Talk:Amy Lee/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

WTF who wrote this

Ms. Lee's dedicated fans, now that they've explicated her food allergies, her favorite movies, her appearance at age 13, and her childhood nicknames, may wish to add some of the facts many people like to know about singers. Namely, what is her vocal range: contralto, alto, mezzo-soprano, or soprano? And what musical training does she have? She was in a choir, that much is clear, but was there anything else?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirv (talk • contribs).

RE: She did not have any other musical training other than school choir.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.254.113.198 (talk • contribs).

Amy Lee is a brilliant artist, and growing up Amy took Piano Lessons. I find myself calling Amy Lee an original artist, because they're so many artifical people out there who pretend to be something their truly not. I feel that Ms. Lee has come a very long way, and I'm happy to have her sound in my own personal music colletion. Also, I think Amy has a love for McDonald's food. Jeffrey Buford. vampire_12002

Amy does not "dislike" fast food, as seen from the "Anywhere But Home" DVD and the thank-you note that came with the package:

"We also have to thank all of the things we just couldn't live without on tour: Nintendo, McDonald's, House of 1,000 corpses, South Park, Red-Bull, Coors Light, and dear God -Pedia-lyte!"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.254.113.198 (talk • contribs).

Trivia - sources

Looking at the trivia section i would guess that much of it has been made up on the spot. Would it be resonable to ask that all trivia edits are rved if sources are not provided ? --2mcm 07:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

To help those who "weed" out the invalid trivia does anybody have a problem with sources placed either here or in the source ? --2mcmGespräch 03:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Not me. Some of them seem pretty 'trivial', anyway. --InShaneee 01:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Movies + imdb

She is also ( well her songs ) in these movies :

  • The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) (additional music)
  • Elektra (2005) (song "Breathe No More")
  • Daredevil (2003) (songs "Bring Me To Life", "My Immortal")
  • The Punisher (2004) (singer: "Broken")
  • CSI: Miami (song "Bring Me To Life") [1]

BTW IMDbName:1341624 this is her IMDB link. --2mcm 01:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Fan mail

Moved from the middle of a paragraph --222.152.68.78 02:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Amy is the best singer in the whole world.We Love her!Her view is really good, because she doesn't say "I need to be annorexic or sing bad stuf to be well known." Her music is about real life, and problems people face. Like other artist, they try to sing like that, but then they end up in something bad, and doesnt influence good. Amy Lee rocks! -Agne M.(The world's greatest Evanescence fan)..... - -Amy fan------ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.145.160.78 (talk • contribs) 12 November 2005.

Copyright violations?

http://www.amyleeworld.com/evanescence-amy-lee.html

Take a look... the article appears to be copied from here. Deskana 22:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, Last modified 11/21/05 18:26:16 so it isnt a case of the chicken before the egg. It is so similiar i cant see how it isnt a copyright issue. --2mcmGespräch 03:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I will send them a standard notice. --2mcmGespräch 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Subject : Minor copyright violation

Dear Webmaster of AmyLeeWorld.com,

I am pleased to see that your website, "AmyLeeWorld.com" uses content from Wikipedia ( http://www.wikipedia.org ),
 the free encyclopedia. This is the sort of reuse that those who contribute to Wikipedia wish to promote.

However, I’d like to point out that when you use content from Wikipedia you ought to include a link back to the 
source Wikipedia article as is suggested on Wikipedia’s copyrights page, which is located at 
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights>. Additionally, you should also include a GFDL notice. One way
 of doing this would be to add the text "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which 
means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this 
license", and provide a link to <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html>. Text such at "This page contains text from
 Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia" is a good way to acknowledge the general source of the text.

One way to do this is add the following HTML to the bottom of the page in question :

    This article is licensed under the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html">GNU Free Documentation 
License</a>. It uses material from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy Lee>Wikipedia article "Amy 
Lee"</a>.

Sincerely,
Matthew /Surname/


A LINK IS, AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN, ON THIS PAGE: http://www.amyleeworld.com/evanescence-www.html. - Webmaster of http://www.Amyleeworld.com
Thank you for the link to this site, but i doubt simply a link on a separate page satisfies the GFDL. --2mcmGespräch 03:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Ergo Proxy

Ev fans or a great majoroty of them believe that the main character of the Anime Ergo Proxy is based on Amy's image from Fallen. Anyone care to comment or note it?--Mudel 22:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

The first soundtrack that drew international attention to Lee was for the movie "Daredevil". The successful duet "Bring Me to Life", featuring Paul McCoy of 12 Stones, was inspired when she met a friend of a friend. A total stranger who did not know her, somehow could see inside her and when he spoke his words, "woke her up inside". This encounter with a true Word of Knowledge inspired the hit that would launch her career. ---

---does not belong on the article untill a source is found Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 10:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Main Image

DannycastilloI'm going to change the picture since it's three years old. I found a new picture of her and she looks so different. - dannycastillo

DannycastilloOMG! GIVE ME A BREAK! THE PICTURE YOU HAVE IS LIKE THREE YEARS OLD!!! AMY HAS CHANGED!!! THE WORLD PROGRESSES!!! PEOPLE WANT TO SEE NEW STUFF!!!! AND IF YOU'RE INCINUTATING THAT IT ISN'T HER...THEN WHY ARE YOU IN CHARGE OF THIS PAGE IF YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING??? C'MON! SHE LOOKS SO MUCH BETTER IN THE PICTURE I WANT TO PUT UP!!!

That is not the point, thecurrent image is free of copyright, that is the bottom line. Please dont change it again. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that even her? Where is her eyebrow piercing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fluffy Kitten (talk • contribs).

The stud is smaller than the one she wears in the photo used for the cover for 'Fallen', but it is there. You can click on the image to see a slightly higher, but original res, where it is a bit clearer. --Gary van der Merwe 07:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You do know that she doesnt have to where the stud by law, the image is fine it still looks like her, im working on a getting a newer official photo, just waiting on emails coming back. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 09:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that she doesn't have to wear it. And there was no need to be patronising about your response either Childzy when I was only asking a question! And also, Amy Lee had cheeks that stick out a bit and there is no sign of them. I still don't think it's her. Where did you get it from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffy Kitten (talk • contribs)

K sorry bout that, just click the image it gives you details on the page aswell as a link to the site that allowed us to use it. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

She is pictured later with the whole band [2] --Gary van der Merwe 12:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I now believe its her, just been to the official website. Sorry for doubting--81.111.194.159 22:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I found a picture of her. It's a promo picture and I want to put it up. Ummm...Let me link it or something...so you can see it and tell me if it's alright. BRB. Dannycastillo 00:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for changing the picture! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.164.13 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 29 August 2006

GA Result

There are 7 things that must pass before an article reaches GA status. I have reviewed it and the result is as follows:

  1. Well-written: Failed
  2. Factually accurate: Pass
  3. Broad: Pass
  4. Neutrally written: Pass
  5. Stable: Pass
  6. Well-referenced: Pass
  7. Images: Pass

The lead needs improvement, otherwise, it would be find —Minun Spiderman 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Shaun Morgan, ex or not?

I'm just trying to figure out if Shaun Morgan of Seether is the ex-boyfriend of Amy Lee, because according to many recent news articles they are currently a couple... --Prezboy1 13:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No they split up quite a while ago, theres an article on MTV, if you want futher clarification. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 14:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Baldwin Link

Would anyone care to explain why there is a link to Baldwin Pianos here? I don't see the relivance. Ogredrew 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither do i *removes*Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 17:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The song "You"

I have heard the statement about Amy Lee not wanting "You" distributed, or the lyrics posted, but I have never seen any proof that she actually said this.

I saw that it was removed from A-Z Lyrics Universe and a comment of this sort was in its place. I went to research it, looking on message boards, etc. On one message board I saw it referring to the official home page ( http://www.Evanescence.com ) as having the request. I searched and searched, but never found it.

If it is true that Amy Lee actually did make this request to not distribute the song "You", or even its lyrics, I would love to see an official source referenced here, before it is put in the article. Also, that it was written for "her family and friends" makes no sense -- if you have ever heard it, or even read the lyrics, it is a very romantic and intimate song about someone in a relationship with her. I would support this statement with the lyrics, but I don't want to post them in case the statement is actually true.

Thanks for your time and patience -- Pat McCroskey

I'd be interested in hearing it and seeing the lyrics. Is there a place you can find either right now? I'm going to look into this a little further. Roguegeek 18:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Well none of that was hard to find. [Links to copyvio websites removed] Also found these resources, although none of them qualify as a WP:RS reliable source. [Links to copyvio websites removed] Found the song on gomusic.ru (of course) also. [Links to copyvio websites removed] Roguegeek 18:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that bit in. I have the song - but when I went looking for the actual lyrics I found that it was rare to find it and when I did find what was supposedly a link to the lyrics, I was faced with a comment saying that they had been removed because it was never supposed to be released as it was a personal song for her family and friends. I only wrote what it said, but I forgot to reference and can't remember where I found it. Will have a look again and reference.

I will leave the section about "You" in for another week to give a chance for references to be found, but if none are, I will take it out, as I truly believe this is just a rumor or urban myth that started somewhere and has been spread by fervant fans. 66.119.4.119 21:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Thanks, Pat McCroskey

I'm sorry to be a pain about this, but the source you have sited is an exact example of what I was talking about. It says:

  '"You"

   these lyrics were removed

   At request of the band Evanescence and lead singer Amy Lee,
   all websites containing the lyrics or mp3 to the song "You"
   are supposed to remove said lyrics or mp3s immediately. 
   The song was never supposed to be released,
   it was a personal song dedicated to her friends and family... 
   The band has made many announcements on their official site
   to please stop circulation of said song. '

But I went to research it on the Evanescense official site, and could never find any corroborating statements anywhere, which casts doubt on the veracity of the above statment in the first place! In fact, there is a long long discussion about the validity of it at the first site that the 11 September post mentions above. On page 8 of that discussion, one person even claims to have asked Amy Lee about this song, and she didn't mind that it he had heard it, and even told him who it was about, etc. See the comment by Masochist at [Links to copyvio websites removed]. But during those discussions on that page you also see the ferver of the fans against the lyrics being posted, which would show how the fans themselves might have sent the emails and comments to the lyrics sites telling them to take it down. Those sites would probably rather just take it down than take the chance of legal problems or spending the time to verify if it is true. On some of the other lyrics sites there is now also a quote from Ben Moody, but no supporting link for it so it can be verified. Here is an example of that from [Links to copyvio websites removed]:

  'OK...for the LAST TIME. It is NOT an "Evanescence" song. Period. 
   The end. No ifs ands or buts about it. It is an AMY LEE song. 
   Amy said so herself. It was NOT meant for people other
   than the person she made it for. 
   Some jerk decided to take it and give it to people. 
   He even had the odasity to put it on a 
   "bonus" CD for people that bought Origin.

   Here is what Ben had to say about it on V1 of the board:

   "Since Origin, he has taken the liberty of connecting himself
   with everything we've ever done. He even has gone to a studio 
   that we recorded at (the owner of which was a friend of his) and
   made cd's of songs he was never supposed to have. 
   One song in particular, was VERY private.
   He was FORBIDDEN to show it to anyone, since there was 
   no way I could actually be sure I had every copy. 
   COUNTLESS times people have commented on that song
   and how he showed it to them. 
   When confronted, he just denies it or says that they
   heard it on accident or some bullshit. there's a very 
   good chance some of you have it on your 
   computer RIGHT NOW."

   So that's it. That's all you need to know. NO MORE QUESTIONS.

   So please if you do have it delete it, 
   or respect amy's wishes and don't listen to it!'

First, where is this V1 board? Second, even if this quote is true, Ben is talking about things that happened in the past, and how that person was forbidden to show it to anyone, but nowhere does Ben say that Amy or the band wants people now to not listen to it, not read the lyrics, or delete it if they have it, now that it is out there. Only the author saying that -- it is his/her interpretation. He/she says "respect Amy's wishes and don't listen to it!!", but no-where did he show Amy expressing any such wish. It is simply he/she that is saying to delete it or not listen to it. Am I making sense in my arguement? I am simply saying it sounds like conclusions drawn by fans, and passed on and on until so many sources are quoting the same thing that it seems like truth. I want to know if it really IS truth! And I think when we are talking about a singer, and a song she wrote that is supposedly forbidden, that the subject would be important to this article. And I think that a Wikipedia article would be the perfect place to clear it up, one way or another, for all to know!  :-) Thanks again for listening to my ranting/rambling! 66.119.4.119 15:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Pat McCroskey

Amy's sister

Also, can people stop writing in her sisters name? It clearly states in reference 1 that she wishes not to name her because it would upset her family and friends. You may know it but at least try to be sympathetic towards her feelings. --Fluffy Kitten 13:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted so that the name appears because this is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. There are probably things about you that you'd rather people didn't know, but that doesn't mean they're not true or didn't happen. However, I've also tagged the name with {{Fact}}, as the source of that name needs to be provided. If Amy doesn't want the name to be revealed, then who revealed it, and where? Robwingfield (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently it was revealed on an unofficial dvd, therefore it should not be revealed. If you read reference one it does say that she doesn't want it revealed because it would upset her mother and some people may go looking for her grave. Some respect and consideration for peoples feeling wouldn't go a miss there. Btw, your [citation needed] bit needs to be referenced - so wheres your proof in writing? My proof is reference one - you get proof she doesn't mind it being revealed and I will drop the issue, untill then leave her sisters name out of the article. The fact that wilkipedia is an encyclopedia does not mean that ALL information has to be revealed. I don't see anyone adding when she was first able to walk, talk etc so some "information" is missing. Let her have some privacy for God's sake. --Fluffy Kitten 14:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a source should be provided, hence why I put {{fact}}. I'm neutral on whether it should be included or not, but the reason you've given that it shouldn't be included "because she doesn't want it to" isn't valid. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures, particularly "if an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". If whoever has sourced the name can provide a reference, then it's valid to include the name. If, after a reasonable period of time a reference can't be provided, then the name should be removed. I'll revert the article again to where I left it with {{fact}} showing. As you're now in breach of WP:3RR I assume you'll leave it like that for now. Robwingfield (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't source the name and there is no known written source of this. Whoever put it in got it from an unofficial DVD and therefore there is no way to reference it for all to see. That was all I was saying. Haven't personally seen this DVD because I didn't know it existed. I don't know if it was actually a member of the Lee family who released the name. If it wasn't then I think that it can't be put it on the grounds that it may not actully be a fact and just speculation. Now, as I recall, you need to actual proof to put facts into an article. At the moment I believe that her sister's name is just speculation and will carry on believing that untill proof has been obtained. How long do you have to wait for a reference to be supplied before removing the information because the information has been there for quite a while and I thought it best to remove it after fully reading reference one. Maybe that was "wrong" of me but I thought that by respecting others then they would respect me --Fluffy Kitten 16:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


This is not a fan site. It's a breathing encyclopedia and all content inside of it should be encyclopedic. If there is information about someone out there, there's no reason not to include it here. Videos are considered WP:RS reliable sources and if the information was found on a video, that source should be placed here.

"Apparently it was revealed on an unofficial dvd, therefore it should not be revealed."

Unofficial or not, it is in the public and is a source.

"Btw, your [citation needed] bit needs to be referenced - so wheres your proof in writing? My proof is reference one - you get proof she doesn't mind it being revealed and I will drop the issue"

What you have is proof she doesn't want it revealed, not proof it didn't happen or that the person has a name available to the public. Being "sympathetic towards her feelings" doesn't really have a bearing here or in any other encyclopedia.

"The fact that wilkipedia is an encyclopedia does not mean that ALL information has to be revealed. I don't see anyone adding when she was first able to walk, talk etc so some "information" is missing."

You're right, but what you're trying to do is censor information that is available and that is simply wrong. The article is meant to give people understanding as to who she is. It's an important fact to include because it was a major point the her life and more than likely had enough of an effect to shaper her into who she is today.

"Whoever put it in got it from an unofficial DVD and therefore there is no way to reference it for all to see. That was all I was saying."

That is absolutely ridiculous. What if it came from a book? Because the book isn't in from of you, it's not a source? Read Wikipedia policy on WP:RS sources. Please do that. Just because you don't have access to a source doesn't mean it's not available to the public. Again, read policy Fluffy Kitten. Continuing to rv other people's edits is more than likely WP:VAND vandalism on your part as defined by Wikipedia... another policy you should read. Respectfully... Roguegeek 03:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Already found a number of sources on the web doing a simple Google search:

Reliability could be questioned I'm sure, but it's pretty obvious that the fact can be found anywhere. Roguegeek 03:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs to be removed. According to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, 'The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity'. Also according to that page, Fluffy Kitten's reverts are an exception to the three-revert rule, and are in my opinion, defiantly not vandalism. -Gary van der Merwe 07:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing with me on that Gary van der Merwe. --Fluffy Kitten 10:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs to be written with a degree of sensitivity. But WP:BLP does not say that content should be removed if it upsets the subject. It does say "if an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it", as I mentioned above. Oh, and that exception to 3RR doesn't apply in this case. Revealing someone's name isn't libellous. See the dictionary definition of libel - we're not seeking to damage Amy's reputation. And I've not said that Fluffy Kitten is vandalising the page. Speaking from the other side of the argument, I'd say we should remove the name unless the reference is added within seven days of being tagged with {{fact}}. It should then only be readded if the reference is applied at the same time. Robwingfield (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, despite tagging with {{fact}} nine days ago, no reference for Amy's sister's name has been provided. As Amy has herself stated that she won't reveal the name of her sister, I think we need to be strict with this particular fact... hence why I've now removed it, given the fair warning. See WP:V. I've also left a comment in line to say that it should only be readded if and when a reference can be provided. Robwingfield (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So...comparing her to Tarja Turunen of Nightwish is purely speculation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.191.243 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 29 September 2006

Awesome job you guys

My compliments on the article. The photos in particular are especially awesome. =) —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 03:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Born again Christian

I've reverted the edit by Fluffy Kitten that removed Category:American born-again Christians, as Jesus himself said "no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again" (John 3:3). You cannot be a Christian "all your life". You must make a personal commitment to Jesus yourself, whereupon you become a Christian and are "born again". Robwingfield (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That would make a hell of a lot of people who are "born again christians". I would have thought that because she has been brought up as a Christian and has never stopped believing in Christianity would not make her a born again Christian, just a Christian. The way you have made it seem, well to me personally and some may agree, is that everyone who is a Christian is actually a "Born Again Christian" and a whole lot of these articles need editing to make them fit with your theory about the subject, which for one, and not to seem rude with this, I don't actually agree with it. --Fluffy Kitten 14:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, precisely, there are an awful lot of people who are born again Christians. You can't be a Christian and not be born again. The distinction for Christians that are brought up in the Christian faith is that they may always have believed in Jesus, but at some point in their life they will have asked Jesus to be their personal saviour (otherwise they're not Christians themselves). A synonym for being born again that you may be more familiar with is "conversion". This isn't my theory, it's what the Bible says! Have a look at John 3:3 that I've linked above, and also check out Religious conversion#Conversion to Christianity. Robwingfield (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Would it not be best to put her under Christian Musicians? --Fluffy Kitten 16:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I was ready to agree until I read this: "Christian musicians are musicians who make Christian music, such as choral music, gospel music, or Christian rock. This category is not for musicians who are also Christian, but who do not acknowledge Christian themes in their music. See also: Category:Christian musical groups" which is at Category:Christian musicians. So on that basis, I'd say it's best to leave the category as is. Robwingfield (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use abuse

Five fair use images of Amy Lee plus six fair use images of all of the band's albums are a clear abuse of number 3 of the WP:FUC policy. Would someone like to choose which get removed or should I? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Was it neccesary to remove the discography's gallery...i think it make the article more atractive and not to bored...with and lot of text...Armando (talk|contribs) 13:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "attractive" is not a fair use criteria. The pictures are already available at the Evanescence page and policy says we need to use fair use pictures as little as possible. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for gutting an otherwise awesome article. Jesus Christ. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 04:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome to read the policy. Wikipedia doesn't own those pictures. We're fortunate to be allowed to use any non-free pictures but using eight of them for no particular reason is totally abusing the privilege. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh..ok..i've understood. Thanks! Armando (talk|contribs) 03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Any image that doesn't pass WP:FUC is an image that can not claim to be fair use as per Wikipedia policies. The remaining two images on the page fail first fair use criterion and, therefore, I have tagged them as such. They should be replaced or removed immediately. Roguegeek (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Issue?

The section on her choosing not emulating other celebrities "sex appeal" has a very non-NPOV feel; it could be said many critics feel her that she more of eyecandy for a subpar band. It needs to be rewritten or deleted. 72.155.176.156 04:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree totally with your statements. MaxReg 02:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

REMOVED abuse section

I removed the whole section relating to the alleged abuse (see WP:BLP). Having read both sources, there is NOTHING to say that he was physically abusive. While her attorneys have described it as an "abusive relationship", and Lee has said various uncomplimentary things about Moody, there is no way we can definitively state he was physically and emotionally abusive. The most that should be included is a note about the attorney's description of the relationship, and possibly some quotes from Lee. exolon 05:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a no-brainer. Nice reference checking. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Insiprations Update

I saw this somewhere else on wikipedia (see Amy Lee) stating that Amy Lee has stated that Plumb is one of her inspirations as well. It would be nice if this were updated. I don't have offical citation but this is common knowledge among most fans of Amy Lee. -(Chronicles1289)

Done, with official citation :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Here is the link for what I wrote in the article. Could someone please reference it for me. Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP7FQ3cjtuY

It's cool cause her dad recorded it and she sang bits too. --Fluffy Kitten 11:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to reference anything from YouTube these days unless the video owner specifically gives permission. It's a very nice video, considering it's origin, but I'd appreciate other's input. Beyond that, I'm leery of leaving your edit up, as a public statement of "I won't sing that" rather trumps a candid "I haven't sung it yet", at least the way I see it. It also possibly violates the "Not a crystal ball" ideal. Even then, I actually never heard it in the video, but the volume was a tad low :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read all the comments the video was placed on evboard (is that the official name? It's off evanescence's official forum anyway) for a while by Amy. The guy who bought the piano also has a copy and is willing to put his copy up soon. Also, it is noted by many fans that she won't sing Hello live because it is so personal to her and can make her cry --Fluffy Kitten 18:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm not doubting that (however, there is no official Evanescence board, they are all technically fan-boards), I'm just saying that it probably isn't appropriate to write "but on a home video has said that she has not sung it live "yet", which leaves a possibility of her doing so in the future" for the above reasons. I'd suggest removing that part, and leaving the rest, making it something like "The song "Hello" from Fallen was written in her memory, however, Lee has stated she will never sing "Hello" live." This renders it NPOV and removes any possibility of crystal balling. (Also need to find a hard source for the 'never sing' bit too, but that's neither here nor there at the moment.) -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I'm cool with that. I will have a look for a link for the "never sung it live bit". --Fluffy Kitten 10:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity

How come this article doesn't mention Amy's ethnicity? I assume she's White, but she's a bit short for a White girl IMO. Plus, she has black hair, which is fairly uncommon in Whites... Why sigh, cutie pie? 02:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Because that would violate Original Research. Anything said would be completely unsourced, and possibly blatantly untrue. We're not here to gossip. It may occur in a lower percentage, but black hair is not really that uncommon. I mean, I have it :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
So she IS White, but she's never actually said it? Other articles on other celebs mention their race, "Bosworth is 25% Italian", "Tila Nguyen is Vietnamese with French blood." etc but for some reason Amy Lee has never said anything about her race. ― Sturr Refill/lol 18:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware that she's ever made mention of her race, so saying that she *is* white is unfounded :) See? The slippery slope of original research. If we had some kind of source for a mention of racial heritage, it would be fine to include it, but at of yet, nothing has come up. So keep your eye out...you never know about these things! -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I always thought she dyed it --Fluffy Kitten 16:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Her hair is naturally dark blonde (theres photos of her in high school and with her family)she dyes it, as well as her eyebrows. 81.129.61.42 09:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Isn't she Irish? Everyone else in the US is supposed to be, even Eddie Murphy, so she can't be the only one who isn't..... ;o) 86.17.247.135 03:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning Amy Lee's Family

I think that Amy Lee's family should be mentioned. I believe Lori Lee has given consent; I'll find out soon.Crazykid777 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Family is perfectly okay to mention, just so long as there is a source of the information! It's good to have a well-rounded article. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)