Jump to content

Talk:Amanda Bynes/Archive 1

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

older entries

How was this a good article? The article was filled with non-encylopedic information and quotes that would only be found in a fan page. Please refrain from putting irrelevant information and expanding on facts that could be found by clicking on the simple links (such as writing the entire synopsis to the film, Shes the Man). If someone here can help tidy it up by fixing the grammatical errors and combining the many simple sentences and improve fluency, that would be great. Shrek05 26 June 2006, 23:49 {UTC}

jezz guy! I don't see the problem with the quotes (as long as they are sourced, which they were) - they help expand on Bynes' personality and her feelings on her career/image. There was a sentence about the plot of She's the Man, which is fine in a detailed article. Certainly the "whole plot" wasn't expanded upon. The rest of the stuff about She's the Man was about the possible Bynes/McCartney casting, which is relevant to Bynes. "Trivia" sections are in fact unencyclopedic, and that's why the "Personal life" section, which I don't see any problems with, was there. Mad Jack 17:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Its relatively short and to the point. It backs up all the information with links. It touches on parts from most of her life. Being a young celebrity page think of who is going to view it, it deserves some leeway from the strict encyclopedic look. User:Open32 4 August 2006


Interests

"Besides acting, her interests include fashion designing, drawing, being a make-up assistant and hair stylist. She was trained as an actress by Arsenio Hall and Richard Pryor." - does someone have a reference for this? I find it hard to believe these two got together and said "let's teach this teenaged white girl to act!"

Covered it. It was at a kids' comedy camp; Pryor and Hall would often visit to help coach the participants, not just Bynes. Numerous interviews and websites corroborate this.
She actually started acting when she was a toddler, and got her first television role at 10, so she wasn't "learning to act" as a teenager.
She when to the camp at age 8. She was first on TV at age 7

She also like archie comic books as stated on the Tonight show on sept 17 2007. She has 400 of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.170.3 (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Jewish/Catholic

Good job to the person that re-edited my updated addins, it sounds better now. I put the Jewish/Catholic thing in a new sentence, it read out of place. Now I normally don’t like to contradict CaptHayfever, who I see is lurking here, but I always thought it's the other way around, father Jewish (He is from Chicago and before that Europe, also Bynes is the more Jewish spelling of Bines) mother Catholic (mothers side of the family is from BC Canada). I guess leave it how it is right now since nobody is sure. --Mrm551282/Open32

Well, yeah, like I said, it was just a guess based on what little research I bothered doing; it could still go either way. When I'm wrong about stuff, I actually hope people do contradict me so I don't spread false info. CaptHayfever 00:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, her mother is from Toronto, Ontario, isn't she? Not Vancouver.Vulturell 03:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Now that you mentioned it I think your right about Ontario, and Capt, I don’t like contradicting you because it usually turns out that your right. (Im still getting the hand of this posting, first time im here, ever since CB linked to it. --Mrm551282/Open32

Why does the article say she lives in an apartment alone with her dog? She was on the Jimmy Kimmel show tonight (3/7) and she said that she still lives with her parents.

Because she did live in an apartment with her dog, but then moved back in with her parents. (And please sign your comments on talk pages.) CaptHayfever 15:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Nice update, all the information is 100% correct, well written, and completely up to date. Good job it looks really nice. 15 March 2006 --Mrm551282/Open32

Thanks for the compliment! JackO'Lantern 07:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the 'half Jewish and half Catholic' line. Neither of them is a race; it's not possible to be half of one religion and half of another. If someone can find out which one of her parents is Jewish and which is Catholic, that would be an acceptable replacement. --Mrowlinson 01:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Why isn't it possible, depends on how your family raised you. I grew up with a kid who was raised in a Jewish and a Protestant family, where one parent was Jewish and one was Protestant, he got Hanukah and Christmas gifts, and celebrated Easter and Passover.--Azathar 04:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • But Catholicism & Judaism still aren't ethnicities, so one still cannot be half one and half the other. As to the matter at hand (and this is just a theory, so don't add it), I would presume her mother is Jewish and her father Catholic, partly because "Bynes" is a British name (see Medieval Religion in England, among other things), and a couple of Jewish celebrity databases (which often make their assumptions/confirmations based on maternity) include Amanda in their systems. Again, though, that's just a guess. CaptHayfever 05:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not possible to BE half Jewish, half Christian? What do you define as "be"? I say neither that its possible to be half black /half white, because race is arbitrary anyway. Your genes are what they are. No, you say "half this, half that" simply to specify what their ancestry is (based on whatever arbitrary designation you chose), simply because people find it interesting.
        • But it's not possible to hold half-&-half Catholic-Jewish beliefs for the simple fact that the defining characteristics of the two faiths are in direct contrast. Bringing this all back to the matter at hand, the article, I don't think there would be any problem in just saying one parent is Catholic and the other Jewish, instead of the obviously debatable "half" statement. CaptHayfever 00:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
        • So a child who has one parent who is white and the other parent who is black is what? And what about the group Jews for Jesus, those Jewish people who believe that Jesus was the messiah, but don't chose to follow Christianity, they could be considered Half-Jewish/Half-Christian. You'll forgive me if I don't agree with you that one can be half one and half another. I think that stating that one parent is one religion and the other is another is an acceptable compromise though.--Azathar 01:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Jews for Jesus wouldn't be half Jewish, half Christian, they would be a sect of Judaism. They are Jews who have branched from traditional Judaism to include Christian ideas. The concept of organised religions do not work like colors. With organised religion, mixing blue and yellow does not make green. It is possible to share beliefs from both religions, but it is not possible to be half of one and half of the other.--Mrowlinson 19:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

About pictures

If this article is to have a second "fair use" picture (as was added), the content and picture should be tied together for fair use to apply. For instance, a movie pic, should go with discussion of the picture (beyond merely listing it as one thing she did). --rob 09:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Measurements

It would help settle an arguement if Amandas physical measurements were recorded here.

Sorry, dude, I don't think they're quite available Mad Jack 18:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, She is 5 feet 9 1/2 User:Open32

Good Article

Can't complain, really. Keep it up. - Phorque (talk · contribs) 15:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! Mad Jack O'Lantern 17:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

AmandaPlease

Just explaining something: http://www.amandaplease.com is not a fansite. It is a promotional website for The Amanda Show, "created by" Penelope Taynt, a fictional character. The site was created and maintained by Nickelodeon, and while it can be used as a source, keep in mind that Bynes probably does not sing to birdhouses on a regular basis. CaptHayfever 03:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Everybody knows that. It's quite obvious Nickelodeon is the sole creator. —pink moon1287 19:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
If everyone knew, I wouldn't have had to write this. Unfortunately, some people didn't know, and I had to explain it to them. (But yeah, I agree that it's obvious; too bad not everyone picks up on the obvious.) CaptHayfever 01:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

After carefully scanning the code of the current article and the last edit before you added this note, I can assure you that there are/were absolutely no YouTube links. None. Not a one. Persona non exista. Nothin' doin'. CaptHayfever 04:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sydney White and the Seven Dorks

I go to school at UCF, one of the films locations, and they are planning to start filming on February 12 (according to the school's newspaper). So unless the career section is maintained by when it is filmed, I'm going to try and change it to reflect it coming out in '08.--Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Feb. 12 is the date I've seen mentioned indeed Mad Jack 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Its still filming, I doubt anyone know the release date yet, but todays TVguide Magazine in an interview with Sara Paxton said Fall 2007. I also made minor changes to the page, ok Jack User: Open32, 30 March 2007
Incorrect Sidney White link, correct this please.--68.18.9.153 00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Amanda Bynes is an actress of international fame. Why prohibit the French links ? I do not understand —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lauravivier (talk • contribs) 11:06, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

You added the link to the English Wikipedia article. Add it to the French Wikipedia article. If we add a link for every language there would be a huge number of unnecessary links. Ward3001 16:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm in two minds about this. External links are there to provide extra information beyond what an encyclopaedia article can provide, so an official site seems very useful here. Because wikipedia is not a link farm, you should not add extra external links that cover the same information. So, if multiple official sites exist you should choose one and I would choose the English one for the English wikipedia. Since the English official site doesn't seem to exist at the moment, I wouldn't mind having an other language one listed if marked properly; following this argument you would have to list the French official site and delete the English link. However, the French site gives hardly any information that can't be covered in the article itself or by listing imdb, since it only is a short biography + filmography + gallery; no news section, no personal messages, etc. So, until there's extra info on the French site, it doesn't qualify as an external link either. Let's just leave it as it is... By the way, why would she have a French official site independent of the English one and why doesn't it even mention The Amanda Show in the filmography, link to AmandaPlease.com or the English official site and provide contact details for her agent and web designer? Maybe it's not actually an official site... Gidi70 17:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This is only a parenthetical comment and not meant to replace my argument above against linking to the French site. I think Gidi70 is probably correct that the French site is not an "official" Amanda Bynes site. I think it may be a fansite. Ward3001 17:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Miss Bynes is represented in Europe (France) by the artistic agent French Johan Jard, amanda-bynes.fr is a promotional window of the actress. Lauravivier 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is a "promotional window"? Does that make amanda-bynes.fr an official site endorsed by Amanda Bynes, or linkspam? And if it's an official site, what is your source for this information? In any event, it does not belong in the English Wikipedia. Ward3001 16:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
See on this site http://www.agencejohanjard.fr/evenement.htm and http://www.agencejohanjard.fr/liens.htm , of no importance for the link, one remains "French" Lauravivier 19:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree there is no need for the French site, which most people on the English Wiki cant read. As for it being an official site, its probably just a company hired by Amanda's agency to maintain a website, with little to no connection to Amanda. It has little to no information anyway. AmandaBynes.com is her official site owned by Amanda, but inactive. If there should be an offical active link, the site currently active is dearByamanda.com, owned and run by Amanda (ChickIII Productions, Inc.) User:Open32 17:57, 12 September 2007
dearbyamanda.com is a commercial site and would be considered linkspam and against Wikipedia policy. Leave the official site as amandabynes.com. Ward3001 23:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Amanda Bynes official Myspace!

Please go to myspace and add her, i'm sure 100% she's the real Amanda!

Amanda Bynes Myspace

Selena Gomez and Zac efron, Brittany Snow commented on her page too!

So add her, and support her!

Veeboy (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. You may think you're sure, but there are lots of posers on MySpace. You need to provide some official verification with a reliable third-party source. Otherwise it's spam. Ward3001 (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Awards Section

Hey Ward can you fix the Awards table? The space is kinda large...so the table looks really big...i cant seems to make it fit.. Veeboy (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 

    Well I fixed it...Veeboy (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed the belief bit

I have amended the Early Life section regarding the claim that she has referred to herself as Jewish though "not that religious". The reference given for that claim does not mention that at all. In fact, the reference given for the previous sentence quotes Bynes as saying "I haven't decided yet [on a religion]. I don't know yet exactly what I believe". Therefore I have amended the article to be consistent with cited references. I have also removed the category tags, American Jews and Jewish Actors, which are inaccurate given her statement quoted in the article, (and referenced). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnically (although not necessarily religiously) she is Jewish, and it is sourced, so the categories can stay in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I restored the original statement ("she has described herself as Jewish") and combined that with the new one ("I haven't decided yet [on a religion]. I don't know yet exactly what I believe"). I added a few references for the first one, including two TV interviews and one print interview. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Amanda please .com still there?

I went on the site and put questions on the question page I have not seen a responce.what I have been wondering is do they check thier page?or do they not because the show is old?--Sweetheart2009 (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)sweetheart2009

Second image

Even though this photo is similar to the current one being used, does anyone think it should be added to the article? It seems like such a waste to not use high-quality images available on Commons. Plus, she looks fierce on the runway. APK straight up now tell me 14:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be better if the first image linked above is cropped to show her face (or maybe down to the bottom of her hair; I'll let those more expert on photography figure that out). Then the cropped image could go in the infobox and the second one above moved elsewhere in the article. Infoboxes usually have a facial shot if a good one is freely available. I don't think we need two full-body shots from the same setting. Ward3001 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree. APK straight up now tell me 17:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Extra space

I was just trying to get rid of that extra space before the period. I botched it on my first two tries, I guess, but I eventually got rid of it! Would you please delete that extra space between What I Like About You and the period? It is not an "unhelpful edit"! Mabsal (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It was, as you forgot to add the closing marks for the italics. Anyway, I have removed the space now. Nymf hideliho! 01:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Great :) Mabsal (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Singer?

Should she really be described as a singer in the introduction? She's only had minor singing parts in one film (Hairspray) and has never released any songs of her own. I think this should be removed, possibly along with the "discography" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.164.253 (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeming retirement

Ok, so Amanda Bynes is NOT retired, right? I'm just making sure I gots all the facts straight. 75.89.202.14 (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

cite error

in the article. --Kobak322 (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC) ok it's gone ty. --Kobak322 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am curious about the rationale for removing the "Legal problems" section. Wikidemon cited WP:BLP while removing this entirely, but I can't find anything in that policy that prohibits writing facts based on reliable secondary sources. The section seems well-sourced and factual. Being contentious, I could accept removal if it were poorly-sourced. But we don't remove negative material just because it is negative. Elizium23 (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why people bother removing things that are unreliable, yet they don't bother to let that person know who posted the information nor actually find a reliable source towards that information. Majinsnake (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC) majinsnake
Okay, a lot of editors are adding new information as Bynes' legal troubles mount. I think we should achieve consensus on how to handle this so it does not get out of control. What is our threshold for inclusion of a new incident of legal trouble? How much space can we dedicate to her personal problems, when she still has an active career? Does she still have an active career; her last film was in 2010. Personally, I think we should reduce each legal incident to one, at most two sentences, and give priority to the important events: arrest and resolution (conviction/acquittal/dismissal). We should definitely exclude sources and assertions that sink to the level of gossip (TMZ, a friend of a friend said this about her). More opinions? Elizium23 (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
This section should probably be summarized, it reads like day-to-day journal of events.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal life/alcohol section

Honestly, do you really need 2 paragraphs about her stance on drinking? No. 67.48.237.146 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Modeling herself after Blac Chyna

The article should include her obsession with Blac Chyna.

http://www.eonline.com/news/414697/amanda-bynes-has-almost-completed-her-transformation-into-stripper-blac-chyna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.34.80.28 (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Probation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Editsemiprotected : Should include under legal problems her recent verdict. Amanda Bynes was sentenced to three years probation for driving without a license. This occurred May 10th, 2013. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57583914/amanda-bynes-sentenced-to-three-years-probation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.171.12 (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. I added the information to the article, but I also added a news release cleanup tag - right now it's basically a police blotter of semi-connected chronological events that needs some help. --ElHef (Meep?) 02:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference #30

Reference #30 goes to a website which has a virus in it. My antivirus popped up as soon as I opened it. Please try to find a new reference link or take it out. I tried but I'm not used to editing Wikipedia. — Preceding undated comment added 1 May 2010 01:11

I'm just going to sign this section so that it'll eventually get archived. I hope someone removed the bad reference at some point in the last three years. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Without knowing which reference you're talking about it's impossible to check. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Picture (May 25 2013)

I would suggest updating her main photo from 2009 to her recent 'look" since 1) She looks DRASTICALLY different (almost unrecognizable) and 2) She has repeatedly stated she will sue anyone who uses her 'old' face. I don't think she would and/or could sue Wiki but just a thought :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.29.100 (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

IDK if the comment is correct (all i could find is this, but anyway she can't sues us as it is not legally possible, she is an actress/public figure. For the real point, the main image, we cannot use images obtained from the internet to ilustrate images about living people. We need an image released under free licenses--that can be explained here. If you find one, or take a picture of her and want to release it for free, we can change it if no one opposes. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can create a twitter account, so it's possible that someone claimed that unverified twitter username before the real Bynes could. It's odd that that twitter account is the source of the new, unrecognizable look and only wants those "twitpics published in articles," so be careful about which picture is used for this article as it might be an impostor's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmmh (talk • contribs) 21:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox discussion

I prefer the full-length photo currently in use in the infobox. As far as I know, there is no guideline against using something like this. I think it illustrates the subject better than a headshot only. Elizium23 (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

@Elizium23: No worries, I haven't ever come across a rule that says "Infobox images should not be X tall". It is just more aesthetically pleasing to my eyes when the overall infobox length is proportionate in terms of information and image size. As far as illustrating subject goes I don't see how either is better than the other as they both easily identify the subject of the article. Anywho, you won't find me reverting the image change etc, it's not a big deal. Regards, — -dainomite   03:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Elizium23. A full-length image is by definition more encyclopedic than a partial image. I appreciate Dainomite's point about the smaller image being more proportional, but that's an aesthetic concern, and images in this encyclopedic aren't there for aesthetic (i.e. decorative) purposes. We need to go with the image that provides the most comprehensive visual information about a subject. As well, we don't change a long-stable status quo without a bright-line reason (an image where the subject is obscured) or talk-page consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to see a recent head shot portrait in the infobox and the full-length farther down in the article. I do think a portrait is better for the infobox, and it should be a recent one given that she looks so different now. But the older look is probably more familiar and it's important to have that too. If we only have the one photo to work with, I think I'd go with full-length in the infobox, but I don't feel strongly about it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Remove or replace (unless well referenced), "...and her erratic behavior is not thought to have been helpful to her career." Such a vague, unencyclopedic-sounding, and unreferenced claim (though while probably true) has no place in a BLP, especially in the lede! 207.216.83.226 (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done You're right. Removed. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I would add that the last paragraph under the heading "2012–present: Legal problems" is unsourced, and a WP:BLP violation, and my attempt to remove it was reverted, so the editor needs to come back and take it out himself or supply sources. Elizium23 (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

the The WB

This is not correct:

The reason being that the name of the show requires the definite article, but it's missing here. The correct version is somewhat awkward:

The awkwardness can be eliminated by using "WB" as a nickname for "The WB":

This sort of thing is quite common, for example we often use "CNN" as a nickname for "Cable News Network." I suggest we go with this last version. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur with above; I used the second version after the third was reverted, but it seems obvious to me that the third is the best. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image

The talk-page consensus was to keep the full-length image. See: [1]. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Two people isn't much of a consensus though, especially when more people have changed the picture to the cropped version than support the full-body one. — -dainomite   19:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to make a mountain out of molehill, but even a small number of editors can achieve consensus if that small number is all the people discussing it. In any case, it's certainly longstanding consensus on Wikipedia in general that major elements of stable articles don't get changed unilaterally without discussion. If there's no consensus to change, the status quo remains. If someone really, genuinely feels the larger image is somehow less encyclopedic than a truncated image and not in the article's best interest, they can always call for an RfC. That's one of the beauties of Wikipedia — that we talk things out thoroughly. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Including mention of legal/mental health issues in lede

I wholeheartedly agree with User:Tenebrae that "WP:LEAD is not a news source for latest events -- it's a capsule summary of milestones for which she's notable." However, at this point, my sense is that Bynes' legal and mental health issues are a large enough part of her notability to warrant mention in the lead, and I thought the sentence that the article included ("Following several charges for vehicular crimes in 2012, Bynes was arrested in May 2013 for charges related to marijuana possession and was placed under an involuntary psychiatric hold two months later.") was of the due level of size and detail. Does anyone else have thoughts about this? Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say it's certainly what she's known for now, temporally. But we don't put the latest news in every biographical article's lead; that would be more akin to Wikinews. Michael Douglas is probably best known now for having had and survived throat cancer he says he got from oral sex with his wife, but we're not putting that in the lead. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The issues she is having now have been major and pronounced enough to put her career on hold (or kill it completely) and be a permanent black mark on her record in the public eye. Anyone who goes to this article today or in the foreseeable future will be looking for information on her legal/mental issues. They have been covered by a good many reliable secondary sources. They are therefore worthy of substantial inclusion in an appropriate article section, as well as in the lede section as a summary of the article. There is no question about it. Elizium23 (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Dunno about that - there were a few traffic violations in quick succession and then the fire and the private facility. And situations like these are not uncommon in hollywood (if we believe tabloids). Agree the lead should be bigger though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

NB: Happy to switch to semiprotection if anyone gets tired of reviewing pending changes.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

TMZ as a source

I'm going to remove the part about her most recent hold. The only source we have for it is TMZ, and sources like Huffpo that are citing TMZ. I can't find any reliable sources for this info. The closest I could find is this: [2]. If you want to put this back in, please discuss here first and tell me why you think TMZ should be considered reliable for this information. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Medical diagnosis

Wikipedia can not print authoritative medical diagnosis (like schizophrenia) that are asserted by unnamed sources on gossip websites. I tracked the two references back to a report on Radar Online, certainly not the gold standard of journalism. And, for what it's worth, I seen other diagnosis, like bipolar syndrome, also mentioned in regard to Bynes on other websites.
Many readers mistakenly take WP's coverage as "fact" and until a medical diagnosis is verified by a health professional involved in her care or by Bynes' representatives (family or manager), what are essentially guesses shouldn't be included in her biography. Liz Read! Talk! 14:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that this article should be linked to the "Category: People with schizophrenia", nor should Amanda Bynes be listed on that page. There are no links provided with proof that this person has been diagnosed as such and it seems to me that this article is spreading misinformation which seems contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. 67.253.145.124 (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)November 13, 2013

Good point. On it. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2013

I'd like to edit the Amanda Bynes page. After she filmed Easy A, she announced her retirement from acting and I'd like to add that to her page. Casajersey (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you find a source which supports that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: Add her bro/sis

Add to her bio that she is the youngest sibling. Add this sentence: Amanda is the youngest sibling to chiropractor brother Tommy and sister Jillian(1983). Jillian starred in a few episodes of Amanda's show The Amanda Show and was a bridesmaid at Jillian's July 2008 wedding[1]. Thanks. 173.166.181.105 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Your source is not a reliable one. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


EDIT REQUEST: Fix the grammar mistake in the first paragraph

"She has said she has retiring from acting." Obviously incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.150.114 (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done already by another editor - who either didn't see the post or didn't have the courtesy of replying to it. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox photo

We reached consensus a year ago to keep the full length photo in the infobox (discussion is archived). Do we now have consensus to change that? Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Bell

The part about being friends with Bell comes from an unreliable source that attributes the information to Bell himself. Besides which this is trivial. I think we should take this out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Unknown

Following a drug evaluation, police determined that Bynes was under the influence of an unknown controlled substance. If it's unknown than how do they know it was a controlled substance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6044:2:CD3F:F3D9:7050:EBB1 (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the substance is known to the officials, but they have not told us what it is yet? I think we should just take this out, since it's attributed to unnamed "officials" (in one source) or "police" (in another source). Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Latest news

Do we really need all the detail and quotes about the latest (Oct 2014) news? WP:NOTNEWS Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Jewish?

I didn't interpret this quote as a statement of religious belief. "When I was 15, I got a haircut from a famous hairstylist in L.A. She gave me a short shag. I'm a Jewish girl with curly hair. When it dried naturally, it was atrocious." Can we say she "described herself as Jewish" on the basis of this quote? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say it's a statement of religious belief; it says, "In 2007, Bynes described herself as Jewish,[24] and also stated: "As far as religion, I was raised" - so religion itself is only addressed in the second part. She also said she is Jewish here, at around the 8 mark. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
On a side note......The YT vid you've cited is a copyright violation and not a WP reliable source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Good example of Wikipedia's built in stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.148.192 (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Even if the video has been copied to Youtube in violation of copyright, that just means we can't link to it, not that we can't cite it. And I would consider it a reliable source, although it's also a primary source, which creates its own problems. Unless you seriously think the video was faked. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Mental health

The New York Daily News says Amanda Bynes was diagnosed with Schizophrenia last year. Could this be added to the article and is this a concrete source? http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/amanda-bynes-psych-hold-extended-report-article-1.1972936 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polloloco51 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No. The Daily News is a bit of a tabloid, but we've used it before. The problem is that they are not saying that Bynes was diagnosed with Schizophrenia, they are saying that sources told them Bynes was diagnosed with Schizophrenia. That's an important distinction. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Amanda's InfoBox

I think we should probably removed the Fashion Institute from her education section, or, at least, put something in brackets to acknowledge expulsion. She only attended for a couple months, if that. Not sure if it is necessary, it also could be misleading to readers. What is the usual policy on something like this? VisaBlack (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't we put that she is no longer active on the userbox? She retired from acting in 2010.
I don't know if there is a usual policy. For education, we should at least make it clear she is no longer enrolled, but I could go along with just removing it. I'm reluctant to say she has retired, because she has waffled on this point in the past and because she is young and things could change. But I think we should change "years active" to 1993-2010, since her last work was in 2010. This is not the same as saying she has retired, and can be changed later if she goes back to work. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
You could put, for example, if she becomes active in acting again, "1993-2010, 2015-present", something like that. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Romanian Jewish descent?

Just because someone's ancestors were from Romania doesn't mean they were Romanian. In this case, her mother's family are Ashkenazi Jewish, not "Romanian Jewish." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.61.209 (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you, especially since none of the sources actually call her "Romanian-Jewish." Same for Canadian-Jewish and Russian-Jewish. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2014

no request Cannolis (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Wkiproject

I think Nickelodeon should be added to her wikiprojects. Drake Bell and Miranda Cosgrove both have it. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Psyche / Psych

A 'psych hold', for short, is okay lingo. A 'psyche hold'? Too philosophical, or mythological, don't you think? 66.81.252.39 (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. I fixed it. I think fixing it was good for my soul. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

In line citation issues?

I love it how people will tag a page for having errors, yet make no inclination of the issues. I don't see anything wrong with the sources. This page is abused by critics, and is not nearly as bad as they try to make it out to be. Many celebrity pages that are in good standing are very similar to this. VisaBlack (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd be in favor of removing the maintenance tag. Unless the problems are obvious (and they aren't to me), the editor who puts the tag on should elaborate on the talk page, so the rest of us can know what needs to be changed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Amanda Bynes/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Its relatively short and to the point. It backs up all the information with links. It touches on parts from most of her life. Being a young celebrity page think of who is going to view it, it deserves some leeway from the strict encyclopedic look. User:Open32 10 August 2006

Last edited at 07:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Emancipation attempt

I don't see a mention of this. Would like to add something but I am not sure whether it would go under 'early life' or 'personal life' which begins right now at 2012 when she was 25.

Jordan, Julie (1 October 2012). "What's Happening to Amanda Bynes?". People (magazine) Vol. 78 No. 14. by her late teens Bynes clashed with her parents, says a source. She sought to legally emancipate herself from them before withdrawing her petition. Bynes leaned on her Nickelodeon producer Dan Schneider and his wife, Lisa Lillien. "She was spending a lot of time with us," says Lillien. "But she never left her [family's] house." Says a source who knew the family: "Her parents were very, very strict with Amanda. Her dad called all the shots and was very controlling."

I don't know how reliable the source People used it, but if a file for emancipation happened in the late-teens that seems like something to report. With a cap of 19 it must have happened before 2007 right? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I would be opposed to including this report from an anonymous source, especially since the petition was never acted on. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Fashion designer again

The infobox has been changed yet again to list "fashion designer" as on occupation with [3] as a source. This is not supported. The source says she "wants the fashion world to take her seriously," she has resumed classes, her attorney "can’t wait to see her amazing designs on the runway someday," and she "is ready to leap into the industry." There is nothing in the source that says she is currently working as a fashion designer. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amanda Bynes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Amanda Bynes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent deletion

Anon9088, for whatever reason, you deleted the legal content from this article. I reverted because you gave no explanation for the deletion and some (if not all) of that material should remain in the article, as recently discussed at the WP:BLP noticeboard. Wikipedia is not a fan page. We do not delete things from celebrity articles simply because they are negative. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Anon9088, after a closer look, I see that you moved the material rather than deleted it. Still, this type of material typically goes in the Personal life section, not in the Career section, which might be taken as an attempt to hide it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

In the section 'Life and career', what is meant by "In 2006 release the film She's the Man but released after it,"?

Is the article instructing us to release a film called 'She's the Man' in 2006?

I'm not sure that's possible for any of our readers, because I don't think time travel is a possibility. Surely we would have witnessed it by now, if it was a possibility?

Also, how many of us are actually film producers or capable of getting a film released now, in 2018, much less 2006?

Can some kind editor please edit this article so that the instructions contained within aren't quite so impossible to follow?

Thanks.

Oh, also, must we really release the film She's the Man after we've released the film She's the Man?

Or perhaps I'm not reading the instructions correctly as the tense seems to have changed mid-sentence.

So, should the sentence read:

Go back and time to 2006 and release the film She's the Man, but only release it after the film has been released...

Or...

Go back in time to 2006 and release the film She's the Man, but only release it after It...

Hooo boy! There's more! The next part of the sentence doesn't seem to have much to do with the first.

showing in cinemas outside of[isn't this extraneous? should an extraneous 'of' be included in more professional writing?] the United States in 2005 and 2006 and debuting in the U.S. on the ABC Family network on January 21, 2007.[citation needed]

Looking back on the paragraph as a whole, in a vain attempt to get some context, I'm left wondering if there were two separate movies called She's the Man, both of which starred Amanda Bynes. Or maybe three, with at least two of them released in the same year, 2006, but maybe only one of them released before the film It?

Amanda's film career took off [..] with [..] a starring role in the comedy She's The Man1 (2006). [..] Later that year, she starred in She's the Man,2 a comedy based on William Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. [..] In 2006 release the film She's the Man3 but released after it, [..]

Hmmm.. time travel, if it existed (exists?), would surely be a messy affair. I'm beginning to think that perhaps this article proves that time travel exists!

Given that I have no idea what the paragraph it attempting to suggest, I cannot come up with a suggestion for improvement. I defer to experts in Bynes, films and time travel to sort this one out! --75.177.79.101 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, what was "the film after Easy A"? (2007–2010: Films and acting hiatus, 2nd para).
Was it The Town? --75.177.79.101 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

checkYSentence repaired within the current time continuum. No time-travel necessary. I believe the second film was Hall Pass — which, apparently, is what the casting director thought of Ms. Bynes — as the role eventually went to Alexandra Daddario. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 23:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2018

There should be a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_I_Like_About_You_(TV_series) in the TV section of Amanda's page. Bloobie2018 (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per MOS:DL. Sam Sailor 21:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Current Photo

Currently the main photo on her page does not reflect what she looks like in 2020. Please make the change. There are other child actors on this site that have their main picture and unflattering current photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.7.131 (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not that simple. The photo needs to be acquired and licensed appropriately. She hasn't been much of a public figure for 10 years, so not many free-license photos are available. ♟♙ (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

Her years active info has been accidentally deleted by a user by mistake, could anyone restore it back in the infobox again. As shown here: "years_active = 1993–2010". 2600:1000:B042:1540:64B2:D741:FA6A:B704 (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It's not a mistake. To list a retirement year we need a reliable source, and it must be based on public information stated by Bynes or her legal representative. Although she announced a hiatus from acting in 2010, in 2017 she said she plans to return to acting. So 2010 cannot be used as the year of retirement. Sundayclose (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Subsequent request for changes and discussion

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

Her years active info has been accidentally deleted by a user by mistake, could anyone restore it back in the infobox again. As shown here: "years_active = 1993–2010".

Sources: https://www.insider.com/amanda-bynes-bio-timeline-acting-career-2020-2%3famp

2600:1000:B002:CB5A:E848:44EA:C334:AAC0 (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Two problems with your link. First, it doesn't work. Secondly, the source needs to clearly indicate that Bynes herself has stated that she stopped acting permanently in 2010, and it needs to be subsequent to the sourced information in the article after 2017 2018 when she said she planned to return to acting. A "timeline" that doesn't have that information directly from Bynes after 2017 2018 is inadequate. Sundayclose (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

edit semi-protected|Amanda Bynes|answered=no}}

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

Her years active info has been accidentally deleted by a user by mistake, could anyone restore it back in the infobox again. As shown here: "years_active = 1993–2010".

P.S. All I'm asking for is her years active to be added back in the infobox, is literly not that big of a deal... I mean no offense about it.

Source: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/27/amanda-bynes-be-really-really-careful-because-you-could-lose-it-all-and-ruin-your-entire-life-like-i-did/amp/, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amanda-bynes-retires-from-acting-posts-note-on-twitter/

2600:1000:B04B:36A6:F592:2C9E:DBD8:BC55 (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The first link confirms my point ("Amanda Bynes is coming out of retirement"; meaning she is not retired and 2010 can't be used as a retirement date). The second source is useless; it dates back to 2010 before she indicated that she is not retired. And stop saying anything was "accidentally deleted". I'm the one who deleted it (for all the reasons I have stated), and I know whether I accidentally deleted something.
Yes, Wikipedia policies are a big deal. Part of the problem here is that you aren't familiar with WP:V, and haven't bothered to try to understand it. Sundayclose (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

Her years active info has been accidentally deleted by a user by mistake, could anyone restore it back in the infobox again. As shown here: "years_active = 1993–2010".

Sources:https://www.ew.com/article/2010/06/21/amanda-bynes-retirement/%3famp=true, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/amanda-bynes-career-ending-377632, https://www.today.com/popculture/amanda-bynes-says-she-s-retiring-acting-wbna37816056, https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/amanda-bynes-retires-from-acting-at-24-2010206/amp/

2600:1000:B04B:36A6:F592:2C9E:DBD8:BC55 (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per all the reasons stated in previous requests. Sundayclose (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2020

Come on Sundayclose, please restore it. I've constantly been providing sources to you over and over and over and over again and yet you still refuse to restore it, which is a violation to the Wiki policy. Please, I don't wanna argure with you. I also privided this source:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amanda-bynes-retires-from-acting-posts-note-on-twitter/ to you as well, but that's still not good enough!?! 2600:1000:B04B:36A6:F592:2C9E:DBD8:BC55 (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per all the reasons stated in previous requests. Sundayclose (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2020

Is there by any chance if someone could remove the term “voice actress” from the first sentence of the article? Because she only had two voice credits in her career according to her Filmography section, she’s not notable of doing voice over work and she doesn’t do much of it. Plus “Voice actress” is a subset of “Actress”.

As shown here on what needs to be changed: “is an America actress and voice actress” to “is an American actress.” 73.61.22.195 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done (CC) Tbhotch™ 15:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2020

78.8.248.50 (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Taylor

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PratyyaG (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "engagement" and "pregnancy"

Subject is not actively in the public eye as an actress. They were under conservatorship for nearly a decade, which includes the time those statements were made. Unless someone can show enduring coverage in quality sources, these events should be left out. Slywriter (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Amanda Bynes

It would be cool if you could include the activism that is currently going on for Amanda’s safety. Free Amanda Bynes 81.97.140.245 (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sundayclose (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://celebrity-gossip.net/celebrities/hollywood/amanda-bynes-celebrates-sisters-wedding-205080 Jillian Bynes Marriage Ceremony
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amanda_Bynes/Archive_1&oldid=1240279514"