Talk:Samantha Ronson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a very disappointing article. I saw the name "Samantha Ronson" and thought why does that name sound so familiar?. I of course came to wikipedia to find out only to see nothing of use to me. Samantha Ronson is linked to Lindsey Lohan, and was somewhat involved in the incident where Lindsey stole a car and went on a wild ride with two scared passengers. She also allegedly had a romantic relationship with Lindsey and is also a DJ and the nightclub "Hyde". This is the context from which I know her, not her my-space music career. I had to find this from an alternate source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.221.126 (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Americia

she has lived in americia secne she was a kid so that should be added, she doesn't even have a little bit of a british accent she's lived of there most of her life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.206.205 (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

removed deletion

Samantha Ronson...

is not a DJ

Please remove that

Father

It's pretty clear that guitarist Mick Ronson is not her father. She mentions this on her myspace page "...my step-father (he has a band called Foreigner- he plays guitar [She's talking about Mick Jones here])(oh yeah- NOT Mick Ronson as some people seem to think)." Numerous articles about her brother, Mark Ronson, state that Laurence Ronson is his father. Guitarist Mick Ronson's obituary mention only one wife, Suzy Fussey. 69.181.125.234 (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Exactly. Just took care of it. Thanks a lot! -Seidenstud (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - the citation you added is much more succinct. The whole thing seems minor, but I think growing up with Mick Ronson as a father vs. growing up with Laurence Ronson as a father would be two rather different formative experiences...69.181.125.234 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

TMZ reference "No Sapphic Friends Network

You can clearly hear the paparazzi ask Samantha "Any truth to the engagement rumors?" to which she replies "Not true." For some unknown reason TMZ has chosen to label this video as a denial of a romantic relationship, not an engagement. I've edited the article to reflect this. Please feel free to leave input. I'm new to wikipedia and still learning the ropes. Thanks

TMZ is not a very reliable source. And how you "hear" something on a video clearly is not considered a reliable source and is considered original research, which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy of verification. And your innuendo "amidst talk that the two were to be married" is based on rumor (strictly forbidden per WP:BLP) suggests that talk of marriage is factual, which it is not. In the mainstream media, there is no solid indication that Ronson or Lohan discussed marriage. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or rumor mill. Wikipedia has very strict policies about adding potentially libelous information about a living person. Your edit violates a number of Wikipedia policies. Carefully read all of the blue links on this page. Do not continue to re-insert potentially libelous information because it is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. If you do so, I will immediately make a report on WP:ANI. Ward3001 (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"something on a video clearly is not considered a reliable source and is considered original research" - Please reference the spacific WikiRule that says this? Or are you making this up on your WP:OWN? 131.30.121.23 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Take the ENTIRE TMZ reference out of this article then. If TMZ is not a reliable source WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO USE THAT REFERENCE to say that they have insisted they are just friends? Just because the video was WRONGLY labeled as such? That's pretty hypocritical if you ask me! Have you actually listened to the video? Samantha has not insisted they are just friends, especially not in that video! If the engagement rumors can not be addressed in this article then that entire reference should be removed because THAT is what is being discussed between Sam and the pap in that video. TheGifted1 (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The entire Lohan situation is now deleted. Ward3001 (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! -Seidenstud (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Are statements about Lindsay Lohan a violation of WP:BLP?

Issue: There is a controversy about whether statements about a romantic relationship between Samantha Ronson and Lindsay Lohan violate WP:BLP because of poor sourcing.

Disputed material:
Ronson and actress Lindsay Lohan have been reported in mainstream celebrity news to be unofficially but publicly dating,[1] [2] with photographs of the relationship prominently including pictures of the two kissing and embracing affectionately in Cannes, France.[3] [4]

• I believe the sources that are cited either are poor sources (blogs), or (for more legitimate sources, i.e., LA Times and NY Times) do not confirm that Samantha Ronson and Lindsay Lohan are romantically involved, other than to comment on tabloid material without providing confirmation from a reliable source. Ward3001 (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Background: this issue has become a rather embarrassingly drawn-out dispute between the previous commenter (Ward3001) and me about, specifically, my attempts (a first attempt, and a second attempt, with a newly published source) to add legitimate sources for a point of information that otherwise might attract poorly sourced additions from new editors.
  • Ward insists that my edits violate the policies for biographies, with the specific sentence he repeatedly quotes (or, rather, misquotes, omitting the first four words) being: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." I've repeatedly pointed out that, as long as my edits are properly sourced, there is no violation simply in the material being contentious or reporting of reports of something, the apparent implication of Ward's contentions.
  • Additionally, Ward has generally disputed the validity of my source: a blog published by the Los Angeles Times ([5], [6]), a Los Angeles Times article ([7]), and a New York Times article that refers to the relationship in question with a different context ([8]). I've replied the Los Angeles Times-hosted blog, as defined under the policies for verifiability and biographies ("Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control") is a completely legitimate reference, and that, either way, the Los Angeles Times article unequivocally reports of the relationship in question, as in the sentence, "There's also the reality that the mainstream celebrity media must compete furiously to survive, and Lohan and Ronson are dating in a public way, with much photographic evidence."
  • Again, I hate to get this deep into an argument about such a trivial topic, but this issue has come to be about Ward's uncooperative conduct as an editor, something I'll be trying to address separately. ~Wikimancer X *\( ' ' ^) 00:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikimancer has chosen to use this RfC as a vehicle for personally attacking and making false accusations about me. I have asked him to remove the irrelevant comments above and focus only on the issues of the RfC. If he does so, I will remove this comment. Ward3001 (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Some responses to Wikimancer's statements:
  • Wikimancer needs to provide unequivocal evidence that the blogs in question: (1) have the newspaper's full editorial control, and (2) are written by professionals.
  • "Misquote" is misleading. The portion of the WP:BLP policy that I pointed out to him fully expresses the meaning of policy, which is that for contentious material (and this certainly is contentious) there should be little or no dispute that the source(s) used are reliable. So far there is no consensus on whether the sources are reliable. That is to be seen by the results of this RfC. In the mean time, Wikipedia policy is clear that biographies of living persons are to be written conservatively. Making statements about a relationship that neither Lohan nor Ronson have acknowledged is not writing conservatively.
  • Wikimancer characterizes this dispute about WP:BLP as trivial and tries to shift the focus to me rather than the issues. He accuses me of uncooperative conduct, ignoring the fact that I am the one who posted this RfC to seek the opinions of the Wikipedia community. Wikimancer has made misleading statements, not only to me but even here in this RfC, some so misleading that they can be described as lies. I could accuse him of uncooperative conduct, but my suggestion is that we focus on the important issues in this RfC rather than trying to bolster our opinions with mudslinging. Ward3001 (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Times has just written an article on the topic: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article4343457.ece—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev920 (talk • contribs)

And nowhere in the article will you find confirmation from either Lohan or Ronson. In fact, the only response from either of them is: "Ronson’s response was succinct but deadly: “Are you retarded?”" Ward3001 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Have any of you seen the recent cover of "Life and Style" magazine? It shows Ronson and Lohan holding hands. This topic has been in a whole bunch of magazines that I have honestly lost count. In "People" magazine, they have both confessed to dating (and even went into a few deatils I will not mention right now) and Ronson has even both Lohan a 22,000 dollar ring. How could this be a violation when it's been confirmed many times in many different magazines? --Bottle-Of-Musical-Joy (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Holding hands means nothing. Give us a link to the People article that confirms "they have both confessed to dating" and the "22,0000 dollar ring". Ward3001 (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus from the Lohan page

The following consensus (slightly modified to give Lohan's name) was reached on the RfC on the Lindsay Lohan talk page. If there is no serious objection in a few days, I will add this to Ronson's page:

"In 2008, several media outlets began commenting on Lindsay Lohan and Ronson, who were regularly seen being affectionate in public.[9][10] In July 2008, several newspapers, including The Times and Los Angeles Times, published opinion pieces describing their relationship as romantic.[11][12] Lohan has yet to comment on the exact nature of their relationship, stating through her publicist that she "wants to keep her private life private."[13] When pressed by a paparazzi to deny the rumors, Ronson responded, "Are you retarded?"[14][15]"

Ward3001 (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK? So why isn't this now in the article?--Feddx (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx

Because the consensus was reached on Lohan's talk page, not here. I'm giving editors a chance to respond to my proposal here. Please have a bit of patience. It will go in the article if there are no objections in a couple of days. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why Ronson's "Are you retarded?" response is featured in Lohan's article, but Lohan's "wants to keep her private life private" comment was excluded from Ronson's article? TheGifted1 (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'm not sure what happened, but I know that the section on Lohan has been vandalized several times, so it may have been inadvertently left out when the vandalism was fixed. I restored it. Thanks for pointing that out. Ward3001 (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no wish that the article be changed at all, nor to contest wikipedia's policies, however, for the sake of posterity, sanity etc. I wish to contribute the following to this discussion page. This is for the simple reason that box ticking and quoting rules at one another should not take precidence over the obvious. Again- not in the article- simply here in the discussion page. We can argue semantics all day, but the fact is, there is not the slightest doubt in view of the media coverage about Samantha Ronson or Lindsay Lohan lately (today is 30th March 2009) or their myspace entries that they are romantically involved. Paparazzi videos show that they are cohabiting and have been for some time. They make no effort to hide this at present and have been repeatedly photographed kissing, embracing etc. Of course, wikipedia should protect itself from being sued, however, I would also like to point out that in light of the numerous media articles, reports and photgraphs it is inconceivable that either Ronson or Lohan would sue anybody for reporting that they are involved and even more inconceivable that such a case would be entertained by a court of law. Various academic studies collate ephemera - such as evolving online resources, like wikipedia and it should be reported for the sake of correctness- if only here- that it is common knowledge that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are romantically involved with one another. If the editor decides to dispute this, I will be happy in knowing that there is an alternate agenda being operated in editing these pages. Thank you.82.71.13.219 (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)A. Jones

Uh ... did you happen to notice that this discussion occurred eight months ago? Did you happen to read the article before you made this comment? Did you happen to notice that there is an entire section in the article devoted to their relationship? Ward3001 (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories unsourced

Shouldn't there be a source cited in the article if it categorizes Ronson as a "lesbian musician" or an "lgbt jew"? While tabloids may call her a lesbian, I have never actually read that she has ever come out or otherwise acknowledged her sexuality to the press. Should these categories be removed for WP:BLP reasons??--Agnaramasi (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Correct. Removed. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • She was mentioned in the 2008 Pink List, and it is clear from the preceding article that Pink List nominees may decline to be listed if they don't want to be written about/outed as LGBT.69.181.125.234 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lohan and Notability

It's odd that the article contains no mention of even her friendship with Lohan. It seems that the policy editors are wrapped up their own little squabbles and refuse to allow the fact that MANY people (present company included) didn't even know who Samantha Ronson was until the main stream media reported sightings of the two together. For me and I'm sure many others, the only reason Ms Ronson is notable at all is because of her affiliation, even if just as a friend, to Ms. Lohan. Shouldn't that be addressed in the article somewhere? Even if it is just mentioned as a friendship that was reported in the press? Here are some references:

Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357802,00.html

The New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/seven/05272008/news/nationalnews/dad__lohan__ronson_in_a_romantic_relatio_112737.htm

The New York Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/05/23/2008-05-23_lindsay_lohan_and_gal_pal_samantha_ronso.html

And a recent article from the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca-lindsaylohan20-2008jul20,0,664769.story

The fact these stories exist in these publications should merit at least a mention of their friendship in the article.

Feddx (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Feddx

Use of the word "friendship" is fine. The problem has been that some editors can't leave it at that and add additional words, such as "dating", "romantically involved", "making plans for marriage", "lovers", etc., none of which have been confirmed by either Lohan or Ronson (including in the sources cited in this section). Ward3001 (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing each of the articles though, the first 3 elude to more than a platonic friendship; and the last one (LA Times dated 20 July 2008), comes right out and says that is not just a friendship. ("Which from all happy and seemingly sober appearances -- they kiss, they hug, they hold hands, they shop for groceries -- is a romantic one." and ""Why is this couple different than every other couple?" Shapiro asked rhetorically recently on the telephone. "We know they're not friends -- we know they're in love, we know they're dating."" I realize the second quote is from Jared Shapiro, but this is still printed in the LA times).

While I'm not at all saying that any of these unsubstantiated claims are true, the facts are the articles exist and several different sources continue to carry stories about it in the main stream media. So why can't the article simply state that many sources have alleged to a romantic relationship between the two? It's NOT stating they are a couple, and it's not making any claims about their sexuality. It is simply an objective report that there are several media stories reporting it (several more than the ones I quickly selected and cited).

It would make little difference except the fact remains that I knew nothing about Samantha Ronson until these stories hit, and I can say with reasonable certainty that I'm in the majority here. Ms. Lohan made Ms. Ronson more notable. And their relationship, whatever it is is getting heavy press coverage. That is a fact. Feddx (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx

Read the extensive and sometimes heated debate about the specific wording at Talk:Lindsay Lohan#Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson. If consensus is reached there, the same material probably can be placed in the Ronson article. The debate here has no consensus (yet). Ward3001 (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus seems to have been achieved. I'm adding the same wording and references here. Ribonucleic (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include something specifically about how her association with Lohan has raised Ronson's profile, this might be a good source [16]. Siawase (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article - though a bit more determined to put Ronson in her place than I am. :-) Its mention of a Ronson song appearing on the Mean Girls soundtrack doesn't seem to justify listing Lohan as an "associated act" - as the article does currently. Have they actually collaborated on a musical project? Or was that someone's sly bit of humor? Ribonucleic (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Siawase. This is a good mainstream article attesting to the rise of Ronson's recognizability due to her involvement with Ms Lohan. The article's main purpose it seems is to give the reader biographical information about someone (Ms. Ronson) who was not as widely known prior to her acquaintanceship with Ms. Lohan.--Feddx (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Feddx

The way the article mentions how Lohan comes with Ronson to her gigs, and works as a draw just be her presence might qualify her as an associated act, though I don't know what the criteria are. I think Lohan should probably be removed from there, since their association is more personal than professional. I don't know if the article's assessment of Ronson's skills as a DJ should be included here. It sounds mostly like loose opinion. But I think this:

Randy Greenstein, a partner in the mega-clubs, paid Ronson $20,000 for the two-night booking. He said it was worth every penny. "The response was off the charts. We got a ton of press," Greenstein said. "We got very lucky that Lindsay came with her. We booked her two months ago, right before the news broke that they were sort of together, and even then, there were nine other offers for her for the same date."

could be used as a source to include something in the article about how Lohan raises her profile, and the level Ronson is on. I don't know if the specific dollar amount should be in the article, but the source sounds reliable enough to include it if we want. Siawase (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Musician relatives

The article states that she is related to Mark Ronson.

Is she related to Mick Ronson, of Mott the Hoople? Dogru144 (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Ward3001 (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1