Talk:Linda Ronstadt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Opening Sentence[edit]

I'm having a problem with the first sentence of the intro - "Linda Ronstadt (born July 15, 1946) is an American popular music vocalist and entertainer whose vocal styles in a variety of genres have resonated with the general public over the course of her four-decade career." It's too long, and doesn't follow either standard form or common practice for a good article's leading sentence. I suggest--"Linda Ronstadt (born July 15, 1946) is an American popular music vocalist and entertainer. Her many vocal styles in a variety of genres have resonated with the general public over the course of her four-decade career."Shirtwaist (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I know it really sucks as does most of the tone of the article. ughh Dottiewest1fan (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not just the opening that needs a rewrite. The entire entry reads like it was written by the founder of Ronstadt's fan club. One is left with the impression that Ronstadt may well be the most important female entertainer in the history of popular music. And the politics section has some glaring problems as well. Arizona's "anti-immigrant" law? Give me a break.74.138.44.226 (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Maria Linda Ronstadt[edit]

Linda's birth name is Maria Linda Ronstadt. At least according to a member of her immediate family. Just because you can find a reference that says she was born Linda Maria Ronstadt does not make it true. Some sources, for example, the first Stone Poneys Album, cite her name as Linda Marie Ronstadt. Unfortunately, the only way to prove this is to show an Arizona birth certificate. But birth records in Arizona are closed to the public. Sort of reminds me of Marilu Henner's conversation on a talk show. Her birth name was wrong on Wikipedia, so she herself corrected it, but some bonehead reverted it back because she did not provide proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.34.64 (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm the one that reverted the incorrect and totally unsupported 'Maria Linda Ronstadt" name. If you want to prove to the world what "a member of her immediately family" (who?) says her birth name is - just find the source and cite it. It's simple, really. I found a reputable source (Allmusic) saying she was born "Linda Maria", and have seen absolutely zero evidence of your claim. Hey, if she really was born Maria Linda, I would want WP to list that as correct. Unfortunately, until a reliable source is found stating this, all official sources listing her birth name as Linda Maria will just have to do... Doc9871 (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: I see that 67.235.34.64 (talk) has exactly four edits on WP. The first was simply changing the name in the article with no citation of proof. The next two changes involved reverting to this removed change twice. Finally, the entry above (which should be at the bottom of the talk page, not the top). This is one editor, offering no proof, reverting the same change repeatedly, down in sunny Florida. The IP address can be traced, and IP's can be blocked from WP if they have demonstrated a pattern of vandalistic behavior. Do not revert "Linda Maria Ronstadt" to "Maria Linda Ronstadt" again without a solid reference, included in the article. Thanks again :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The best evidence of Linda's legal name is provided by court records from Pima County, Arizona. I am referencing a case where Linda sued an overzealous fan. This would be case number C20003006. If you go to the website http://www.agave.cosc.pima.gov/PublicDocs/ and search for that case number, you will see Linda's legal name, as provided to the court by her attorney. In the early days of her career, Linda provided her name as Linda Maria and Linda Marie, and that has been repeated in many articles. By the way, I am not a vandal- just striving for accuracy. In the late '60s, before becoming well know, Linda was also was known to sign her autograph as "Maria Linda Ronstadt." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.34.64 (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Now we're talking - some decent evidence! It's good to know you're not a vandal, but the way you were going about editing the entry is clearly not the way to do it. You seem to know something about this; if you could find any printed interview with her (or a family member) where she (or they) confirms her birth name, I believe you would be golden. Even a news article concerning the Arizona civil case that mentions the name difference would do. Without a solid reference to back it up, it will undoubtedly be reverted by other editors down the line, because they will rely on the most widely available sources (which all say "Linda Maria"). The court document certainly supports your claim, and would be excellent evidence in the article body, but on its own it's not conclusive enough. Keep at it, because if you are indeed right, it certainly belongs here in WP. Doc9871 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen "Maria Linda" referenced in any interview. The two people who "know" Linda and confirmed this to me don't want their names used, and besides, a print source is needed for Wikipedia. 67.235.34.64 (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You're correct about the print source being needed, which is why I am one of the literally thousands of editors that would have reverted "Maria Linda"; I just happened to get it the third time. I'm not saying you're wrong about it, and in fact, if it can be proven, it would be a pretty significant thing to add to her WP biography. But if it cannot be proven with any solid evidence, it won't convince the massively huge Wikipedia jury to have it here. Think about it like this; the burden of proof is on you to convince people beyond a reasonable doubt that she was born Maria, and that's quite a hefty task. That's too bad... I was hoping maybe something else would be found. Good luck to you, sir... Doc9871 (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
A source merely needs to be reliable, not "print". If a video clip of her saying that that was her name was extant, it could be cited, as long as it was in some way publicly accessible. The court citation would also likely be acceptable, as long as there's some way to be clear it's actually her being discussed. (Oops: baylink@en_w; *why* doesn't mediawiki *yet* have login fields near Save Page?) --64.31.159.157 (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
If it can be found, by all means include it. Note that a clip from something like "YouTube" is not a reliable source (copyright problems especially), and certainly cannot be linked to; if it's an interview, there should be a transcript. I've never heard of "Maria Linda Ronstadt", so very good luck. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Similar subject - Linda's mother's given name. Linda's father's website bio shows it as two words: "Ruth Mary" http://www.ronstadtdesigns.com/catalog/Gilbert_Ronstadt_Prints-1-1.html 173.57.26.87 (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence to indicate her full legal name is Maria Linda Ronstadt. In addition to the court record cited above (http://www.agave.cosc.pima.gov/PublicDocs/ case number C20003006), the genealogy geneanet.org has her listed as such - http://gw5.geneanet.org/tdowling?lang=en;pz=timothy+michael;nz=dowling;ocz=0;p=maria+linda;n=ronstadt . As was the case with the discussion over where she went to college (even though it is obvious she went to UofA) both UofA and ASU are listed in this article with citations for both. Perhaps her name should be treated similarly with multiple names and citations for each. If we can find the other court documents where she got a restraining order against the schizophrenic who was stalking her that would probably settle it. As for what her real name is, well, it would appear to me that her legal name is Maria Linda Ronstadt. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen her driver's license, I did work for her about twenty years ago in San Francisco. It's 'Maria Linda Ronstadt'...and her credit cards said 'Maria Ronstadt.' In Mexican tradition 'Maria Linda' is a common name, 'Linda' meaning 'pretty.' And it's never the other way round.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.55.39.234 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

University of Arizona[edit]

Linda attended the University of Arizona. Many references including the University's library can be cited to support this. This article used to say she attended Arizona State and a few references, based on the formerly incorrect Wikipedia article, can still be found to support this. I have corrected the article to indicate she attended the University of Arizona and provided citations. However, 24.24.220.25 has repeatedly changed these edits back to indicate either just "college" or, currently, U of A or ASU. I would like to revert back to the correct citation supported version indicating she attended the University of Arizona. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the link to the U of A library that says Ronstadt was a student there. As I said before - the existing references on the subject are conflicting - including the two I provided in the article, and there exists not a single quote from Ronstadt herself that confirms which college it was. Also, in this February 2001 Arizona Daily Star article about her performing at U of A - "Joins UA groups for Nelson Riddle tribute" Ronstadt never mentions being a student there, including this passage - "Her relationship with the School of Music has been a delightful surprise to Ronstadt. "Who would have known it? I did not come out of an academic past." If she did indeed attend U of A, don't you think she'd mention it in an article like that in which she sings the praises of a school she supposedly attended? As it stands, it's not clear which college she attended. I say the entry should say "she attended one semester at college", without specifying which one. 24.24.220.25 (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This is apparently from People (magazine), Oct. 24, 1977: "Linda gave the University of Arizona one semester, then quit in 1964- at 18- to go to L.A." That seems better than this source[1], which doesn't seem to support her going to U of A at all (am I missing something?) Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
If this[2] is the source Ronald Joe Record was alluding to, I see no support at all for her attending U of A. As for the People Magazine article, how is that more valid than my refs that say she went to ASU?24.24.220.25 (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
That is the source I'm alluding to (and, obviously, Ronald Joe Record, as he uses it) - and I agree with you that it does not support her attending either university (from what I can see). As for your refs... mine is not much more valid. The source I gave is from an article (incorporating an interview w/Ronstadt) from a widely published and recognized source (like yours) - doesn't make it necessarily true. But it's about verifyibility, not truth. We seem to have conflicting sources, here - this should be noted, and both sets of sources should be mentioned. That seems to be the appropriate course to take... Doc9871 (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The UofA Library ref does not appear to be a good one. The article at divastation.com led me to believe otherwise. There are literally dozens of reputable citations to support her attendance at UofA while I suspect those indicating she attended ASU were largely based on the incorrect Wikipedia article. Time Magazine, in an interview with Ronstadt, reports that she attended UofA [3]. However, in the big picture, her college attendance is relatively unimportant unless that is where she met Bob Kiminel. Citations do not need to be unanimous. Conflicting citations can be found for almost everything. If every Wikipedia article had to report all the variants of every citation it would be a fairly useless resource. If the overwhelming majority of reputable citations agree on something then that is what we should use. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
"Dozens of reputable citations"? So far I've only seen three - hardly an "overwhelming majority". The two conflicting sources I produced were from periodicals that were published long before Wikipedia existed, and are just as valid as any other. Wiki articles regularly include conflicting sources in situations like this where there is no direct quote from the subject of the article, sometimes even citing conflicting quotes. In such cases, each entry is accompanied by its own citation. But since even you admit that the exact college is relatively unimportant, it should be left as "a college", since I know of at least one quote from Ronstadt where she says she went college.24.24.220.25 (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The "can of worms" has already been opened here, it seems. Both the Time and People magazine sources saying she went to U of A were written at the height of her popularity (with included interviews): these two sources alone would justify the inclusion (and were certainly written before WP was even a young geek's dream) ;> All three of us agree that the current UofA "ref" needs to go ASAP, as it supports her attending neither school. 24.24.220.25, could you link your sources here that say she attended ASU (using diffs? - I'm having trouble finding them. If they are as established as the Time and People sources (not the "dozens" as Ronald claimed without "backup"; but two is actually quite enough), and they say she went to ASU and not U of A - this must be pointed out in the article. It's too late to go back to "a college" now, with revealed reliable sources giving a specific college. I eagerly await a response... Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Here ya go Doc: [4] [5] Let me add this: you have to wonder where the sources got their information, since there is not one single quote from her either way that I've been able to find. I'd be happy if someone COULD find one and put it into the article! This whole "I went to one semester of college" thing might just be a product of PR gone horribly wrong in an attempt to make up for her dropping out of High School, which she DID admit to.24.24.220.25 (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You might be onto something with the "PR" thing - it is odd that 50% of the four sources we come up with are diametrically opposed. It would be great to have some quote from her: any radio interviewers out there watching? As it stands now, I think it should change to reflect the discrepancy. I can't write it tonight (gotta work), but there's no deadline. We'll all figure this one out... Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Beautiful! I will fiercely support this revision. Great job! Now, how about registering (standard advice I like to "wag" at IPs)? Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I see by the edit comments that we have reached "consensus" that, according to a couple of sources, she commuted over 100 miles from Tucson to Tempe to attend college briefly. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Sources differ on the matter - that much is for sure. A direct quote from her would be great and would clear it up. But mentioning that sources differ on which school she attended is a fact. We can't unequivocally say she went to one and not the other unless a quote is found - I can't find one as of yet, myself: doesn't mean it's not out there. Consensus can certainly change. I personally feel for now that this is the right choice. Cheers, Doctorfree :> Doc9871 (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree. In this situation, a direct definitive quote from Ronstadt is needed to clear up the confusion. She's still doing interviews, so it's still a possibility.24.24.220.25 (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Singer-songwriter?[edit]

Is Linda really a singer-songwriter? Looking through her discography, I only saw a couple songs that she actually wrote (along with other people). Writing a few songs does not a singer-songwriter make. I didn't want to chance anything before consulting people who know Linda's career better than I do. Has she written a bunch of songs that aren't listed? If not, she shouldn't be labeled as a singer-songwriter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.0.123 (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

While BMI credits her with only nine songs[6], when an artist is famous as a singer primarily, but has also written songs for themselves and/or others: they are generally credited as a songwriter, too. On the other hand, I agree that she's not necessarily a "singer-songwriter" as that term is generally pretty lame in my opinion, anyway. If you thought that crediting her as "Singer, songwriter, ..." is better than "Singer-songwriter", I would tend to agree... Doc9871 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines singer-songwriters as "musicians who write, compose and sing their own musical material including lyrics and melodies. They often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition or song, typically using a guitar or piano. A number of other well-known musicians may write some of their own songs, but are usually called singers instead." I think Linda fits that last category. So, I agree "singer, songwriter" works better, and apparently songwriter just barely. Nothing wrong with being just a singer, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.0.123 (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Good call, Mister/Missus IP![7] A good WP:BOLD change that needs to be discussed here if it is felt to be in error. I don't believe that it is: but I'm just some geek behind a screen. Let the others chime in, please! Cheers :> Doc talk 07:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Linda is most widely known as a singer who interprets the songs of others. To me, a "singer-songwriter" is someone like Jackson Browne or James Taylor, whose career has been mainly based on writing their own songs. "Singer, songwriter,..." seems appropriate for Linda.Shirtwaist (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Placement of "Political Activism" and "National Arts Advocate" sections[edit]

Why are these under "Career overview" instead of "Personal Life"? Her political activism and advocacy of the arts is part of her personal life, not her musical career. Any objections to moving those two sections to the "Personal Life" category?Shirtwaist (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please move it. It's way out of the "timeline" as well. "Known career progress" section heading - I hope you didn't write that. Because it kind of is "not good", and should also be changed. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Done. And no, I'm not responsible for "Known career progress". Is there "Unknown career progress" we don't know about? That should definitely be corrected.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Queen of Rock[edit]

The page linked at "Queen of Rock" doesn't list Linda Ronstadt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.52.195 (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

I have spent many hours cleaning up this article and now I'd like others to step in and continue this work:

Combine identical <refs>

Combine if the URL is the same, even if there are slight variations in the details.

Sun City[edit]

Isn't it worth noting that she played at Sun City for a half a million dollars? Considering she's an activist and all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.233.153 (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

{{cite web}} clean up
  • Use more precise {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, etc., when appropriate
  • Use original source when available, e.g. nytimes.com, rather than http://www.ronstadt-linda.com/ archives.
  • Parameters often missing: date, author, etc.
  • Parameters bollixed: title, work, publisher. These are obvious when editing.
  • For news articles in http://www.ronstadt-linda.com/ or other archive sites, use the same title, author, work, etc. parameters as if the article were in the original source's website.
Dead links
  • Verify all links and note which ones are dead links.
  • Find dead links in archive.org and update citations.
  • Replace dead links with new sources.

Anomalocaris (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Linda Ronstadt Memoir[edit]

Someone (IP address only) added the following to the Heart Like a Wheel album article. It isn't relevant there (but will be eventually on the disambiguation page), but maybe something an editor wants to add to this article.

  • In the summer of 2011, Ronstadt received a $2.1 million advance from hardcover house Simon & Schuster Publishers to write her autobiography. Linda's memoir, entitled Heart Like A Wheel, is slated to be published in January 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.wong.wiki (talkcontribs) 19:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

reliance on fan site[edit]

This biography makes quite extensive use of ronstadt-linda.com/, which stocks a large number of press articles and images of its principal subject. It's a fan-site, and I'm wondering whether we should be linking to it at all - there are no copyright declarations although much of the material is likely subject to copyright. As there is no obligation for us to cite on-line resources in our articles, perhaps we should be more circumspect in citing and linking to it... -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 07:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Circumspect - cautious? Yes. Discreet? No. This is a case of "archive or copyvio". Archive.org has survived many challenges on copyvio grounds. Fansites which post scans/photos of sources - with full attribution - try to operate under the same rubric. In ronstadt-linda.com's case, the articles are transcribed, so real verification requires an extra step, sigh. The reliable source is there, just one layer deeper than we want. If the claims in the article are important, we should try to verify and dig up the original source, with a convenience link to that, or some better archive (or none, if all efforts have failed.) I succeeded in finding the New York (magazine) article at Google Books. Rolling Stone wants money for access, so I'll AGF for now, delink it, and see what WP:RX digs up. Fixed some others, as well. --Lexein (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I was asked to weigh in here. :) Lexein's approach seems like the best one to me. Linking to the website seems clearly like a problem under WP:LINKVIO. They should be delinked in accordance with policy. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
There is one citation with content from a reliable book, with "Used with permission" which I've hidden commented as ok to link to. --Lexein (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Update: I've replaced several citations of ronstadt-linda.com after verification of (and in some cases arduously tracking down) original sources. If anyone wants to help, please chip in. --Lexein (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

At Talk:List of best-selling music artists about the ongoing content of the list. --Lexein (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The word "successful" appears 33 times in this article.[edit]

Yet, it is never defined what definition of successful is being used. Is this a press release or an encyclopedia article? 174.55.183.188 (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. I dislike the blatant, unquoted, unattributed, uncited praise used here, too, and have been slowly chipping away at it. --Lexein (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, removed 14 instances, all that didn't qualify the adjective or were not direct quotations. Makes it a little more objective and palatable, I hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scopius (talkcontribs) 14:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Nice! Better already. We need more prose analysis tools (not you, I mean Javascript).
There's a nice Word Frequency bookmarklet at SearchLores. --Lexein (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The lead[edit]

Well that didn't take long. I removed some cherry-picked phrasing and slightly over-adulatory wording from the lead – while carefully retaining the references that were reused in the main body, and explaining what I was doing in the edit summary – and someone's quietly reinserted them without explanation or response. Can we please have justification for the following: "definitive interpreter of songs" .. "bestowed the title of the highest paid woman in rock" .. "one-time standing as the Queen of Rock" .. "the First Lady of Rock" .. "a music matriarch". Seriously? And no, saying "it's in the source" doesn't wash. They're not all in the sources as rendered in text here, and in any event are passing terms or journalese not "titles" or definitive descriptions suitable for use in the lead of an encyclopedia article. N-HH talk/edits 11:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Maternal grandfather[edit]

It is stated that her maternal grandfathers "flexible rubber ice cube tray earned him millions of dollars in royalties". However the website for the inventor refers to $500,000!203.184.41.226 (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Citations with unusedurl and unusedtitle[edit]

Several Citation Style 1 templates in the article contained undefined items unusedurl=, unusedtitle=, and unusedwork. I have removed those items and placed them here.

From:

The CS1 engine now properly reports these pseudo-parameters as Unknown parameters.

Trappist the monk (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Robin Quivers vs Ronstadf[edit]

Why was this removed "In 1995 on The Tonight Show Ronstadt infamously attacked Howard Stern and his co-host Robin Quivers. The audience booed Ronstadt and cheered Quivers, who defended Stern. "Do you listen to the show, Linda? I think people who listen to the show understand what we're doing," Quivers said. Ronstadt admitted that she hadn't actually listened to the show. [126]" It had a source and in the "view history" said it was innacurate reflection of the source? It clearly sites what's written in the source.

Put back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.76.235 (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed as trivial information. Sandcherry (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
How it is trivial? It was an attack on national TV! Hardly trivial. I want a mutual person to judge this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.76.235 (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I suggest editor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz as he is both mutual and neutral IMHO. I will contact him. Sandcherry (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I can fairly be called neutral; I removed the same information from the article. However, I don't think there's any case to be made that the content merits inclusion. There's noindication that any reasonable, neutral sources treat the matter as significant - it doesn't appear to be mentioned in any RS's after the initial news cycle. There's certainly no justification for describing it as "infamous." There's no justification for adopting the view that the audience sided with Quivers -- that is supported only by one anonymous wire service piece, not by the majority of accounts. The disputed text also alters Ronstadt's comments, to imply she'd never heard Stern, which is not a fair or reasonable interpretation of what she actually said. Quoting Quivers verbatim at some length while representing Ronstadt only with dismissive paraphrases is an NPOV violation. And the disputed text is selectively phrased, leaving out the underlying controversy -- Stern's ridicule of murdered Latina singer and her fans, which Stern issued a mealy-mouthed apology for, after almost unanimous denunciation. It's a BLP violation for Stern's followers to present the event as reflecting derisively on Ronstadt. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
As someone who has no particular interest in the subject of this page or in promoting her – indeed it's only on my watchlist at all because I removed some of the hyperbole from the lead a while back – I concur that this brief passing incident is at the trivial end of things compared to most of the content in this section and its inclusion appears to be more about making a partisan point about Stern and belittling anyone who criticises him. If the only third-party source we have recording the incident is a brief snippet from a newswire, that would seem to confirm that assessment. N-HH talk/edits 10:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, hold on - you said that it didn't say Linda admitted she didn't listen, but there's a direct quote in the article saying "Ronstadt said she didn't listen to it and added: "I think you're shilling for him and I think he's taking advantage of you."

You guys can try to wash Linda of any controversy linked to her, fine - but this incredibly bias written article should be checked over.

"its inclusion appears to be more about making a partisan point about Stern and belittling anyone who criticises him" How? It actually happened! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.76.235 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No one's disputing that it may have happened, we are disputing its significance and whether it needs to be included in the "personal life" section of an encyclopedic biography (or indeed anywhere in it). As I said, the inclusion of this relatively trivial passing incident here appears designed to score points. It does. N-HH talk/edits 09:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I concur with not including this item in this article, because although it appeared in multiple publications, it is only as celebrity gossip, there was no followup significant coverage, and Linda's opinions of other people and what they should do are not relevant. She's a prominent musician who has history as an activist, but not as an opinion leader on celebrities.
Only if she has made a habit of criticizing other celebrities for their stances (or non-stances) on issues Ronstadt considers important, and that habit has been documented in multiple independent RS, then this incident could be listed as one of those instances, very briefly, as in ...and was also critical of Robin Quivers on The Tonight Show in 1995 for not supporting women and blacks.(1)(2)(3)
Lots of celebrities shoot their mouths off, and it all goes away the next day. That's what happened here. --Lexein (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Number of Grammys[edit]

I have not changed the number that's in the lead, and I did not remove any of the purely factual claims in the Grammy Award section (though I did remove a "however" extrapolation that was original-research synthesis).

What I did do is request a citation for the claim that she was involved with the production of the 1980 album, which isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. And what I do here is ask why, even if this were true, we would say she earned a Grammy for it when the Grammy Awards organization itself says she did not. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Religious affiliation[edit]

I read this article looking for a reference to her religious affiliation if any and did not find anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.143.44 (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

I restored some categories that were removed. I am of the opinion that categories for where people are "from" should be allowed to include places they adopted, not just their birthplace, esp. if they are famous for being natives of their adopted land.

Category:Country musicians from California

Category:Musicians from San Francisco, California

Category:Singers from Los Angeles, California

Category:Songwriters from California

Category:Writers from Los Angeles, California

Category:Writers from San Francisco, California

I have not verified exactly how accurate these are, but we have to have at least ONE category showing she was a california girl. she famously dated our governor, was a quintessential california girl for a period.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Article length[edit]

This is the longest freaking article of a musician I have ever read on Wikipedia. It is ridiculous how long this article is. Some die-hard fan must of written all of this because it is over-the-top in every sense of the word. My browser cannot handle the length of this thing. Someone NEEDS to revamp this whole article entirely. In my opinion, I think someone should just delete it all and start over from scratch. With all of the recent news I'm hearing about Linda Ronstadt, I think now than any other time would appropriate to revamp it. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete it all and start all over? How about no. You want a longer article? Try Madonna (entertainer) (22,000 words vs. 18,000 words). Now then, if you want to revamp it, that's fine as long as you stick to the principles of Wikipedia, one of which is that Wikipedia is not paper. (Another of which is assume good faith; if you had looked at the edit history, you would see that the article is the work of several people, not just one "die-hard fan".) Yes, articles should be kept to a reasonable length to keep them from breaking browsers like yours. This can be done both by splitting out long sections into separate articles and also by eliminating content which is not encyclopedic. These activities would be more productive than simply blanking the page. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 03:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)