Wikimancer (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
*I believe the sources that are cited either are poor sources (blogs), or (for more legitimate sources, i.e., LA Times and NY Times) do not confirm that Samantha Ronson and Lindsay Lohan are romantically involved, other than to comment on tabloid material without providing confirmation from a reliable source. [[User:Ward3001|Ward3001]] ([[User talk:Ward3001|talk]]) 00:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC) |
*I believe the sources that are cited either are poor sources (blogs), or (for more legitimate sources, i.e., LA Times and NY Times) do not confirm that Samantha Ronson and Lindsay Lohan are romantically involved, other than to comment on tabloid material without providing confirmation from a reliable source. [[User:Ward3001|Ward3001]] ([[User talk:Ward3001|talk]]) 00:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
*Background: this issue has become a rather embarrassingly drawn-out dispute between the previous commenter ([[User:Ward3001|Ward3001]]) and me about, specifically, my attempts ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samantha_Ronson&diff=226348453&oldid=226342796 a first attempt], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samantha_Ronson&diff=226674740&oldid=226379825 a second attempt, with a newly published source]) to add legitimate sources for a point of information that otherwise might attract poorly sourced additions from new editors. |
|||
**Ward insists that my edits violate the policies for [[WP:BLP|biographies]], with the specific sentence he repeatedly quotes (or, rather, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikimancer&diff=226710981&oldid=226677861 misquotes], omitting the first four words) being: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." I've repeatedly pointed out that, as long as my edits are properly sourced, there is no violation simply in the material being contentious or reporting of reports of something, the apparent implication of Ward's contentions. |
|||
**Additionally, Ward has generally disputed the validity of my source: a blog published by the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' ([http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2008/06/did-lindsay-loh.html], [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2008/06/did-lindsay-loh.html]), a ''Los Angeles Times'' article ([http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-ca-lindsaylohan20-2008jul20,0,4097826.story]), and a ''[[New York Times]]'' article that refers to the relationship in question with a different context ([http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/fashion/12bisex.html?pagewanted=1]). I've replied the ''Los Angeles Times''-hosted blog, as defined under the policies for [[WP:V#cite ref-5|verifiability]] and [[WP:BLP#Reliable sourcees|biographies]] ("Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control") is a completely legitimate reference, and that, either way, the ''Los Angeles Times'' article unequivocally reports of the relationship in question, as in the sentence, "There's also the reality that the mainstream celebrity media must compete furiously to survive, and Lohan and Ronson are dating in a public way, with much photographic evidence." |
|||
**Again, I hate to get this deep into an argument about such a trivial topic, but this issue has come to be about Ward's uncooperative conduct as an editor, something I'll be trying to address separately. [[User talk:Wikimancer|~W<s>i</s>k<s>i</s>mancer]] <span style="white-space:nowrap;">[[Special:Contributions/Wikimancer|<s>X</s>]] [[User:Wikimancer|*''\''( <nowiki>' '</nowiki> ^)]]</span> 00:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:54, 20 July 2008
Biography: Musicians Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a very disappointing article. I saw the name "Samantha Ronson" and thought why does that name sound so familiar?. I of course came to wikipedia to find out only to see nothing of use to me. Samantha Ronson is linked to Lindsey Lohan, and was somewhat involved in the incident where Lindsey stole a car and went on a wild ride with two scared passengers. She also allegedly had a romantic relationship with Lindsey and is also a DJ and the nightclub "Hyde". This is the context from which I know her, not her my-space music career. I had to find this from an alternate source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.221.126 (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Americia
she has lived in americia secne she was a kid so that should be added, she doesn't even have a little bit of a british accent she's lived of there most of her life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.206.205 (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
removed deletion
i vote to keep the article because she is notable diue to her presence in the NYC celeb/nightlife circuit. i'm not saying she's einstein notable, but she's a name that will come up and someone will wiki to see who the heck that person is. like the note above mine. and we didn't even get into the gay relationship rumors with lohan. Kitten b (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC) kitten b
Father
It's pretty clear that guitarist Mick Ronson is not her father. She mentions this on her myspace page "...my step-father (he has a band called Foreigner- he plays guitar [She's talking about Mick Jones here])(oh yeah- NOT Mick Ronson as some people seem to think)." Numerous articles about her brother, Mark Ronson, state that Laurence Ronson is his father. Guitarist Mick Ronson's obituary mention only one wife, Suzy Fussey. 69.181.125.234 (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. Exactly. Just took care of it. Thanks a lot! -Seidenstud (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent - the citation you added is much more succinct. The whole thing seems minor, but I think growing up with Mick Ronson as a father vs. growing up with Laurence Ronson as a father would be two rather different formative experiences...69.181.125.234 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
TMZ reference "No Sapphic Friends Network
You can clearly hear the paparazzi ask Samantha "Any truth to the engagement rumors?" to which she replies "Not true." For some unknown reason TMZ has chosen to label this video as a denial of a romantic relationship, not an engagement. I've edited the article to reflect this. Please feel free to leave input. I'm new to wikipedia and still learning the ropes. Thanks
- TMZ is not a very reliable source. And how you "hear" something on a video clearly is not considered a reliable source and is considered original research, which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy of verification. And your innuendo "amidst talk that the two were to be married" is based on rumor (strictly forbidden per WP:BLP) suggests that talk of marriage is factual, which it is not. In the mainstream media, there is no solid indication that Ronson or Lohan discussed marriage. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or rumor mill. Wikipedia has very strict policies about adding potentially libelous information about a living person. Your edit violates a number of Wikipedia policies. Carefully read all of the blue links on this page. Do not continue to re-insert potentially libelous information because it is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. If you do so, I will immediately make a report on WP:ANI. Ward3001 (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Take the ENTIRE TMZ reference out of this article then. If TMZ is not a reliable source WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO USE THAT REFERENCE to say that they have insisted they are just friends? Just because the video was WRONGLY labeled as such? That's pretty hypocritical if you ask me! Have you actually listened to the video? Samantha has not insisted they are just friends, especially not in that video! If the engagement rumors can not be addressed in this article then that entire reference should be removed because THAT is what is being discussed between Sam and the pap in that video. TheGifted1 (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. The entire Lohan situation is now deleted. Ward3001 (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hear, hear! -Seidenstud (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. The entire Lohan situation is now deleted. Ward3001 (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Are statements about Lindsay Lohan a violation of WP:BLP?
Issue: There is a controversy about whether statements about a romantic relationship between Samantha Ronson and Lindsay Lohan violate WP:BLP because of poor sourcing.
Disputed material:
Ronson and actress Lindsay Lohan have been reported in mainstream celebrity news to be unofficially but publicly dating,[1] [2] with photographs of the relationship prominently including pictures of the two kissing and embracing affectionately in Cannes, France.[3] [4]
- I believe the sources that are cited either are poor sources (blogs), or (for more legitimate sources, i.e., LA Times and NY Times) do not confirm that Samantha Ronson and Lindsay Lohan are romantically involved, other than to comment on tabloid material without providing confirmation from a reliable source. Ward3001 (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Background: this issue has become a rather embarrassingly drawn-out dispute between the previous commenter (Ward3001) and me about, specifically, my attempts (a first attempt, and a second attempt, with a newly published source) to add legitimate sources for a point of information that otherwise might attract poorly sourced additions from new editors.
- Ward insists that my edits violate the policies for biographies, with the specific sentence he repeatedly quotes (or, rather, misquotes, omitting the first four words) being: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." I've repeatedly pointed out that, as long as my edits are properly sourced, there is no violation simply in the material being contentious or reporting of reports of something, the apparent implication of Ward's contentions.
- Additionally, Ward has generally disputed the validity of my source: a blog published by the Los Angeles Times ([5], [6]), a Los Angeles Times article ([7]), and a New York Times article that refers to the relationship in question with a different context ([8]). I've replied the Los Angeles Times-hosted blog, as defined under the policies for verifiability and biographies ("Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control") is a completely legitimate reference, and that, either way, the Los Angeles Times article unequivocally reports of the relationship in question, as in the sentence, "There's also the reality that the mainstream celebrity media must compete furiously to survive, and Lohan and Ronson are dating in a public way, with much photographic evidence."
- Again, I hate to get this deep into an argument about such a trivial topic, but this issue has come to be about Ward's uncooperative conduct as an editor, something I'll be trying to address separately. ~W
ikimancerX*\( ' ' ^) 00:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)