Jump to content

Talk:Ashlee Simpson/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Hall Monitor already culled the fansites from the hilary duff page, and I was about to do the same here, but anyway here's what I think should be -

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Why should we remove fansites in principle? We could cut it down to one. But that one fan site is a vastly better resource in terms of news and media than any of those other links. Everyking 22:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Two things:

Carnildo reverted someone who removed lipsync.us from the Ext. links section, and used a rollback to do so. Clearly this was not vandalism, as opinions are strong about the presence of that link, and I've tried to get it removed before myself. Also I think if another editor is removing it that should re-open the question of whether we should keep it, since that adds another voice into the mix.

Also, I noticed that the intro has been reworded a bit so the SNL sentence now says this:

"In October 2004, she used a pre-recorded vocal track on the sketch comedy show Saturday Night Live (possibly in place of her own voice, as some accused her of lip syncing), a highly publicized incident that drew substantial negative attention from the press."

The part I find problematic is the line "possibly in place of her own voice". There are two possible interpretations of that: either she was using a track of her own, recorded, voice in place of her live voice, or she was using somebody else's recorded vocals in place of her own. I think the uninformed reader would tend toward the latter interpretation, but nobody (that I know of) has actually argued that the recorded vocals were not her own, so I think we should find a better wording for this. Everyking 06:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

OK - I took care of the links and the intro passage to clarify it was her own voice Ryan Norton T | @ | C 11:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I moved all of them to the notes section for consistancy... not all of them have descriptions... I'll finish them later if they are not already done by then Ryan Norton T | @ | C 12:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Needs to be longer

Any ideas on how to lengthen this (by a little bit, but not too much)? Also, what about merging Saturday Night Live incident with Controversial incidents? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Undiscovered reviews

We can still keep the rottentomato link and just add that for the sentence "the reviews were mostly negative". Also, I just don't see how we can claim it was the worst reviewed movie of the year yet (we could say "by some accounts it was the worst reviewed movie in the year so far"). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

They are once again trying to emphasize and exaggerate anything that could possibly be considered a failure of hers. You should have been here after the Orange Bowl, now that was tough. Everyking 04:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The old image was from the Cosmo Girl shoot a few months ago. The image we were using was maybe not fair use, but here's the cover for the issue, which I think would be fair use. On the other hand this new image we've got is better because her hair in that picture is closer to what it is currently. Everyking 07:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yeah, if I can't find a way to fair use it then I'll have to use that one. The current one is really the best picture of her on the site though IMHO :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the changed image at the top. First off, it has copyright problems, and secondly it's smaller. I don't insist that the image at the top has to be the Shadow one, which is not even a particularly great picture, but I think it works better than this new one. Everyking 10:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, never mind, it was changed back. Everyking 10:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I changed it back because you said so :). You are right about the copyright problems though... wish we could keep that image... oh well :\. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"Lip-sync Queen"

This article needs to say more about how the lip-sync thing has come to define her as a public personality. I know very little about Ashlee Simpson, and could not identify one of her songs, but every single article I see about her in the paper or magazines includes some joke about lip-syncing. Just look at what this google news search produces: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=ashlee+lip-sync 67.67.120.228 03:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The incident is already mentioned in the intro, and gets its own section. Everyking 04:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"During the October 25 Radio Music Awards broadcast, Simpson made fun of the SNL mistake by pretending to be caught in the same mistake as before, but then began to perform another of her songs, "Autobiography", without a pre-recorded vocal track."

I think that to mention "not lip synching" or "not using a vocal track" makes it sound like this was out of the ordinary for her. But that could just be me...can anyone think of a better wording? Everyking 01:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, at the time her non-fans were "looking for proof" that she actually sang anything after the SNL incident, so to them it was. One thing you could do is "without a pre-recorded vocal track as she did in the SNL episode", maybe that makes it sound better Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I can live with that wording, so I added that. Everyking 02:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have to say I really strongly oppose calling her a "mediocre performer" in the intro, and on the other side of the coin calling the reality show "wildly successful" is a bit excessive. Everyking 06:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, if anything, she got better press early on because that was before SNL. And I maintain that to say "mediocre to average" is redundant. Everyking 07:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the better press early on part - so what do suggest we do here? We need to somehow have an NPOV intro and it should include something about how she was percieved early on... as for the mediocre to average part taxman said that he didn't agree that the reviews weighed each other out. So, we have to convince him/her about this somehow (maybe we could say "numerically they were mostly mediocre or average" as that doesn't imply quality of the reviews? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

At Metacritic, she gets an average rating of 55 out of 100 for Auto—they kinda weigh all the reviews against each other, as I understand it—which they say is "mixed or average". [1] As you can see, there are several good reviews there and even the bad ones aren't entirely dismal. Everyking 07:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
In particular I think the Blender [2] and Village Voice [3] reviews are quite positive. Everyking 07:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, thanks - I've got go to sleep now but I'll take a look at it in 13 hours or so.... in the mean time feel free to edit :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

So, if we're going to say the album got a mixed reception, we need to provide at least one positive and one negative review. Right now there's two negative quotes, one from Rolling Stone and one from the NYT. Which should we keep, and what positive quote should we add in place of the removed one? Everyking 09:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The rolling stone one is really too short and sarcastic to be credible IMHO... so I think I'll keep the NYTimes one and try to find a new positive review off of metacritic that's credible. What do you think? :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
WHY would you add more positive. The are more people who don't like it then people who like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stopthemusic (talk • contribs) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sratch that - apparently the NYTimes one is sort of positive... I think I'll find a couple reviews then... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

addressing the FAC concerns

Hi Everyking et al.,

In the season 4 finale of Punk'd, Ashton Kutcher and his crew members set up a fake art museum and arranged for Simpson to visit it. They then convinced Simpson that her friend's jacket had caught fire due to being placed on top of a candle (though Simpson maintained that she put the jacket in front of the candle), causing the overhead sprinklers to go off, and ruining all the paintings in the room.

I removed this at the request of the FAC commenters... since there wasn't too much wide coverage of this I think its legatamite to get rid of...

However, I think we should mention some of the musical awards she has won, this way we can address both the concern of the anon and leave room for a bit more criticism.

Any thoughts on these? 

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Awards: She won the Teen Choice "Fresh Face" and "Song of the Summer" awards in 2004...that used to be in the article, is it still there? She also won Billboard's "Best New Female Artist" award in late 2004, probably her most notable award to date. I think that too was mentioned in an older version.
I think the Punk'd episode should be mentioned but the detail could be reduced. Everyking 17:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I put in the child star theory as mentioned in the FAC. It's a little harsh though... feel free to tone it down a bit. I'll work on the awards now Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like all 3 awards are already in there... I'll do a quick check to see if I can get anymore... and if I can I'll put them in Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the cause of the confusion about the relationships, as mentioned in the to-do list. She's not with Cabrera unless she's making it a secret. She is still seen with him occasionally but says she's single right now. I think the relationship basically ended back in February or so, but it always seems to have had kind of an on again-off again nature, so you can never be sure. As for Wilmer we know even less about that. She says they're just good friends, but there have been lots of rumors, mainly several months ago, back in the spring I think. Everyking 02:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I mentioned in the image section that she broke up with him again in early 2005. Is this enough do you think? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

FAC concerns part 2 (done?)

OK, I reworded the language a bit as suggested, put in a new award she won in january etc.. I also should mention I decided on keeping the rolling stones review and using the E! Online review for the positive one instead of the NYTimes. Anything other comments anyone? I think its pretty close to if not ready to pass the FAC now... I'll update that. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The "back to blonde" section included only stuff that happened before she went back to blonde (except the magazine cover image). So I renamed it to "early 2005"; I couldn't think of any good common thread besides that. Also I feel the "criticism" section needs to be balanced somehow. Very generalized criticism of her, not necessarily cited, seems to be taking over the article. Everyking 04:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The new additions to the criticism section are very excessive and need to be toned down quite a bit for NPOV. Everyking 06:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Please try your best :) - I think if we both rework it we can come to something NPOV pretty easily Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of Joe's quote was an aside and excessive, so I removed it. Further, I balanced the "Milli Vanilli" stuff by pointing out her continued success after the incident. Everyking 06:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I can try to rework this a bit. Speaking of which, do you know of a reference for the successful tour claim? (It was pointed out as a problem in the intro, so we need a reference, I guess) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

tattoos

I removed a bit from it as request from the FAC.... still mixed feelings... anyway here's the text:

one of a star Simpson got on her left wrist after the release of her first album, subsequently a tattoo of two cherries on her ankle, and most recently a tattoo of the word "love" located on her right wrist, which she got in mid-2005

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Put back... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The real comedy of fulfilling FAC requests is when, in trying to fulfill some, you do things that others dislike. You remove the tattoos, and a radical deletionist may be satisfied, but most people would likely disagree with that move. Everyking 03:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, we don't know where she was born exactly. I've never heard her specify. I object to giving the reader two possible places and basically saying, OK, you pick the one you think is right. And it isn't really standard to put that in the intro anyway. It should be in the biography section. Everyking 03:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah.... I've been on IRC and it looks like people are going to vote against this solely based on the past disputes here :(. This is really kind of unfair, I'd say. I guess I can't save even this one... and you are right about the place of birth... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
That's sad and funny at the same time. Well, don't worry about it; the real point of editing is to write good articles, and FA status is just a symbolic thing. I resigned myself months ago to the likelihood that I'd never be able to get any of the articles featured because of all the animosity, so I'm surprised they've done as well as they have. I think Autobiography still has a chance, also. Everyking 04:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the criticisms should be removed. There are plenty of reasons that people don't like her (examples-nose job, and shes a poser (from punk to preppy))Lollalo 23:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)lollalo 

Both ashlee and jess were born and raised in Waco texas. However they moved to LA because Jess wanted to pursue a music career, and their parents didn't want to split the family.So when ashlee was i think 15 they moved to LA so Jess could focus on music. But in the E! THS on them, Joe and Tina talk about the kids being born and raised in Waco texas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by YourGuardianAngel2 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

band mention

I thought of doing something like this similar to the iron maiden page since johnleemc mentioned it was kind of out of place in the article

Lineup

When appearing for live performances, Simpson performs live with a backing band called "Ashlee Simpson and Submission." The name comes from the large amount of proposals for the name of the band that were submitted to the website in September 2004.

  • Ray Brady - guitar
  • Braxton Olita - guitar
  • Zach Kennedy - bass guitar
  • Lucy Walsh - keyboards and vocals
  • Chris Fox - drums
This line up has since changed to a new one, the only origional band members left are her long time friend Ray Brady, and drummer Chris Fox. She also travels w/ a dj, and some back up singers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by YourGuardianAngel2 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent

It seems like there's nowhere to put recent events in the article now. The only recent stuff is in the intro. Everyking 22:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Very true. I'm in the process of reworking it again and will be done late tonight or tomarro and will have a more proper place to put those. I think due to her different careers its best to seperate those too. I also found references for her influences/singing type/idols also Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"Simpson has cultivated a more rebellious and rock oriented image than that of her sister." What's up with cultivated? Skyraider seems to think it's important. Personally I think it alters the meaning too much. Without cultivated, it refers to how she is seen by others; with cultivated, it refers to how she wants to be seen. This gets my alarm bells ringing because it comes close to the "manufactured image" line. Everyking 03:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm, interesting. One could argue that everyone cultivates their image, and pop stars more than most; and without "cultivated", we're saying that she is seen as more rebellious than her sister (more rock-oriented is a given). Seen that way by whom? On the other hand, "cultivated" does have an air of calculation about it. Since this section is essentially comparing her with her sister, we could just let people draw their own conclusions on those comparisons...like so. Grackle 03:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Basically, that's what I was getting at. I think we can agree that through her personal style choices, she has sought to distinguish herself from her sister. To say that she "has" a particular image is another matter, and "decidedly different" doesn't address my concern. I think the former statement is fair and accurate, and the latter one is not. (We note the fact that she wears "punk" style shirts. fair enough. That's not to say that any music store with a "punk" section puts her recordings in it.) If you find the word "cultivated" objectionable, would "adopted" or "sought" be more acceptable? Skyraider 21:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

unless someone can show me evidence that pete wentz and her are dating i am willing to post the many qoutes of pete's that CLEARLY say that they aren't dating and that they NEVER will. i hope you all will stop living in a dream world were a pop and emo come together. but you are all mistaken nothing is ever going to happen with pete and ashlee so get over yourself.24.113.251.213 14:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Andy Day

I agree with the post above me. Unless one of them say it on the websites or in an interview... They are NOT together please show me where you got the info from. Probably from a teenage gossip magazine that lies ALL the time.

I also agree with the above posts

I agree with the posts above

McDonald's incident

So I'm not sure where to put this, or how to write it up, but Ashlee Simpson was apparently caught on tape at a Toronto McDonald's drunk and harassing the employees and customers. They beleived that she was completely out of her mind. Later she refused to admit what she had done. Check here: torontoist, with links to video. So far I've only seen this on sites like Defamer and Gawker, but it looks to be legit -- seems to me it ought to go in the article, with "alleged" and such thrown in. Madame Sosostris 20:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about it in. Extraordinary Machine 22:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The tape was broadcast on at least one major tv network (it was shown on Jimmy Kimmel Live).67.67.113.163 06:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't really think it's notable enough. I'm not going to remove it, because it's kinda borderline, but still I'd rather see it go. In my opinion, a small segment in the middle of a Canadian tabloid show and Jimmy Kimmel's seldom watched show is not enough to establish notability from the media, at least not in this case when we have in the past deleted things that have gotten vastly more media coverage. (I also think it's funny that one of the most radical deletionists from the old dispute is arguing for inclusion of this trivia.) Everyking 06:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it's at least as notable enough as mentioning that Simpson was featured on the front cover of Teen People magazine. Extraordinary Machine 20:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that's gotten more publicity, and Teen People is a significant publication. I don't know, we will see what happens with the McD thing...either it will be forgotten or more people will notice and poke fun at it. If the former maybe we'll remove it as trivia, if the latter it'll be clear it merits inclusion. Everyking 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
When I wrote the above comment, I didn't mean that her appearance on the cover of Teen People magazine wasn't notable, just that I thought the "McDonald's incident" was (though I agree with you that it should probably be removed if it nothing comes of it). Sorry if it sounded like I was criticising the magazine cover mention. Extraordinary Machine 19:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

the "Backstage at SNL" photo caption

When the SNL incident first occurred, AP News ran the same photo that currently is on Wikipedia (of Simpson crying walking away from the stage) and said it was taken a few minutes after Simpson walked offstage. I'm aware that some sites have stated it was taken earlier after rehearsals, but this is not part of the original AP release. Since I was determined to have the caption reflect the AP info and 'Everyking' was determined to make it say "backstage earlier when she was having trouble with her voice" (he or she must hover over the page waiting to revert any changes they don't like!), I decided to compromise and simply caption it "Simpson backstage at SNL", which is factual and without spin. wikipediatrix 06:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It is simply not possible for it to have been after the incident. She isn't wearing the same outfit. Look at the picture and then look at a picture of her during the incident. Everyking 06:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I never claimed the image was taken directly after the second song. In the pic on the article, she's wearing the exact same outfit she wore in the first song. The presence of the cameraman sitting at the camera unit, along with the boom mike extended over the stage, seem to indicate that the image was taken as she left the stage after the first song, and not during rehearsals earlier in the day. I don't see why simply saying "backstage at SNL" is such a problem, since it's obviously factual, regardless of what time it was taken. wikipediatrix 06:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
What I'm saying is the way it was presented on 60 Minutes. Are you saying they were lying? If so, why? To show she was upset after the first song? That would just indicate she was upset that she had to lip-sync, which would actually make her look good. I don't get it. Everyking 12:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
This isn't about what makes her look good or not! This is about being factual. wikipediatrix 17:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
We already know that, which is why there are thirty-three inline citations present on the article. A lot of effort has gone into making sure this article is verifiable, and it's unwise to let unsupported (and false) claims be left in. For the record, Simpson has said that her band performed live on SNL. Extraordinary Machine 17:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyone with eyes and a brain can view the video footage and see that the band is NOT playing their instruments when the music starts. And even if it WERE the band playing, why would the entire band, en masse and in perfect unison, mistakenly start playing THE SONG THEY HAD JUST PLAYED? Give me a break. This is clearly NNPOV fannish whitewash from people who trying to exercise "damage control" and positive spin away from what is patently obvious. I am neither pro-Ashlee or anti-Ashlee. But Wikipedia pages are not fan pages, they are not advertising for the star in question. It is generally regarded by most people that the entire band was miming, and this needs to be reflected on the site. If you want to temper that to the untrue-but-fairer-sounding "many people", fine. But the page IS going to reflect this. wikipediatrix 02:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
According to Simpson's drummer, during rehearsals the original order of the songs was "Pieces of Me" and then "Autobiography" (okay, got muddled up there, sorry. Extraordinary Machine 22:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)), which is why he accidentally cued the wrong song. Also, I've seen the video footage, and I think the band was playing live; in any case, this type of "Anyone with eyes and a brain..." argument violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. Please cite your sources. Extraordinary Machine 17:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Some things are so obvious they're beyond citation, like the fact that JFK was shot in the head, or that Brian Schweitzer is the Governor of Montana. If someone wants to be in denial about it, that's their business. You, like Everyking, clearly have an axe to grind here, and want to put as flattering a spin on the whole matter as possible. You know as well as I do that SOME people out there - MANY people out there - believe the entire band was faking (because the video CLEARLY shows it if you know what to look for), and this needs to be reflected on the page, whether in the criticism section or not. I'll stop reverting it to my version when you come up with a version that addresses the controversy yourself. wikipediatrix 21:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
And unsupported claims will continue to be removed from the article until they are supported by sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Extraordinary Machine 21:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The article's slanted acceptance of the view that the band was really playing is, in itself, an unsupported, unverified (and probably unverifiable) claim. For the article to accept that all bandmembers "accidentally" launched into the wrong song - which just coincidentally happened to be the same wrong song that the drummer allegedly cued the wrong vocal track for - is too much of a stretch of the imagination to call this article, and its adherents, fair and balanced. wikipediatrix 22:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that you consult Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability, as you have already been requested to. As the link I provided above states, rehearsals for SNL had Simpson and her band performing "Autobiography" first and then "Pieces of Me", which is why the band didn't realise they were performing the wrong song. Extraordinary Machine 22:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
There are plenty of "giving Ashlee the benefit of the doubt" statements in this article that are not sourced. Having said that, I am certain that if I cited webpages (and there are many) that make the same statements I am making, you'd STILL be reverting my edits dozens of times. If you really wanted to shut me up, you could simply rewrite the pertinent point - that it has not been conclusively proven that the band wasn't miming (their own claims don't count!) in a way that suits your temperament. But of course, you won't do that, because you and Everyking (you both are different people, aren't you?) apparently prefer to hover over this page day and night to make sure the page always says what you want it to say. And yes, I know the song order got switched - that's no doubt why they screwed up and played the wrong backup recording! wikipediatrix 03:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
"There are plenty of "giving Ashlee the benefit of the doubt" statements in this article that are not sourced." — Please give some examples.
"I am certain that if I cited webpages (and there are many) that make the same statements I am making, you'd STILL be reverting my edits dozens of times." — Well, we'll never know for as long as you continue to insert uncited statements into the article (and nowhere does it explicitly state that the band was performing live). I've directed you to the relevant policy pages, so you know what's required of you. Extraordinary Machine 18:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible source of vocal profile

  • Wikipedia spam filter- site removed* is a potential source of Ashlee Simpson's vocal profile (including "spinto contralto", minimum and maximum notes, and vocal range) that doesn't appear to pull information from Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I am uncertain as to how reliable the site is. --Deathphoenix 06:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Catch Me When I Fall

I don't want to decide this independently, so I'll ask: does anyone have an opinion on whether Catch Me When I Fall should be listed in the discography as a single, even though it hasn't been released (or announced) as a single, just because it charted at #93 on the Pop 100? I don't think it should be listed, because it seems misleading, but if others disagree I don't mind if it's readded. Everyking 05:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. If it was never released as a single, it shouldn't be listed as a single. --Deathphoenix 14:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

Recent edits seem to be removing a good deal of content. Can I get any other opinions on this? All the removed info seems notable to me, and I would like to either restore it or find another article to fit it in. We don't need limitless detail here, sure, but I don't like to see so much info being removed by one individual. Everyking 03:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to start readding stuff unless there's some kind of justification for all that content removal. Everyking 14:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed the TRL info; I don't know if it was vandalism or making a point that the info is non-notable, but I reverted it. I figure if someone wants to remove it they should make a case for it, since lots of people have been working on that. Everyking 04:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the TRL info should be removed, it's just from a show and it should be moved in the article of the singles.--Hotwiki 08:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but one could make the counter-argument that it's good to have the info all in one place, too, for easy reference. But I don't have a strong opinion about it, as long as the information is somewhere. Everyking 08:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Could other people watch this article to make sure nobody adds any uncited claims about her next single? There's been some pretty persistent adding of this kind of stuff. More than once now I've seen people on forums talk about how this song or that song is the next single, because they read it on Wikipedia—and that's just when the info has been up for a few hours. Well, I'm not always around to catch edits as they are made, so it'd be good if other people could also keep an eye out. Everyking 04:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure--Hotwiki 07:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"Sex tape"

The sex tape rumor that an anon is trying to add was a very short-lived rumor that was quickly discredited and abandoned. It did not meet the bar for notability we've been using here. Everyking 20:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I feel User:Yamla is being a bit overzealous about requiring citations, since he is basically reverting all changes on those grounds, it appears. Citations are definitely good, but when we're talking about things such as minor updates to chart data, we should take a relatively relaxed approach. Being overzealous about it effectively locks out the contributions of anons and newcomers. Someone can always come through and add the citations later. Everyking 04:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to relax my citation requirement for chart data if other people agree. I'd like a little (very little) disclaimer added to the chart section, though, which states this information is not verified. On the other hand, I firmly believe that rumours about a sex tape need to be cited with a reliable source in order to stay. It is highly unlikely (though certainly not impossible) that Ashlee Simpson really made a sex tape. --Yamla 14:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Ya I agree, he needs to lay off the wikigestapo a little. Duke of Kent 11:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Is 1984 her agent's birth year or her real birth year?

I think that there are birth records that state Ashlee Simpson was born in... 1982? Or, is 1984 the given birth year by her publicist, not by birth records? Was born she actually in other year than 1984, because that was the publicist given birth date?

These are the matches I found on the Texas birth index
SIMPSON, ASHLEY NICOLLE 1984-10-3 County: MC LENNAN Gender:F

--Fallout boy 05:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, see, this is why I've always been telling people to be careful about assuming places of birth. Some sources were saying Waco and some were saying Dallas, and somebody went in and made it say Dallas, and now here's evidence that it was actually Waco. Places of birth are hard to get right, because they can get confused with other places a person lived as a child. Everyking 06:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, her real first name is "Ashley", not "Ashlee". The only "Ashlee Simpson"s were born in 1986.[4] --Fallout boy 20:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It's quite possible she began spelling it that way later on, but I wouldn't want to include that in the article without more verification. Everyking 21:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The IMD has her real name listed as Ashley Nicolle: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1249883/bio Also, it is spelled wrong on the top of the page, so I changed it under 'birth name'. PharmerJess 16:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Laugh or cry?

From the new Jane magazine article about her: "[Ashlee's] story has so many ups and downs, it resembles a fraudulent Wikipedia bio, written by a drunken frat boy." Everyking 10:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Ashleeturfing"

I've removed this again. A year later and there's no evidence to believe this has any kind of notability. I've never heard of any of it outside of WP. There's not even any particular reason to believe this was Geffen at all; it could have been a fan or anybody. Everyking 03:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As was pointed out when it was added originally, it appeared in Wired magazine. Not notable enough for you? Skyraider 23:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Possible sockpuppet removed this without comment or justification. I've restored it again. Skyraider 17:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the term Ashleeturfing has been used in other contexts beyond the initial MetaFilter post, I think a new wikipedia entry just for ashleeturfing should be created. Any opinions? --Jca2112 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ashlee Simpson Satire Site

How come this isn't allowed? It has been around since November 2004 and has followed most or all of what she has done. This isn't a fansite, this is an encyclopedia entry. There should be a link to a site that covers such a broad amount of her career. It's not like only people who favor her come to this entry. People who are genuine fans could likely find something funny at the site.

See WP:EL for external link policies. --Yamla 16:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

criticism section

Per WP:WEASEL, if we have a criticism section, we aught to specficially say in the body (not just in notes), who said exactly. Saying things like "some speculate" doesn't really inform the reader. "Some people" say all sorts of things. Unless there somebody notable, it doesn't really matter. I'm not contesting the existence of the criticism (it's obviusly very well known), just the way we present it. --Rob 08:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

To me, the criticism section seems fine. It explains why Ashlee is not embraced by everyone but does it in a way to where it doesn't bash her.

I've removed the criticism section. If you want it there, write something decent in its place. As it was, the section consisted almost entirely of references to the fact that some people don't like this singer. That a negative review can be linked to is hardly revelatory; there is barely an album in existence that has not been both positively and negatively reviewed. There was also a reference to some MadTV skit, which was not an event of particular notoriety or noteworthiness, and some unsupported references to Simpson being "not punk" and a "poser". Please. All this section confirmed was that this singer is not universally beloved. Do people really need an encycolpedia to tell them that? Perhaps the Ashleeturfing section is useful information that should be retained, but buried, as it is, amidst a heap of useless information, I can't be bothered finding out. This section, if it should exist at all, should be rebuilt from the ground up. I've made the first step by razing it.Inutero2222 15:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would you remove the criticism section? Obviously, there ase a lot of people who don't like her especially in the light of the whole lip synching, nose job thing, and furthermore, this is NOT a fan site for her.Stopthemusic (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Stop the MusicStopthemusic (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nose Job

I wish I knew how to post pics, because I saw a recent picture of her, and her nose looks great. She's obviously had some work done.

  • It doesn't say so in the article, but I think the fact she had a nose jop is now "official"; either she or her publicist said so -I don't know the exact details. - Matthew238 02:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • A publicist was at one time reported as implicitly confirming it, but there's been nothing further like that, and it was after that point that Ashlee herself dodged the question in an interview, so I figure the official line is basically "no comment". Everyking 05:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I think she's had some work done on her chin, as well. http://www.goodplasticsurgery.com
        • I think her dad admitted to the nose job for "her breathing"...puuuuhhhhhlease.

Magazine covers

I've trimmed down the list of 2005/2006 magazine covers again. They can't all be notable, so it's not very useful to mention all of them. Extraordinary Machine 15:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyking has just performed a blanket revert of my edits (including formatting of footnotes, merging of short paragraphs in compliance with the MoS and changing "Ashlee" to "Simpson"), and I'd like to know why. Especially since his edit summary seems to imply that removing information is a bad thing, which it isn't always. For example (in addition to my above comment), what is the significance behind mentioning what songs Simpson performed at the Australian MTV Video Music Awards? Extraordinary Machine 17:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Your edit appeared to be removing information which I consider notable. Everyking 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need to include the precise release date of I Am Me, especially as it's on the album article (same with the date of the Australian MTV Video Music Awards). Celebrities such as Simpson appear on lots of magazine covers, and unless the covers are significant in anyway (e.g. I left the mention of Teen People in because she appeared with her sister), it's not very useful to mention all of them. As I said above, if there isn't anything significant about Simpson's performance at the VMA's (unlike the SNL or Orange Bowl appearances, which received widespread coverage in the news), then it probably isn't worth mentioning either. Extraordinary Machine 20:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'll concede your first point; it isn't strictly necessary, but it takes up only a tiny bit more space to give the date detail and someone's bound to add it back soon anyway (not realizing that it was excluded for stylistic reasons). The same goes for the Australia VMA date. On the magazine covers, I feel pretty strongly those should all stay, if for no other reason than that they mentioned nowhere else on the encyclopedia, and there isn't really anywhere else where they fit. Do you want to create a "list of magazine covers featuring Ashlee Simpson"? It needs to be somewhere, and I feel it's notable enough to include here. For the AVMA performance—she hosted it, which is very notable, and if we're mentioning that we might as well mention she performed too. We aren't short on space here, and I guarantee you all this info we're debating about would come in handy to people. Everyking 03:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
You've blanket reverted a second time, again removing formatting and stylistic work I performed. If you come across an edit which you disagree with, at least take the time to read it through instead of undoing all of it. If somebody reinserts the exact dates, then we can remove them again and explain on their talk page why we did so. I'm a little bothered by your assertion that the information about the magazine covers needs to be "somewhere". I think that any article along the lines of List of magazine covers featuring Ashlee Simpson would probably be AFD'd sooner or later, and we'd be back to square one again. Perhaps the articles about the magazines could contain lists of people appearing on the covers, but then the inclusion of those would eventually be debated as well. I'm concerned that the article is becoming more and more like a fan page (albeit relatively NPOV) or a "current events" piece for Simpson than an encyclopedia article. Some of the information doesn't really come in handy to me; I'm a fan of Simpson and I couldn't care less about what she performed at the VMA's (even if I did, I still wouldn't think Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia would be an appropriate place for it), and I doubt that many casual readers would either. Extraordinary Machine 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess we just don't agree. Obviously a deep philosophical difference here. Well, I'm putting it back in; feel free to make stylistic edits as long as you don't remove the magazine covers info. Everyking 04:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
So I put it back, but I did leave out the names of the two songs she performed at the AVMAs. You know, you want to reduce "cruft" here, or whatever, why are you aiming at the covers in particular? There's plenty of stuff in the article I could agree to seeing removed, mostly stuff mentioned in other articles. Why not target something less controversial? Everyking 04:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
You're making it very difficult for me to contribute to this article, Everyking. Take another look at my last edit (which you blanket reverted, again) and you'll see that I edited around the detail I disagree with rather than removing it entirely. You also removed {{ActiveDiscuss}} from the article, which I felt was an appropriate template to insert given that this discussion is still undoing. Yes, WP:NOT paper, but nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information, and sorry but I consider a list of magazine covers (not all of which are notable) an "indiscriminate collection of information". As for "cruft"...yes, I do think other sections of the article could be trimmed, but there's got to be a starting point. Extraordinary Machine 11:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
So you left the magazine cover info in there? Well then, what are we arguing about? Everyking 11:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I've left the info in for now because it's more productive to discuss the issue than just keep reverting (which is why I've listed this at WP:RFC/ART). Extraordinary Machine 12:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity there hasn't been any further discussion regarding this issue. Since WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, I'll remove the excess detail soon. Extraordinary Machine 18:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And it will be restored, naturally. I told you already: you want to go after cruft, there are other things in this article you can remove uncontroversially. Everyking 12:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
You've said that removing the magazine covers info would be "controversial", but you haven't explained why, or why it should stay. Extraordinary Machine 18:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Because I think it's notable. Everyking 19:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but why do you think it is notable? Simpson hosting an awards ceremony may be considered notable as she never did that before, but she appears on lots of magazine covers and only two (at best) of the ones listed appear to be significant enough for mentioning in an encyclopedia article about her. Extraordinary Machine 12:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Lots of people read those magazines. They all get very wide exposure. Everyking 16:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I know that. The point I'm making is that because Simpson appears on many magazines, they can't all be notable enough for mentioning, so we have to pick the most notable ones to include and leave out the rest. Simpson appears on and performs on lots of widely-seen television shows, but obviously we don't mention all of her TV appearances because it would be rather pointless and useless for almost all readers. Just like we wouldn't list every single released by Madonna or Elvis Presley on their articles; it would just create bloat. Extraordinary Machine 17:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Other musician articles, especially the featured articles, don't list every magazine cover their subjects have appeared on. Skyraider 22:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I list most of her TV appearances, where they are pertinent to her albums or songs, on the album and song articles. Unfortunately it is more difficult for me to make the connection between those articles and these magazine covers; often they have little to nothing to do with the music. The new Marie Claire article, for instance, has Ashlee talking about the pressure on girls about their weight and looks and about the importance of feeling confident in themselves, that kind of thing. So where am I supposed to put that? "Nowhere" is an unacceptable answer—the covers are notable information that need to have a place on WP somewhere. I put it here because there isn't any more logical place, the article isn't terribly long at present, and it's relevant. The creation of a subarticle about this kind of thing, about her general publicity/image, would be great—would you like to create one? It sounds a bit daunting, but don't let me hold you back; if you do that then feel free to move it there. Otherwise I don't really see what can be done. Everyking 05:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
There is another option: remove the information. As I explained above, it's not all notable or relevant and does not "need" to be on Wikipedia. [[WP:|Wikipedia is not]] an indiscriminate collection of information. I think the same should probably be done with the album and single articles as not all of the television appearances are notable; I just took a quick look at Pieces of Me and felt that it was generally overdetailed. Excess bloat should be trimmed, not spun into subarticles; that just spreads the problem across more than one page rather than solving it. Extraordinary Machine 12:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement. What you are articulating is something called deletionism, which I consider incompatible with the building of an encyclopedia in general and these articles in particular. Everyking 15:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You're confusing deletionism with exclusionism; regardless, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of all human knowledge: "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia". I consider that kind of detail to be completely arbitrary, and feel it will repel many readers and make their eyes glaze over (well, mine did). I don't see anybody else lobbying for the inclusion of this information, though I wish that more users would join in this discussion. Perhaps we should consider listing this at Wikipedia:Current surveys or something. Extraordinary Machine 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Mmm hmm. Everyking
One could easily interpret the above comment as crassness. Even if you didn't mean it to sound that way, I request that you do not make comments like that again. Anyway, after reading the guidelines at Wikipedia:Straw polls, I'm wondering if we should make it a general question like "Is the article, and this section in particular, too detailed" or point to specific issues (e.g. the exact dates). Perhaps we could turn it into an umbrella survey regarding all of the album and single articles. What do you think? Extraordinary Machine 20:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I don't agree. Everyking 04:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that instead of giving short, curt and vague responses, it would be more useful for everybody if you actually showed an interest in participating in the discussion and resolving this dispute. Please explain why you don't agree. Extraordinary Machine 13:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with your ideas about what should be included in an article. I have a broader definition of notability and am concerned with providing a relatively high level of detail to the reader. Everyking 19:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I know that. What I'm saying is that it is important for community consensus on this issue to be established, especially as only one editor (besides me and you) has commented. I'm aware that you want to provide a high level of detail in these articles, but I'm wondering if editors other than myself think it isn't such a good idea. Extraordinary Machine 14:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Clearly there is disagreement about the appropriate level of detail to include. ExtMach has proposed a survey as a means of identifying the consensus on this issue, and has even suggested possible wording for the survey. Everyking: if these suggestions are unacceptable to you , what alternative method would you propose for determining consensus? Skyraider 17:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

SNL Incident

The article says However, when she began her second song, "Autobiography", the song "Pieces of Me" was heard again—including her vocals—before she had raised the microphone to her mouth. Weren't the instruments played live? It seems to me that the drummer started off "Autobiography", the recorded vocals began, and the guitarists came in with "Pieces of Me". You could still hear the vocals, though they had been turned down low. PrometheusX303 20:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image

Now that the top image has been removed, what can it be replaced with? There were two images previously in use at phases in the article's history: one of her performing on Leno, and one of her from the "Shadow" video. Do either of these even still exist, or have they fallen victim to deletion? Are there any other options for the image? Everyking 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Take your pick. :-) Anything of generally good quality that shows her would be appropriate, methinks. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Rock?

Okay, I removed it in passing, someone put it back, I thought it was accidental and removed it again, then they put it back... She isn't rock. Why does it say she is? 69.145.123.171 Hello! Sunday, July 2, 2006, 01:40 (UTC)

I think you can probably figure this out without my help, honestly. Everyking 04:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I really can't. She doesn't write her own music. Per the SNL deal, she doesn't sing her own music. She doesn't play any instruments whatsoever-why rock? She doesn't fit the bill at all, and I'd like an explanation before you revert my 'bad edits', if you don't mind. 69.145.123.171 Hello! Monday, July 3, 2006, 06:08 (UTC)
Instrumentation and vocal style seem to fit the "Rock" definition. I'm sure there are some credible sources in which she is defined as a "rock artist"; however, this seems like an obviously POV issue. Turly-burly 06:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
They most certainly do not. How is she rock? Seriously, explain it to me. 69.145.123.171 Hello! Monday, July 3, 2006, 07:00 (UTC)
See Pop rock - it is its own genre and most sources refer to her being pop rock and her music meets the criteria. Thus, she is pop rock AFAIK :). RN 07:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I know she's on the page, but I still disagree... Eh. If we're going to have it, it should at least be pop rock, not pop rock. She just doesn't fit the bill for a rocker. 69.145.123.171 Hello! Monday, July 3, 2006, 07:14 (UTC)
Allmusic.com lists her genre as "Rock" with styles of "Teen Pop" and "Pop/Rock". IMO, they're notable, knowledgable, and neutral, so I don't object to her being called "Rock" here. I'll go with whatever the consensus is, barring any blatantly incorrect characterization. ("Punk", "Reggae", "Zydeco", etc.) Skyraider 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Most people do consider her Rock because she has pop-influenced music, however it is a very edgy, rock sound. Also, she so fits the bill for a rocker, she's punkish, she's loud, fun, and her music is pretty hard pop rock (basically rock).

1. Autobiography: This album was mainly what i call Teen Rock, it's basically teen pop, only with more of an edge. 1.1. Pieces Of Me: A perfect example of Teen Rock, it's poppy, but not too poppy. 1.2. Shadow: This is true Pop Rock, it's super edgy, yet still somewhat pop. 1.3. La La: This song is hard for me. To many people it's Pop Rock, but it can also be called Rock 2. I Am Me: This album really gets rid of Ashlee's Teen Pop image. It trades that in for a favorite, Alternative Rock. 2.1. Boyfriend: This song is true Pop Rock. A poppy chorus, with a hugely rock undertone. 2.2. L.O.V.E.: This song is kind've Pop Rock, but it's also Dancey and Hip-Hoppish. I Call It Dance Rock/Hip-Pop 2.3. Invisible: This song is a little Pop Rock, but overall it's a true Alternative Rock song. 3. Bittersweet World: This album is great because it has a little Pop Rock (Rulebreaker, Little Miss Obsessive, Never Dream Alone), has some (half) Alternative Rock (Outta My Head (Ay Ya Ya) (Could also be Electro-Rock) , What I've Become(Could also be Pop Rock), some Electropop (Boys, Hot Stuff), there's even some "Chicago" inspired stuff (Bittersweet World), and overall Electro-Rock (No Time For Tears, Ragdoll, Murder, OMH, Bittersweet World). 3.1. Outtta My Head (Ay Ya Ya): This is Pop Rock in some ways , but also Electro-Rock, and somewhat Alternative Rock too. 3.2. Little Miss Obsessive: This song is very debateable. A lot of people see it as a song where Pop and Rock meet and is real Pop Rock, but others see it as a Soft Rock song. Many instruments are used in this song, and so what if they aren't played loudly, there still instruments. Also, Ashlee's sounds very... Rock. Ashlee has a true Rock voice, it's not poppy at all (anymore that is hm hm... Pieces Of Me) Oh, and by the way, Ashlee does write everything she does. She does play instruments too... like Piano, and Guitar, and i hear she's learning how to play drums. She does sing her own music, and she even produces. Out of most musicians, Ashlee could probably take home the cake for Toughest Music Career. She hasn't become a bad girl like... well... Miss 3 times in rehab, she's just had it hard. After releasing the #1, 3 million records in 2 months selling Autobiography, the whole SNL thing happened, and she hit rock bottom. Most people thought her career, not just as a singer, but in the limelight, was over. But then in 2005, Ashlee became the Comeback Kid. She released her second #1 album I Am Me, sold one million records in the U.S. alone, and had not one but two top 25 singles. All this happened in a span of one year. Then in 2008, Ashlee released a third album, Bittersweet World, which reached #4, and will certainly reach Gold or even Platinum, and then married rocker Pete Wentz. That is a true rocker couple. Now that Ashlee is expecting, we can all say that in only four years, Ashlee has had a true rock n' roll life through all the ups and downs.

"Criticism"

IMO no biography, and certainly no FA biography, should have a "Criticism" section. The criticisms should be worked into the article wherever they are relevant (adhering to NPOV and RS of course). Thatcher131 18:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The backlash against Ms. Simpson has been significant, and forms a considerable part of her notoriety. Therefore, it's appropriate to include some coverage of the criticism. Devoting a section specifically to criticism (as opposed to covering it throughout the article) has helped alleviate the hellacious edit wars this topic has generated in the past. Skyraider 17:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not a fan site. A lot of people don't like her and believe that she is famous for being Jessica's sister, and they think she is a bit of a poser. Stopthemusic (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Stopthemusic
The stop Ashlee Simpson online petition has now reached over 400,000 signatures.

Certainly, that is significant critism...Wangster 03:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My signature is one of them.--Shella * 22:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of song article--opinions

A few months ago, an article on one of Ashlee's non-single songs, "Catch Me When I Fall", was deleted through an AfD debate. Unfortunately I just learned about this debate and deletion recently; had I known then, I would have voted to keep. As it happened, the issue slipped under the radar screen and only got a couple of votes, all in favor of deletion. I've reproduced the article here so others can see it. My case is that A) this song is particularly notable as far as non-singles go (SNL association), and B) non-single articles are more common these days in general, so the fact that it wasn't a single shouldn't be a rigid indicator of the article's unsuitability. So what I want to see is if people have any opinions about making an undeletion nom here, for or against. Everyking 08:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Stuck in the Suburbs

Someone has added that she had some role in Stuck in the Suburbs. I have never heard this before and can find nothing to confirm it on Google. IMDb's list of the movie's cast doesn't mention her. I'm going to have to remove it, but if someone can find a source feel free to restore. Everyking 04:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mad TV

"Even prior to her lip synching incident, Simpson was parodied on a MadTV skit. During the skit the actress potraying Simpson made statements such as "Enjoy the commercial... I mean the show!" (refering to The Ashlee Simpson Show), and "The best thing about being a product... I mean an artist!", and goes to a recording session where he vocals have to be mechanically enhanced."

I'm fine with including this information on WP somewhere, but I feel it's too minor to take up a paragraph in this article. A paragraph could be written about jokes made at her expense in general, incorporating a brief mention of MadTV's skit. Everyking 04:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The user decided to restore that stuff to the article without discussing it here. Well, fine, but if there isn't any discussion in a few days I may remove it again. Everyking 07:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

homeschooled

Someone please substantiate the claim that she was homeschooled. Or better yet, don't, because I know it isn't true. I won't bother fixing the article again, feel free to continue to list false, unsubstantiated claims about where/how she was schooled. She attended Prarie Creek Elementary from 2nd to 6th grade and Richardson North Junior High School for 7th and 8th. I could prove it by providing scans, or you could look up the schools' phone numbers, call, and ask. Whatever.

No, you don't understand; it's not supposed to be claiming she was homeschooled all her life. I've seen yearbook pictures of her so I have no doubt she attended regular school for most of her school-age years. My understanding is that she was homeschooled by her mother when she was a teenager, after they moved from Texas because of Jessica's career and (I'm assuming) when Ashlee was a backup dancer. I'm about 90% sure I remember her talking about this at some point or another, although it has been quite a while. It may be mentioned in the NY Times article, if someone can access it and confirm. Everyking 05:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Seriously. . .why do you guys let jealous girls put up the least flattering pictures possible of singers like this? Say goodbye to credibility. . .

Any time someone tries to add a good picture, it gets deleted for copyright reasons. Oddly, however, nobody ever tries to delete the 60 Minutes/SNL picture, although presumably the same issues would apply. Everyking 21:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ashlee was homeschool for a few years by her mother, because when she was 16/17 she went on tour w/ jess performing as a back up dancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YourGuardianAngel2 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I have restored the section - not that I personally give two hoots but you should discuss a change like that if the material is sourced. --Spartaz Humbug! 15:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also restored it: I think there are some things in there that are perhaps too minor to mention (or at least to go into detail about) on a general article on her (particularly "Ashleeturfing" and the MAD TV skit), but I can't agree with the outright removal of the section. Ideally it would be reworked into something that would incorporate positive views as well—something like a general "popular reception" section. Everyking 12:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing it again, for the reasons I posted in the first "criticism" section of the talk page. If you think the section should be reworked, rework it. Right now it is a terribly written, terribly trivial section, and bad sections drag down the tone of the entire encyclopedia. Inutero2222 03:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Its well sourced so no reason to remove it again because I have restored it back and if it removed again it would be regarded as vandalism..--Cometstyles 03:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is only well sourced to the extent that the information it contains is repeated elsewhere. The relevance or authority of the source is highly questionable i.e. the first Rolling Stone link proves merely that one Rolling Stone writer does not like Ashlee Simpson. The second link demonstrates the existence of a MadTV skit, but not the importance of it. And so on. This section adds absolutely nothing. The reference tell us only that one can Google up a negative article about any artist in existence. Should anyone wish to retain this section, provide reasons for the relevance of the material you are retaining. If not, your edit will be regarded as vandalism.Inutero2222 03:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, as best I can remember, the section was added a long time ago by people who thought I had somehow skewed the article in her favor, because the SNL incident had just happened, and to them that meant the article needed to give more weight to criticisms about her being a bad singer and so on—basically, they wanted to skew it in the other direction, although they wouldn't have put it quite like that. So I guess the section wasn't created with the right motivation, and it was full of a lot of crap (and would have been far worse if I hadn't struggled against it), but that doesn't mean I think it should just be removed. In my opinion the criticisms about Ashlee are baseless, not to mention obnoxious, but they are common—and they were very common back in late 2004/early 2005. To not represent that in the article would seem like a serious deficiency to me, and I'd rather have a poor "criticism" section than to have nothing. Ideally, there'd be a good, balanced section about both positive and negative views, but who's going to write that? What if we restored the criticism section, but left a note to editors (commented out) in the text urging people to rework it into a balanced form? Given time, somebody would probably produce results on that, if they were made aware of it. Everyking 03:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The one relevant question is, is it credibly sourced (including being paraphrased properly to what the source actually says)? If it is, it is in poor taste to remove it for 'dragging down the article' as one person put it above as that is throwing off academic credability for personal opinion and point of view. The point of a wikipedia article isn't to credit or discredit someone, it is to combine legitimate sources of information into a collective encyclopedia article. That means positive things about a person go up... and so do negative things. In fact so do trivial things (like plastic surgery). Again as long as they can be sourced to a place that is credible and in a position to make such a claim. If you're Ashlee Simpsons biggest fan, sadly it's tough shit for you. If you're her biggest hater guess what, it's tough shit for you too here. Leave your personal opinions at the door when you write into an encyclopedia article, or accept you aren't capable enough to do it. It is not a fan site. It is not a trash site. It is an encyclopedic biography. I totally agree poorly cited trash should go down, it's slander and is prohibited by wikipedia. However well cited criticism and events are very applicable to a wikipedia article and should stay up, as taking them down is a violation of policy once someone has properly placed them up and referenced them. That is called neutrality and should be what every article strives for. I went through it all, and looked at most the sources, and as far as I could tell only one definetly needed to be pulled (and the base event itself could go back up eventually, but needs to be written in a more accurate form or reference a differant source supporting the claim to avoid being considered slander as it included words that could be argued to be 'weasel words' in it's current form). The rest appears to follow legitimate guidelines for wikipedia on being applicable without crossing into baseless slander. [Wednesday, 2007-04-04 T 09:26 UTC]

The section is still terrible, so I'v removed it again. Anyone who thinks it's valid, rewrite it. Inutero2222 12:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll say this again. The criticism section is inadequate. There is nothing demonstrating of the relevance of the sources listed, and it is filled with weasel words like "some say." The section goes.

Album sales

Every time I blink, I find that the album sales figures have been changed by somebody again. This problem would be remedied if there were sources to back up the numbers, instead of just having to have faith in the various editors who drop by to add their preferred number. I propose removing the sales figures from the table, and only allowing them to be added back when/if somebody provides sources. Everyking 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The tables are simply full of chart and sales numbers that are unsourced and are being constantly changed around by anonymous editors who include no citations. The odds of errors existing in them at any given time must be about 100%. I'm beginning to think the only solution is to remove them and allow them to be restored only if every single number is cited. Everyking 09:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The same could be said for every fact in wikipedia. I support taking it out. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ashlee's Main Picture

Everytime I look, her picture has been changed. Though I am not one of the people changing it, I don't agree with the current picture (the picture of Ashlee performing at Victoria's Secret party). The picture needs to be a clear shot of her face, and should clearly denote what she looks like. The "Pieces of Me" single picture is also not a good choice, as Simpson has grown and changed her look since then. It should be a recent picture from 2007.

Wikipedia has a copyright policy, and it's pretty tough on images. You can't just add any picture you like. The Victoria's Secret picture appears to satisfy the requirements, so it stays until a better picture that also meets the requirements is uploaded. If you can find her and get her to pose for a photograph, and then upload it to Wikipedia with no restrictions on use, then that would make an ideal substitute for the picture we've got now. Everyking 07:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Artistry Section Added

To up the standards of this article, and to tackle some of the "To Do's", I added an "artistry" section and within it I added a "voice" section. Some of the users claimed the article needed more about Ashlee as a singer, and I agreed. I researched her style and vocal abilities for hours and dug up some useful information that really captures her as a singer. I'm also going to work an adding more to the whole artistry section as a whole, as it is needed to help define Ashlee. SMASH96 02:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good addition. Did you cite every source you used? There were some details I couldn't find in the given sources. For example, what NYT article did you find that quote in? Everyking 11:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent

Sorry I tried to post my comment in this spot but I didn't capitalize the r. oops! So as I typed before I saw a picture in J-14 magazine where Ashlee is practically hanging on Pete. Although I totally hope you are right. Explain that!! Mrs.Patrick Stump(h)

They are obviously together but for some reason choose to deny it and Ashlee says she's single. So in the article, I've tried to keep it so it reflects that balance: that publicly it appears that they are together, but that they do not confirm this. Everyking 21:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, J-14 is a teen magazine, you're not supposed to believe what read in teen mags because they aren't always telling the truth. Also, don't believe everything you see they are NOT obviously together, people can do amazing stuff with computers. They could have took a pic of Ashlee with her ex and take a pic of Pete with his ex and put them together. Magazine workers do whatever they can to get people to hear or see what they want to hear or see. That is the truth. Ashleeny6 01:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Ashleeny6

Wait a minute, you're suggesting it's a massive conspiracy? Hundreds of fake pictures over the better part of a year? Everyking 03:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that no one should believe everything they see or read in a magazine. It's not always true. 24.45.142.82 04:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Ashleeny6

Shouldnt the third album stuff be added to a seperate page for the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.r.lloyd (talk • contribs) 10:07, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but some people have the idea that albums should not have articles until they have a confirmed title. There actually was a third album article before, but it was deleted. Everyking 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection

For a while there, I was able to have this article semiprotected, and things were blissfully quiet. Now that the article has been unprotected, it's back to spending a few hours a day in a vandalized state. I ask: what do these anons contribute? I mean, sure, occasionally they will add factual content, but it's usually something like "Ashlee is dating Pete Wentz", which is already in the article, but which they don't see because they don't bother to actually read it. In some rare cases, it's not duplicated, but it's stuff I would have added myself before long, and I still have to clean up all the problems with it. I really don't get it. What benefit comes from letting them edit this article that outweighs having it vandalized so much? Everyking 10:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Relationship

In this article her relationship with Pete Wentz is not clear although they are together, some needs to fix this. Source--Sugarcubez 14:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was written in chronological order, so at first it presents the fact that they initially weren't open about it with the media, then it describes how later on they began to be open about it. I think some people weren't reading the whole paragraph, just the first part, so I rewrote it so the first sentence of that paragraph says bluntly that they are dating. Hopefully no more confusion about this. Everyking 09:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Third album rumors

If all these rumors being pushed as fact turn out to be right, I will give these people credit for being prescient, or for having the inside scoop--but in the meantime, if there are no sources, we're not including them. Everyking 09:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Third Album section

Template has been added to cleanup the third album section. Most of the article is written in the tone of an encyclopedia article, but the section on the third album is just a list of sentences in chronological order. Can we redo this section so it can confrom to the rest of the article? There are no paragraphs, just individual sentences not tied together in paragraphs. Ejfetters 08:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of it is going to be moved out when a third album article is created, but since it failed AfD last time I suppose we have to wait for a title to be confirmed before it can have an article. The reorganization can just wait until that happens. Everyking 09:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed a couple of things from that section yesterday when I went through a small clean-up of the article. Acalamari 16:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ballet dancer

The intro has been changed to say, in the very first line, that she is "a former ballet dancer". I don't feel that is significant enough to go in the intro; it's not one of the things that makes her a notable person. Does anyone object to removing it? Everyking (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Fan site" section

Can the anonymous editor who added the "fan site" template to the image and personal life section (or anyone else who agrees with that claim) explain his or her reasoning? I don't see how the section sounds like a fan site except in the sense that it covers things that a fan site would also be expected to cover. Everyking 14:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture

The second picture ( the one showing her performing in 2005 ) is just horrible,its all blurry and stuff. plz find another one. thx Nayo1163 (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Saturday Night Live incident

This looks like complete trivia to me; I don't see how it's really notable, and to give it two paragraphs and call it an 'incident' seems like blowing a commonplace, everyday event out of all proportion (Popstar lipsynchs on TV show! Shock horror!). If this section deserves to be in the article at all, it should probably be cut down to a sentence or two at most. This is supposed to be a Good Article, and 3(b) of the Good Article Criteria is that 'it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details'. Terraxos (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it drew her *a lot* of negative attention, forms a significant part of her notoriety to this day, was covered on 60 Minutes, and created a major career obstacle she then had to overcome. It's notable, the section is fine as it stands. I don't see how anyone could consider the SNL thing an "unnecessary detail" in an article that lists all her tattoos. . . Skyraider (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, Terraxos, the only scenario under which one would not consider the Saturday Night Live incident a significant moment in the career of Ashlee Simpson would be the originator being a member of the official Ashlee Simpson Fan Club. Jrshooter (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ashleeturfing again

A new account, perhaps a SPA account dedicated to making controversial edits to this article, is determined to restore the "Ashleeturfing" paragraph. I believe this is far below the level of notability needed for inclusion here. Let's recall that the media gives far more attention to her standard appearances at events or minor bits of gossip than it ever did to this "Ashleeturfing" stuff. "Ashleeturfing" got one brief mention on one website. Everyking (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of the SPA business, however Wired Magazine PRINTED ashleeturfing in the May 2005 issue. The astroturfing incident is telling of the main criticism of ashlee simpson; that is her being a manufactured "artist". Why is this a repeat of the discourse that went on about this earlier (on the talk page no less)? Your edit were reverted before, yet you keep on restoring them. ~pm
I previously obtained agreement on this point, although I will grant it has been a long time. I have no idea why you think it's important that Wired printed this stuff; go pick up a copy of Us Weekly or a dozen other magazines that write about her every month, and tell me if you think all that stuff should be included (I'm not saying it shouldn't all be covered, somewhere on WP, but clearly this article doesn't provide the space and scope for everything)—most of those things get many more words on the printed page than "Ashleeturfing". Everyking (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I am mildly interested in this whole ashleeturfing thing. I think it reflects very poorly on the advertising team of her record label. However, I reluctantly agree with Everyking that it is really below the level of notability required for inclusion here. Reluctantly because, as I mentioned, I think it is mildly interesting, not because I have any problem with Everyking. The problem is that this sort of thing happens with many popular artists. Same as how many popular artists lip-sync and virtually none of them really write their own music. And it's not something that Simpson herself did, this was clearly done by her record label. So really, I don't think it is notable enough. --Yamla (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pregnant

Could someone change where it says Ashlee Simpson and Pete Wentz have confirmed they are having a baby. The article link doesn't confirm it either and http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/entertainment/newsid_7347000/7347988.stm shows Pete denying it.

Thanks ~~DinoBrd~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DinoBrd (talk • contribs) 11:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please update the page - Reps for both Pete and Ashlee have confirmed (within 12 hours of their nuptials) that Ashlee is pregnant with Pete's baby. http://perezhilton.com/2008-05-18-its-official-married-and-baby-on-the-way#more-20617 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.16 (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Breaking News From Pete And Ashlee This just in from our favorite newlyweds: "While many have speculated about this, we wanted to wait until after the first trimester to officially confirm that we are expecting our first child. This is truly the most joyous time in our lives and we are excited to share the happy news and start our family."

- Pete and Ashlee Wentz (friendsorenemies.com http://www.friendsorenemies.com/web/foe/journals/entry/2424021/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frodeen (talk • contribs) 02:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

hi

i love Brittney best? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.235.66 (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is getting rather long...

Would anyone object to me setting up User:MiszaBot's auto-archiving feature here? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Everyking (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Favor

Could somebody separate her music career, movie career and the controversies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotwiki (talk • contribs) 08:59, 23 November 2005

Probably not needed for this article since she started with her acting career and it is intertwined with her whole music career. 155.69.192.117 (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

so Ashlee is married right: Simpson married Fall Out Boy bassist Pete Wentz on May 17, 2008 did she take his surname cause that needs to be looked into if she did take his surname that what she's called legally —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.206.205 (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

According to People magazine, she has taken the last name of Wentz and will be going by the stage name of Simpson-Wentz. Rylee Smith (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find it on the website, is it only in the magazine itself? If it's on the site, please post a direct link. Ariadne55 (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's on the website, but the magazine article does indeed say she's Wentz and going by Simpson-Wentz onstage. PurplePlaidElephant (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cite the magazine article as the source for your edit (you'll need the page # etc.). The template for a magazine cite is about halfway down this page WP:CIT. Ariadne55 (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You can change the page to Ashlee Simpson-Wentz[5]--Jack Cox (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have not checked this article in over a month. What she calls herself is irrelevant; only what the world calls her matters. So I checked Google News: 2,753 hits for "Ashlee Simpson", 489 for "Ashlee Simpson-Wentz". I feel this demonstrates that "Ashlee Simpson" is still the correct title. Does anyone oppose moving it back? Everyking (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I will move the page back to "Ashlee Simpson" in 24 hours unless there is an objection, or unless Google News indicates a significant trend toward general adoption of the "Simpson-Wentz" name. Everyking (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I searched Ashlee Simpson as Ashlee Simpson-Wentz and pages are starting to refer to her as Ashlee Simpson-Wentz. Let's keep the article as-is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.137.19 (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've searched her as Ashlee Simpson-Wentz in Google News, and they've started referring to her as Ashlee Simpson-Wentz. The article is fine the way that it is. 68DANNY2 (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You can see the numbers I posted a few days ago above. The current numbers are 3,358 for "Ashlee Simpson" and 559 for "Ashlee Simpson-Wentz". I don't see a trend towards the latter. Most of the newest articles refer to her as "Ashlee Simpson". Everyking (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that she got married a couple weeks ago, I think that 559 results as Ashlee Simpson-Wentz is a good number of articles. It will probably increase as more articles are written. 68DANNY2 (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If that were the case, we'd see a trend, but what I see is that there was a spike in the use of the new name after it was announced, but that subsequently most sources continued to use the old name. The results indicate to me that the new name hasn't caught on. Everyking (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Read this: [6] she's taking Pete's surname and is going by Simpson-Wentz professionally. I think this settles this dicussion. 24.151.137.19 (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it doesn't matter what she calls herself. Wikipedia articles are titled according to the common name of the subject. Everyking (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Ashlee is changing her common name. 24.151.137.19 (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

She can't change her common name. Her common name is decided according to what people want to call her. If they now start calling her Ashlee Simpson-Wentz, then that's her new common name, but if they keep calling her Ashlee Simpson, then that remains her common name. That's why I've been comparing Google News results, to see whether this new name is really catching on. Also, as I pointed out, her website still uses her old name, but maybe they're just lazy. Since there are two of you in favor of keeping it at this title, I propose that we wait one week, then look at the results again and see if there's more of a shift towards Simpson-Wentz. Everyking (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that Danny has been going around changing the articles on her albums so that they are described as Ashlee Simpson-Wentz albums. Considering we don't even have a consensus on what she should be called now, I don't think it's appropriate to try to extend the Simpson-Wentz name to album articles which were released under the Ashlee Simpson name before she married Pete. Everyking (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've searched Google News for Ashlee Simpson, which had 3,162 results, and Ashlee Simpson-Wentz, which had 1,613 results. So clearly, the results for Ashlee Simpson are dropping while results for Ashlee Simpson-Wentz are increasing. But, as Everyking said, her official website still calls her Ashlee Simpson. 24.151.137.19 (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

2,659 for "Ashlee Simpson", 490 for "Ashlee Simpson-Wentz". Put them in quotes when searching for the most accurate results. Everyking (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I was the IP who agree with this proposal before. Since some/all editors disagreeing with this don't understand the naming conventions, I suggest Everyking should list this at Requested Moves and get a more informed consensus that way. Also, was there even any consensus to move this article to "Ashlee Simpson-Wentz"? If not it should be moved back, and if anyone wants to create a discussion they can do so. 92.1.103.20 (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

AS now has 1,322 hits on Google News against 481 for ASW. I've noticed a number of articles reference her as Simpson in the title but as Simpson-Wentz in the body: [7]. Everyking (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Premature and ill-judged move. The naming conventions make it clear that we always use the most common, not legal/real name, of people. Wikipedia articles don't change titles just because (part of) the media is starting to change how they call a subject. Editors should have waited until Simpson-Wentz actually becomes the most used name worldwide. It's already a few months after marriage, but as I see Simpson Ghits still vastly outnumber Simpson-Wentz. Since there is no real basis for the (apparently not backed up by consensus) move, we'd better move back immediately. Also, for a good example, Sarah Michelle Prinze's article still stays as Sarah Michelle Gellar after legal name changed. In short, I'll be moving this page back to original title if no evidence is shown to verify that Simpson-Wentz is the more used name. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just moved the template back to "Template:Ashlee Simpson" to match the main article title. Acalamari 20:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I support this move, of course. The article still refers to her as "Simpson-Wentz" every time it uses her name, though. I'd say we should also change that back to be consistent. Also, the article gives her legal name as "Ashlee Nicole Wentz", but (although I have no way of knowing for certain) it seems more likely that it's "Ashlee Simpson Wentz", since the maiden name normally takes the place of the middle name upon marriage. Everyking (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I was about to ask regarding what to refer to Ashlee as: in parts, she's referred to as "Simpson-Wentz" and in others she's referred to as "Simpson". Which is the correct one, and secondly, shouldn't it be consistent throughout the article? Are there any good sources regarding her name change available? Acalamari 20:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
There's no evidence that she's changed her middle name from Nicole to Simpson. She might just as easily have kept Nicole as her middle name and/or added Simpson as a second middle name. In America, of the 90% of women who change their surname, only about half change their middle name. Ariadne55 (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well, we don't have any evidence either way, so I don't know what to do about it. A relatively simple solution would be "Ashlee Simpson, also known as Ashlee Simpson-Wentz (born Ashley Nicole Simpson)...". That would at least avoid making any guesses. Everyking (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
We have evidence of her middle name being Nicole. That shouldn't be changed on the page unless there's evidence that she's changed her middle name. Her last name wasn't changed on the page until there was a cite for it, but we didn't change her to just "Ashlee" while we waited. Ariadne55 (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
During an interview on People.com, Ashlee had said that she had changed her surname from Simpson to Wentz, saying that she felt it is a great tradition. She also said that she is profesionally going by Ashlee Simpson-Wentz. I hope this clears up confusion about her legal name. This link is cited on the article. 24.151.137.221 (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashlee_Simpson/Archive_2&oldid=1146349811"