid=93463&headline=ugly-jade-shop-goes-bust--name_page.html --Footix2 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Ugly's did close, it is now an estate agency apparently. Sky83 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fans

It would be useful to add what it is about her that has managed to gain her so many fans. Many of those who like her, or side with her, root for her because they want to see a real underdog do well. Her extremely deprived upbringing, being severely neglected by both her parents and having so little knowledge and ability put her at a major disadvantage in life. Many fans believe that if she can make so much (money and fame) out of nothing, then it gives them hope that they can do the same thing themselves. I gather that the large majority of her fans are young females; do many of her fans actually identify with her; see themselves as being similar to her? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a potential section of this nature would be at all helpful, other than to give 'people' a chance to say that they believe she apparently has no qualities that would make her a role model. I could be wrong about this comment, but there is a shocking anti-Goody bias sneaking into this talk page lately and I suspect that creating a section (or even a few sentences) supposedly about her role model aspects is another way of pushing an agenda into the article itself. Sky83 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that it would be extremely difficult to reliably back up any theories or assumptions or even statements about her fanbase. And this goes to both the demographic and the motivation of said demographic. Sky83 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, I share Nietzche 2's curiosity. What does she do? Neither talent nor effort reliably lead to the rewards that Jade has enjoyed (Media attention, Bank balance, etc.) To pick three media figures from the top of my head; Princess Diana became famous by marrying the heir to the British Throne, Fern Britton followed a reasonably normal path into TV presenting, Amy Winehouse is considered to be a talented singer, Maureen from driving school was a bad driver and Jack The Ripper mutilated prostitutes in odd ways... What put and kept Jade in the media spot light? What has been her career path? Jade's fame itself is noteworthy for being apparently unfathomable. So, is it a Max Clifford production, or is it a love of the under-dog, or is it (as Nietzsche 2 suggested) that many people feel that their only chance of "success" is to be the next Jade. Whatever the reason is, it might say a great deal about the current social state of the UK.

I also note that the article doesn't mention that she at one point worked as a dental nurse (AFAIK a position that does not require a professional qualification in the UK.) nor that she was the first Big Brother contestant to later become a millionaire. Scruffy brit (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please tone down the personal commentary, comments that are overtly anti-Goody will be removed. — R² 00:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely if you put what made people like her, you would then have to include reasons why people didnt like her. For the sake of a balanced argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.65.105 (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a biography. If you want an argument, start a blog. Rothorpe (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I think her picture currently does not have enough merit to be in an encyclopedia. She has hair. At the moment, she does not. She is a cancer victim. She looks like a bald rat. Please replace this picture.

We are limited to images that are free of copyright, which the current on is. The article is also a biography covering her whole life, for most of which she has had hair; therefore, it is a representative image. So I see no reason to change the image. --Rodhullandemu 01:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Many many articles have photographs that are two or more years old, and whose subject has significantly changed since the image was captured, I see no reason to change the main photo to one more recent just because Jade happens to have lost her hair now. Not to mention that the 'bald rat' comment was clearly intended to be rude about Miss Goody. Sky83 (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Goody/Tweed surname change

I have changed it twice now, back from Tweed to Goody. Until we know whether she has changed her name to Tweed, it has to stay as Goody. It is likely that she will change it, but we really do not know at this point and getting married does not automatically change a person's name. Could we please leave the article title and all references throughout as Goody until we know anything further? Thanks. Sky83 (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree; the days of a married woman automatically taking her husband's surname are long gone, and it is original research to suggest that Jade Goody has changed her surname to Tweed until this is confirmed by a reliable source. --Rodhullandemu 15:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If people continue to move the page I suggest that move protection should be requested. 12bigbrother12 17:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's in the text of the article that the problem has arisen so far, but if the article is prematurely or incorrectly moved to 'Jade Tweed' then I agree with the move protection suggestion. Like I said, the likelihood is that she will change it if we go on national statistics, but Wikipedia does not rely on assumptions or predictions (or statistics for that matter) in situations like this. Sky83 (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Another option for a married woman (especially if famous) is that her legal surname is that of her husband, but she uses her maiden name / previous husband's surname as her name in her career / public life. The articles of such women should be under their career names, as that is what they are known to the public as. Should Jade choose this option, the article should still be called Jade Goody. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

SkyNews.com & SkyNews announce name change

That isn't an announcement, that's commentary, just a cutesy way of saying they are husband and wife. Sky83 (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"I now pronounce you Mr & Mrs Tweeed", official wedding announcement.

It is up to Jade herself to decide how she will be titled, and I agree with Nietzsche 2 on this. Since there is no authoritative announcement as yet, any move is not reliably source and seems to be against consensus, so I will move-protect for a few days. If anyone continues to insist on changing her surname without a direct quote from her, the article will be fully-protected. Please see WP:BLP on sourcing biographies. --Rodhullandemu 18:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The page title should remain as Jade Goody even if she does change her surname at marriage. To be a legal change (for passports etc) she'd have to execute a Deed Poll Change of Name under English law, but even that should not change the page title because Jade Goody is what the public know her as. fr33kman -s- 21:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A married woman can change her name by 'custom and practice' - ie she just starts using her hubby's name. There is no requirement for a Deed Poll.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The page title doesn't change its the sub title of her full official name, which should include Tweed. Look at Katie Price profile. People need to learn how to use wikipedia. I am getting very angry now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.142.249 (talk • contribs) 10:36, February 23, 2009

That is the point though. We do not know what her name will be and as another editor pointed out, gone are the days during which a woman automatically took her husband's surname at marriage. For all we know, Jade may have no intention of taking the Tweed surname at all, in private or in public. Or she might go to Goody-Tweed. We do not know. And until we have a reliable confirmation, we do not change it at all. It's as simple as that. Sky83 (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jade Goody has now confirmed that she wanted to be remembered as Jade Goody —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funguy06 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 23 February, 2009 (UTC)

I think that this reference closes the issue fr33kman -s- 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

TV appearances list

I removed the list of TV appearances as this article would never pass a GA review with such a terrible collection of...crap. I've removed it for a second time, but won't remove it a third time. — R² 18:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, the issue here is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Very few television appearances by any personality are actually notable in themselves, and I suggest anyone wanting to put them back should consider this list on a case-by-case basis, and discuss it here first. --Rodhullandemu 18:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'm with you on this one as well. Some of the info can probably go elsewhere in the article but the list is unnecessary. Sky83 (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Her stint on Back to Reality is important enough to be included in the article, as are the Living programmes following her lately. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable TV appearances should be worked into the article prose, not buried in a ugly list at the bottom of the article. — R² 19:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If we can determine what is and is not notable enough to be included. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Anything that receives coverage in notable third party sources. — R² 19:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite. And on the subject of the notability of the contents of the list, her Living programmes definitely are. It's her own reality series, so that should be included somewhere, especially since the show will be featuring footage of her wedding. Not so much on the Back to Reality thing though. Unless I'm missing something, that one seems to be only slightly notable for her hospital trip. Sky83 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Place holder for references used on this page

Done by fr33kman -s- 14:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack Tweed article

This article has now been restored after a redirect to both CBB 07 and here, and there is currently a discussion about a potential redirect or keep of the article, over at the Tweed talk page. In case anyone would like to have their say, here is the link. Sky83 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads up. — R² 19:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I figured some people wouldn't necessarily be aware of it so it might be good to mention it here :). Sky83 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

I have nominated this article for deletion. This woman has never done anything worthy of note. She never sung a song, wrote a book or even told a joke, nothing. Having terminal cancer is not notable nor is anything else she's ever done.I realise that that the British tabloid press are fascinated by her but I am hopeful that Wiki is better than that.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read notability guidelines. Meanwhile, your AfD nomination is malformed, and I have removed it to give you an opportunity to have another try. Probably a good idea also to look at the previous discussion and WP:POINT. --Rodhullandemu 12:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, much of the public, not just the tabloids, are fascinated by her. That's why the public buy her products. Don't disrupt the Wiki to make a point. — R² 13:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A deletion nomination is ridiculous. Notability requirements: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" & also "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." She easily satisfies both of these. And the deletion nomination is clearly based on your own POV.

I agree, clearly Jade Goody is notable, on several points. I suspect it is POV that has pushed this. I was actually shocked to see the nomination until I read the 'reasons' for it. Sky83 (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the AfD discussion though. WP:SNOW? Cycle~ (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That won't happen unless SmokeyTheCat presents a properly-formed AfD, but by now I would have thought consensus should be apparent. --Rodhullandemu 16:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The proposal (to delete) amounts to flamebait. Wikipedia:Speedy keep suggested leaky_caldron (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

OMG you seriously nominated this article for deletion because you think Jade Goody has never "done anything worthy"??? She's a British celebrity, she HAS written a book - her autobiography, she brought out her own perfume...her having terminal cancer is by no means the reason as to why she has a wiki article and if you seriously think that nothing she has done has ever been notable then you really need to buck up on your knowledge of her. Ammera (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Are any of her quotes on Wikiquote? If so, there should be a link on this article to them. If not, why not? They are certainly notable, despite being nonsense. Many of the things she has said are (unintentional) comedic gems, and have received a great deal of attention from the media and British public. Many people found her conversation in the BB3 house with Spencer hilarious. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There are quotes about her, from Top Gear and Petrolheads, but none by her. They would, of course, require reliable sources. --Rodhullandemu 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Description in first sentence

I noticed the header involves "Jade Goody is a British celebrity", where normally a person is noted by a profession, such as actor or musician. The article isn't very clear about what she actually does, if anything --A Chain of Flowers 01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Chain Of Flowers (talk • contribs)

Perhaps 'Media Personality' is slightly more accurate? --Footix2 (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone else who has a Wikipedia article and is / was similar to Goody? If so, what is their description in the opening line? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

She is, as they say, 'famous for being famous', so I think 'celebrity' is just fine. Rothorpe (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "Media personality" or "Big brother contestant" would fit the bill. I'm leaning more towards the latter. -A Chain of Flowers 15:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Chain Of Flowers (talk • contribs)

Just because you don't like the notion of 'celebrity' as a description of what someone 'does' or is, doesn't mean wikipedia can ignore the culture we live in. There are magazines and websites devoted to coverage of 'celebrities' and there are plenty of these people who do a bit of this and a bit of that but really 'celebrity' ultimately describes what they are and how they are seen by the public. Jade Goody might be one of the most extreme in that she has never been a pop singer or a model, but there are plenty of people who have done those things but who have gone on to become even bigger stars, and whose current status is really 'celebrity'. I mean, no-one would suggest Victoria Beckham be classified as a pop singer any more.

'Media Personality' would work just as well, but 'Big Brother contestant' sounds like you are trying to make a critical point. Jade Goody may have started as a Big Brother contestant but she has come a long way since then and is a lot bigger than that. Dubmill (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I was mearly making a point that pretty much every other article of this type uses the REASON they are a celebrity instead that they ARE a celebrity. I wasn't trying to make a "critical point", I was looking for a reason behind her fame, and that seems to be it - 17:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC) A Chain of Flowers 17:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if that was not your intent. I still think it is insufficient as a description, for the reasons I have already stated. Dubmill (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the point about Victoria Beckham is an interesting one to make, and certainly partially applies here. She is no more a pop singer than Jade Goody is a Big Brother contestant anymore, so it would defintely be more appropriate and accurate to designate a description that is more current. If we don't want to go with the blanket term of 'British celebrity', I would personally be okay with the more specific 'media personality', since both are correct. Sky83 (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

County of wedding

Down Hall country house considers itself to be in Hertfordshire. Geographically, Hatfield Heath lies on the border of Hertfordshire and Essex, so it is entirely possible and (given the claim by the venue) even likely that while Hatfield Heath itself is considered, for most intents and purposes, to be in Essex, that the country house is in Hertfordshire. I had a short discussion with another editor about this, and we came to the conclusion that for the time being, the fairest way to describe it was Down Hall, Hatfield Heath, leaving out the county (so not designating the venue to be somewhere it claims it is not, while linking to the Hatfield Heath page to explain that the place is over the border). It would technically be correct to describe Down Hall as in both Hertfordshire and Essex so this seemed a better and less complicated way to display the details. Sky83 (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to Nietzsche 2's edit summary ("both Hatfield Heath and Down Hall are wholly in Essex, the statements of it being in Herts are false; needs to be stated on article for clarification"), The Wikipedia inclusion threshold is verifiability, not truth. We need a source to confirm that Down Hall is in Essex – and I've yet to see one. Until then, it's just original research. Cycle~ (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That many people consider Down Hall and / or Hatfield Heath to be in Hertfordshire does not make it true. The fact is that they are both wholly in Essex, which maps prove - that's why this article should state the location as Essex. This an encyclopedia, so we should be stating the truth. We should not state Herts just because many people have said it is there, nor censor the county because of confusion. Neither DH nor HH are on the border between the two counties, they are both clearly, wholly, within Essex - there is a significant gap between them and the border. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please check out the Down Hall website. There is a very valid dispute on this. I initially believed the place to be in Essex myself, but my mother, who actually did use to live on the border was the one who questionned it with me. Upon checking it out, there is a general debate about where it is, both Herts and Essex appear to be claiming it. It is not for us to decide where it is, which is why it is better to state just Hatfield Heath. You're right, we should be stating the truth, but the truth here is very much questionable. For the time being, I feel it is much better to leave the county off as it avoids the edit dispute you have started. Sky83 (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Hatfield Heath being in Essex is correct. People may get confused with nearby city called Hatfield, Hertfordshire (I live there). The location of Hatfield Heath is near Harlow, which is clearly in Essex w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The confusion over that was muted by linking to the Hatfield Heath article. As Cycle~ said, the onus on this article is to prove where the wedding is, and that is Down Hall, Hatfield Heath. The Hatfield Heath article can prove where Hatfield Heath is, not Down Hall. Sky83 (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this phrasing might help end this: ....at Down Hall country house in Hatfield Heath, on the border of Hertfordshire and Essex..... Since the article on Hatfield Heath actually states that the village sits on the border of Hertfordshire and Essex, this could be a decent compromise if there is an insistence on a county being included. Anyone agree? Sky83 (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

or we could state that Down Hall is near Hatfield Heath, as suggested by Dubmill? Sky83 (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My sources are AA close-up Britain road atlas (book) and Google maps (online); used together they are unambiguous about DH and HH both being in Essex. The confusion with Hatfield, Hertfordshire, a separate, but much larger, settlement miles away confuses things further. Linking to Hatfield Heath does not solve the dispute - DH is near to, but not actually in, HH. As HH is near to (but not on) the border, it leads people to wonder whether DH is over the border into Herts. The HH article does not mention DH. Many people will come to this article in order to find out which county the marriage is due to take place in, which is why I feel the article should clearly state Essex. I did not start the debate over the county, and will not edit war over it on the article. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the following wording be used: 'Down Hall near Hatfield Heath, Essex'. Firstly this is more accurate than saying 'in Hatfield Heath', since Down Hall is situated in open country a mile or so south of the small village of Hatfield Heath. Secondly this avoids the confusion with Down Hall's declared statement that they are in Hertfordshire. That statement is not correct in my opinion, but the above wording avoids any argument over that, as well as clarifying the location of Hatfield Heath, which is not in dispute. Dubmill (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly feel that your phrasing, Dubmill, is extremely fair and accurate, all things considered. I've lived in Hertfordshire before now and a lot of places are like this in that area of the country (and probably other areas too). They are put under the banner of the nearest town, village, city etc, but sometimes they can be quite some distance away. This seems to be one of those cases. Sky83 (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely we should be taking the statement of the establishment itself that it is Hertfordshire as the defintive source? --Footix2 (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not if the statement is incorrect. I'd wager the confusion, as Sky83 hints, stems from the POSTAL TOWN for the postcode CM22 7AS being Bishops Stortford, which is of course in Hertfordshire (do a postcode search on the Royal Mail site and you will see what I mean). I suspect that, as a result of that, Down Hall either believe (mistakenly) that they actually ARE in Herts, or they have decided to go with it on their website in order to avoid conflict with their postal address. Dubmill (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The CM postcode area (named after Chelmsford in the middle of Essex) extends into Herts, which adds even more confusion! Nietzsche 2 (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I live near Down Hall and by that I mean 10minutes away and it is definately Hertfordshire

Unfortunately, that is not only original research, but ambiguous. It seems to be accepted in this discussion that DH is near the border – well within 10 minutes – all maps I've seen place it in Essex, so I'll opt with that one. Cycle~ (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This argument is quite frankly idiotic. An establishment such as Down Hall can consider itself to be located in the local authority to which it pays its Council Tax. None of the second tier local authorities in Hertfordshire (or Essex) are partly in the area of the other authority. Down Hall will know perfectly well to which County Council it pays its local taxes (Hertfordshire) and, Wikipedia experts poring over maps notwithstanding, that is the defining factor for determining which County a hereditament is in (and yes, I did use to be a Revenue officer!!) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Added - realised this could be read as saying that one or other of contributors is an idiot. This was not my intention.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the administrative county which matters, for which it is in Essex; that is how county borders are correctly determined. DH and HH are both wholly within Essex, as Essex is officially defined, which includes the definition in the Essex article. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My argument entirely - it is the administrative county which matters. Which makes it doubly strange that DH would say it is in Herts, as if you are right it must know it pays its Non Domestic Rates in Essex--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Christianity

Christening of her two sons and herself

The Christening is a very significant life event of Jade Goody, and as such the article does not reflect this. It's important to note, that as reported by her publicist Max Clifford that the twenty minute Christening service conducted by the Hospital Chaplain for her two boys and herself was very emotional and important to Jade Goody and that (in her own words) "Hopefully through Jesus they can stay together". Important to note too is that Max Clifford said that it was likely that this was the last appearance of Jade to the media, but ultimately that was still up to her.

Christian categories

Does she qualify for the categories English Christians and Converts to Christianity? Surely the article should state that she is now a Christian; as such she should be in the first cat. Prior to her being diagnosed with cancer, I had never known her to express any religious beliefs; unless anyone remembers her expressing any Christian belief prior to her diagnosis, I think we can add her to the latter cat. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added sourced confirmations of her Christianity in the article, both in the Infobox and in two categories: "English Christians" and "Converts to Christianity". — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 06:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#JOURNALISM

Just a reminder of this policy- and it is policy, not a guideline. We are not here to give a day-by-day account of events, leave that to the tabloids and Wikinews please. --Rodhullandemu 22:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole cancer thing needs a large trim. We don't need a diary on her deterioration. This is all rather revolting. — R² 00:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, wholeheartedly so. I don't like to use the phrase, but I feel that 'death tourist' is appropriate here, there are people who are hanging around simply because this poor woman is terminally ill. I think it's pretty obvious at this point who the stand out registered users are (see: those who dislike Goody, but spend disproportionate amounts of time here anyway), but I fear that there are going to be a whole lot more in the coming days and weeks. With any luck, they may take a peek at the talk page and see this section. Sky83 (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Goody is (inexplicably) very famous; as such, this article should state all the necessary and verifiable facts that are relevant to her life. As it is a biography, it should present the truth, in contrast to the crap that is written in the red-top newspapers. Gossip, lies, speculation and guesses have no place in any encyclopedia biography. This article should not santise or euphemise anything, as that would be censorship. Her cancer diagnosis and operations are very relevant to her life and thus they must be included. The quotes from Max Clifford should be removed though, as he is not a reliable source. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As Max Clifford is her "spokseperson" I guess he has to be considered as a reliable source. Other reliable sources will simply be quoting him anyway. As for trimming the cancer section. I think this would be better done in hindsight, after her death. When the whole thing has ran its course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Footix2 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tag

shouldn't this article have a tag marking it as a current event:

{{current}}

with Goody's medical condition as it is?

No, that tag is intended for situations such as a disaster when multiple editors may be trying to edit at once. Goody's condition is developing much more slowly than that. --Rodhullandemu 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So we use that template as soon as she dies? (It sounds so morbid to even discuss...). Dalejenkins | 23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No, there is a specific death tag. — R² 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

She only has hours to go, apparently.. I have added the {{current}} tag to the Cancer section as a result Dvmedis (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 Administrator note FFS! She's dying- possibly, if you really think tabloids are authoritative. Meanwhile that tag is inappropriate. As noted above, we are not a journal. If there's any more nonsense like this, I will protect the article. Fully, if required. --Rodhullandemu 02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Woman with hammer

Is the incident of 8 March, in which a 41 year old woman was found standing over Jade whilst she was in her hospital bed, relevant enough to include in the article? It gained a lot of media coverage, including on the front page of national newspapers the following day. The details are unclear, as media reports vary significantly regarding what they claim happened. We know that Goody woke up to the unpleasant surprise of finding her there; that she was arrested and had a hammer in her possession. Later that day, she was released without charge; no further action to be taken. Some media sources state that she was holding the hammer over Goody; that the intruder was praying, muttering or chanting. In any case, it seems strange that the police and CPS are not trying to bring any legal proceedings against a person who came into a hospital with a hammer and confronted someone unannounced and uninvited. Does anyone know the truth of what happened that day, and why she would be released with no further action? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anything is clear tbh, but one news report said that the 'hammer' was actually a gavel, or something resembling a gavel, and that the intruder was a French woman. As it stands, I'm not sure there's really enough clarity to include it, since there is so little that has actually been confirmed. Sky83 (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant to her biography in the long term. — R² 14:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cancer charities

Some high-profile people diagnosed with cancer use their position to raise money for cancer charities and / or donate a substantial proportion of their wealth to such causes. Helen Rollason and Jane Tomlinson are good examples of people who did that. Jade Goody, as a very famous multi-millionaire could certainly have done likewise - has she? If so, it would certainly be relevant enough to add to this article; such info is on Rollason and Tomlinson's articles. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Goody's case has succeeded in getting the Government to review the age at which women should first be offered cervical screening, and Goody herself is reported as saying she is very proud of this Goody effect forces ministers to review cancer screening policy. That in itself is likely to save lives if the review comes down in favour of screening starting at 20 as it does in other countries. But no, I'm not aware of her having donated money. She could have done this privately, or left money in her will I suppose. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely think that link should be added to the article. I've also heard that after she was diagnosed, women have been going to the doctors and getting checks more often. This kind of info should be included. — R² 01:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a citation for the health review at the end of the Cancer section and will add something about younger women asking for screening.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. :) — R² 10:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this is the kind of thing that should remain in that section. The blow by blow account of her many 'last' appearances can in due course probably be trimmed down to 3 or 4 sentences.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

She was also cared for at home by a/a few specialist Macmillan nurse(s) during her treatment (as quoted in pretty much all of the national papers). This might be good to add to explain how she stayed at home after operations etc and also the role played by such a large charity in offering support in those situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I enjoy words (talk • contribs) 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack Tweed curfew

The article mentions an extension to Jack Tweed's curfew in two locations but it doesn't discuss the curfew anywhere else. Mentioning an extension to a curfew without discussing the curfew is unnecessarily confusing. I presume it's either for the conviction of attacking a 16 year old for which he was sentenced and then subjected to electronic monitoring and/or his being on bail due of his conviction for assault on a taxi driver. Either way it should be explained (briefly) or not mentioned at all. Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind I checked reference used to support the electronic monitoring bit and it's mentioned there so I added it to the article Nil Einne (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Jade's death

This is going to be, no doubt, a busy time on this article, and there will be things that need to be discussed before going into the article. I think it's best to have a section here to discuss any potential big changes.

Time of death

Since it keeps being changed to 3:55am, and I have changed it back to 3:14am, this is an issue that is already arising. The BBC reference, which looks more reliable than the other one, states 3:14, which is why I changed it. I have no problem if that is changed with a reliable reference, but I would request that editors don't just change it with no good cause. Sky83 (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I've found where the confusion has come from. Jackiey Budden has said 3:55 and the statement from Clifford (as I understand it) has said 3:14. I don't know which one would be best to go for to be honest. It's possible that Clifford got it wrong, but it's also possible that Jackiey accidentally stated the wrong time as well. Thoughts anyone? Sky83 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe wait and see what the sources say later on in the day when things have calmed down a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BananaNoodle (talk • contribs) 10:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BananaNoodle. My opinion always is that with something like this where the detail is of no great significance and the information is hours old, it's best just to leave it out until clarity develops in the reliable sources per WP:NOTNEWS, wikipedia being an encylopaedia aiming for accuracy, et al. However given the current history, it's likely that people are going to be adding the same thing every 10 minutes or so, and in cases like that it is often helpful to leave a hidden comment explaining why the information is not there. Nil Einne (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say stick with the 3:14 reference until later sources can verify one or the other. It's not doing any good putting neither. Perhaps we could reference both 3:14 and 3:55, indicating that sources vary on the exact time of death?. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 10:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy with whatever suggestion people think, I think the intention should be to avoid multiple edits, essentially anything we can do to avoid vandalism at this time would be for the best. If you want to edit the article to state both times, I think that would be fine, but I also think the hidden comment would be helpful, just to show potential editors why it has been edited as it has. Sky83 (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps instead we could use something along the lines of: "there are conflicting reports on the exact time of Goody's death^[1][2]", with "1" and "2" being the sources for 3:14 and 3:55 respectively? I don't think we need to actually mention the separate times in the article itself; perhaps in a hidden comment to inform editors?. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 10:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea. I think the hidden note alongside that to explain why there is no time of death written (at least until there is reliable confirmation as to which is correct) would also be good to discourage over eager editors from getting OTT! I'm impressed there has been little vandalism so far. Let's hope it stays that way. Sky83 (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, saying that it's unclear at the moment might stop people changing it to one or the other until it's cleared up over a few days.BananaNoodle (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have incorporated these discussed changes, but have not yet added a hidden comment to inform editors. Either of you can feel free to add one if you like. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 11:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added the comment :). Hopefully that will be enough to prevent people from getting trigger happy with their edits! Sky83 (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/Jade-Goodys-mother-Jackiey-Budden-pays-tribute-to-daughter-who-died-this-morning/Video/200903415246595?lpos=Latest+Video_9&lid=VIDEO_1843800_Jade%27s+Mother+Pays+Tribute&videoCategory=Latest+Video 86.29.239.87 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added to the article that she died on Mothering Sunday. It's not strictly required but I think it adds to the article. I have no firm position on this, however, and if people want to remove it, I've no objections. (Comment: extra tragic for her family dying on Mothering Sunday; Sad!) fr33kman -s- 20:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Trivial but interesting, I don't see why it shouldn't stay. – Toon^(talk) 20:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I see this bit has been removed. Personally I thought initially that perhaps it was irrelevant but it does seem to have effected the media coverage of her death a great deal, so perhaps it should be included and a comment about how many of the media stories reflected this - with references of course. BananaNoodle (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

While not strictly important, I think the Mothering Sunday reference, adds to the general tragedy of her death and maybe should be included. If nobody can provide a compelling argument against the edit, then we should add it back.--82.71.58.120 (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Amount of detail needed in the death section

I'm tempted to remove the following:

Goody's death became a world wide news story in the hours after her death; Jade is also among the first former Big Brother contestants in the world to die.

While I feel that it is a good faith addition, I'm not sure that kind of detail is really warranted. Perhaps the section about it being a worldwide news story could be incorporated, but not really with the comment about BB death stats. Anyone? Sky83 (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

yes remove it, it's absurd. 86.167.8.184 (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the 'word wide news story' bit either - are there any sources for it? And what counts as world-wide? As for the being the first BB death, sounds like that would be more suitable for a trivia section on the BB page. BananaNoodle (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I was dubious about the whole section to be honest. Worldwide is a little too open for my liking. There have been articles on American websites and the like, but I think this is too much of a stretch to use that as a source for saying it is worldwide. Not to mention that it is quite difficult to be accurate in stating how big the sad news is across the globe just 12 hours after the poor woman died. Sky83 (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a reference attached to it which is a link to a news article not in English so it's clear that some people outside the UK have heard of her death but I think we'd need a lot more references to back up "world-wide" one from each continent at least! BananaNoodle (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging of cancer and death sections

I'm not sure that this is helpful at this time. This might be something to look at when all information is in (ie, after Miss Goody's funeral), but for the moment it seems a little premature. Is there a policy on this, or do we go with what is best for the article on a case by case basis? If there are no strong objections (and moreover no policy to follow), I'm thinking about changing it back. Sky83 (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As Goody's death was caused only by her cancer, it makes sense to have her cancer and death in the same section. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is not in dispute, but it is the timing. People come here to add news as it happens and the inevitably happens too quickly. For the time being, it would be better for the article to have a distinct section for her death to avoid people skimming the article and not seeing on. Eventually the two sections could be merged, but unfortunately, there are some editors who don't take the time to actually read an article before whacking a whole chunk of info in, info that is already located elsewhere. Is there anyone else here who would object to, at the very least, a smaller subsection heading for the death information, just to try to avoid any problems? Sky83 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think either way it is done it's going to need a big tidy up in a month or two when things have settled down. BananaNoodle (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, which is partly why I think it's best to wait until then before making a decision on a merge. Sky83 (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC).59]]

At the moment it is only a short paragraph about her death but I imagine once there is a funeral and other information comes out then this section may get expanded. Perhaps it would be better to have a smaller subsection for the information about the death, so that all the information doesn't just become one big block of text where people don't know where to add information. At least for the time being anyway. BananaNoodle (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a subsection. We'll see how that goes, but if there is much repetition of info going in, I think we should go back to how it was before, with distinct sections for 'cancer' and 'death' rather than a merge. To be honest, I still think it was better before, especially given that both sections are likely to expand still, but I think this is okay for now. Sky83 (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea for the time being, see how it goes. BananaNoodle (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had to change it back. People are not reading the talk page or checking the edit history, so unless I put another note in the article, this is better than it was. I think the merge, or a merge of some kind, will be suitable in a few days (ie after the funeral and the focused attention has simmered), but for now, there needs to be some sort of guideline for new editors so we don't get repetition of info. Sky83 (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess it was worth a try. And upon reflection I think you're right about the merge being better in a few days rather than at the moment.BananaNoodle (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe have the overall section called "Illness and death", with subsections on her illness (cancer), her death and the reaction and details (if made public) of her funeral (the floral tributes and other reactions will get mentioned in reliable sources at some point). At some future date, when things have settled down, there may even be a "legacy" section. Arguably, her battle with cancer and her death has made her even more famous than her Big Brother career did, though the fame from one did result from the other. It is not really her personal life (the current heading) when so much of it has taken place in the public arena. It is still a private thing for most of the family, though, and they have asked for privacy, so that should be considered (more so than usual) when deciding what to add to the article (or leave in if added) at least until some time after the funeral. Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Housemates template

Notable is spelt incorrectly; does anyone know how to correct it? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No idea, since somehow the template doesn't appear to exist. But it's there. I'm confused. ^anemone│_projectors 13:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, you just click on the 'e' button at the side of it. Pyrrhus16 13:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Also had the wrong name (BBALUM instead of BBUKHMS) so I've fixed that. Have also created a redirect from BBALUM for any articles that haven't updated. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation outdated

"In an April 2006 column she admitted having the Burberry nova check pattern tattooed on her left buttock.[30]"

The citation doesn't exists or has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tink044 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. It's trivial anyway, but without a citation, it's barely worth having. Sky83 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dates of birth of Goody's children

The article states the full date of birth of one of Goody's sons, and the month and year of birth of her other son. They are not themselves notable, and both are minors. Surely this is a violation of "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information"? In addition, the information appears to be unreferenced. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's unneccesary, and being unreferenced as well, I've trimmed it down to just the years of birth. – Toon^(talk) 15:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

While I don't personally believe it makes a whole lot of difference to the boys themselves, and the policy section you linked to isn't explicitely clear on this per se, I wouldn't necessarily object to the dates being removed and having just the birth year included (as long as that is kept). But at the same time, I don't have such a strong opinion that I would find it essential to remove it myself. Sky83 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Not notable

Wikipedia is not a gossip mag... We shouldn't have articles for every person that's been on a trashy reality TV programme... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't. For whatever reason, Goody was notable. Stop disputing that clear fact and letting your opinions on her affect Wikipedia. Cycle~ (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the link above, but she has been the subject of a substantial amount of sources including website and newspaper articles, whether or not she deserves notability (and by the way I don't believe she does) is beside the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.160.87 (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fitness videos

Does there need to be a whole section on her Fitness Videos? Shouldn't they be part of the career section? --Dwright8 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And if they are included then shouldn't her Living TV series be included as that was also a major media focused on Jade alone.BananaNoodle (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Scrap that, I see it is mentioned! BananaNoodle (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The section on fitness DVDs seems to be in odd position in the article, after the cancer or death section! --Footix2 (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed section, notable DVD releases should be worked into article body. — R² 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Businesswoman categorisation

I can agree with the intro to this article, which sums her up thus: Jade Cerisa Lorraine Goody (5 June 1981 – 22 March 2009)[2][3] was a British celebrity.

However, business woman? There is no mention of "business" activity in the article, just notes that she leant her name to a perfume and made a documentary around a hair saloon.

This is a person who made the most of her celebrity status, but business woman? A couple of bottles of perfume and two loss making hair dressing saloons hardly warrant the categorization of "business woman." Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, she was hardly an entrepreneur, she just put her name to a few products. --Dwright8 (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think a conversation lasting ten minutes and involving only two editors is adequate to establish a consensus. For a start, nobody seems to have been aware of previous discussion. It's not being suggested that she is Alan Sugar or Richard Branson, but can we please have some more input to this before changing? --Rodhullandemu 22:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

She was certainly an entrepreneur in the sense that she marketed herself, via a succession of television and other media deals. It is true that the term 'businessman' or 'businesswoman' would normally be used to describe someone running a company making products or offering services. However her perfume line and salons fall into that category. They might not have been her primary source of income but I believe they were relatively successful until the Shilpa Shetty debacle. Dubmill (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this point. Also, her businesses were part of the reason why she was in the media, e.g. her making the perfume was featured in one of her Living TV shows if I recall correctly. BananaNoodle (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What is her reason for notability and inclusion in Wikipedia? It's because she was a celebrity of note, which is clearly and correctly stated in the opening para, and on which she passes note of entry criteria. If we stand her business achievements to one side, would she make an entry to Wikipedia because of them? No, because they were not significant enough to pass entry tests - and in fact, they were media-vehicles to support her celebrity status, and for other reality TV shows. The woman or bloke down the end of your road wouldn't make it into Wikipedia at present because their businesses and activities are not suitably significant or notable. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, then we have to get categorisation right - and on business woman, and particularly women in business, we just don't on this article. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, in light of the lack of any further discussion, I have removed categorisation as business woman, and added Dental Nurse - the occupation she had before BB. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "indecent haste" springs to mind. Not all editors edit WP every day, and "closing this down" is an insult to those editors. Two days isn't enough to establish anything, let alone consensus. Accordingly, I've reverted your edit. --Rodhullandemu 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I must say, I'm in agreement with you. Sometimes I think 'no response' is taken to mean 'I don't care', when, like you say, it could be that people have a life outside of this 'community'! It needs to be left for now, not just whipped away. Personally, I feel that the definition of 'businesswoman', in its purest form, is certainly applicable here. Some of Jade's money was made from her own products (perfumes, salons, etc), which to me makes her a businesswoman. Regardless, I would like to see more of a discussion on this issue before it is 'closed'. Sky83 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If the description businesswoman is to be applied to "celebrity with tie-in endorsement of products" then you'd be as well arguing that every c-list and above celeb gets to be a "business-person". David Beckham has his own perfume, is he a businessman? He, as was Goody, is the front for actual business people doing the actual business. Do you think Goody was out there negotiating with suppliers and retailers, doing market analysis and determining profit margins for her perfume? That's what retail business is about, that's what business women do.

The point of the info box is to summarise what makes this person notable. If you asked a thousand people on the street what was Goody's occupation, not a single one would suggest "business woman". Certainly, refer to her business interests in the article, but she calling her a business woman in the info box is simply misleading. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal opinions of whether her activities make her a "businesswoman" are original research. What matters are reliable sources here; for example

“ The Jade that had left Big Brother in 2002 was a blowsy, overweight bottle-blonde dental nurse celebrated for her failed-GCSE malapropisms. The Jade that took part in Celebrity Big Brother in 2007, on the other hand, was slim and sleek, with a shiny brunette bob, owner of a successful beauty salon, and the name behind Shh... , the third-bestselling celebrity perfume at Superdrug, after Kylie's and Britney's. She had left behind her underclass upbringing and turned into a successful working-class businesswoman. ”

Whether that description should go into the infobox is, as pointed out, a different matter, and this is now the discussion we should have been having all along. --Rodhullandemu 14:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If notable (The Times is notable) third party sources call her a business person then that's really the end of the discussion. — R² 14:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So, suddenly we have some more discussion. If we are using the perfume she leant her name to for a 5% return as the qualification of a business person, then we need to include every person who has their name on a perfume. Wikipedia does not, we have a List of celebrity endorsed perfumes (where Ms Goody is listed under "Misc"), and a Category Category:Celebrity fragrances - both accept that lending your name to a perfume doesn't make you a perfumier or a business person. And re this successful saloon - shut well before her passing, and now an estate agents? One ref and nor does any make a business person. I also find it amusing that Realist has reverted the fact she was a dental nurse - can you please confirm your relationship to Miss Goody? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Realist2 did not revert that; I did. The reason is simple; being a dental nurse does not contribute to her notability. However, her business ventures, although derived from her celebrity status, do, because they are the subject of multiple, independent, reliable, sources. Compare Victoria Beckham, for example, but as for what other articles say, we do not regard ourselves as a reliable source. --Rodhullandemu 14:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We have sources calling her a business person, that's all that matters. I never reverted the fact that she was a dental nurse. I don't need to discuss my feelings on Goody either, as a person of color, I found her jokes distasteful, but I can write neutrally and think independently about anyone. So please, drop this rubbish about my "relationship with Goody". It just makes you look like a nob. — R² 14:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. I note that in the Times cite, which is essentially an opinion piece, it also says "Jade refused to retire from her job - which was, essentially, being Jade Goody" Can that be put under her occupation in the info box too? I also suggest that, given 10 minutes, I could source another dozen cites from opinion pieces that give her other occupational labels. None would be significant enough to put in the info box, and neither is this Times one.

And to address Rodhull's point; her business ventures do not make her a business woman. Practically every successful person in the field of entertainment have similar endeavours. They set up front companies, they use their name and image for endorsements, they employ assistants, agents and consultants. But ultimately all this business revolves around their 'real' occupation, which is what they are known for and which Wikipedia summarises them by. If Goody had gone out and personally set up a business that did not exclusively rely on her celebrity status, then she'd justifiably be a business woman in the info box. But she didn't. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The arguments are well made: 'businesswoman' should not be in the box. Rothorpe (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm beggining to agree, mention it in the article but leave it out the box.BananaNoodle (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove it from the box & intro. Rothorpe (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

2002 abnormal cells

The cancer section states that a smear test in 2002 showed she had abnormal cells, yet does not state what treatment, if any, she had for that. There are conflicting media reports about it. Did she refuse treatment for pre-cancerous cells, or pull out mid-way through treatment? Is it likely that the abnormal cells present in 2002, in combination with not having them (all) removed, were what caused the cancer found in the same part of her in 2008, and which caused her death? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

She had actually ignored a letter about test results earlier in 2008, we need a template for darwin awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.223.76 (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's true that she ignored the smear test which warned of abnormal cells and that she didn't receive any treatment. She could still be alive now if it wasn't for that mistake. Xamkou (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong according to one of the references cited in the article (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/big_brother/archive/article186214.ece). She underwent a laser treatment for those abnormal cells. 83.76.211.72 (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Media reports on what happened vary considerably. Did she test positive for abnormal cells in 2002, then again in 2008 prior to her cancer diagnosis? Did she complete the treatment for the abnormal cells? A source more reliable than a red-top would be better. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

She lived near me in Essex, and yes it is true. She ignored a letter from Princess Alexandra Hospital (Harlow, Essex) about the smear test. This detail is being overlooked, as it puts Jade in a bad light. As if she hadn't ignored that letter she most likly would still be with us.(http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/search/3628979.EPPING_FOREST__Jade_s_cancer_story__could_help_saves_lives_/)(78.86.136.146 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC))