Talk:Linda Ronstadt/Archive 1

Las Vegas incident

The Las Vegas incident is given about one-third of the space in the article. A bit much don't you think?

Well the wholr article is way too long and rambling. Needs serious editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.135.54 (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! Dottiewest1fan (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cats

Any particular reason this article was removed from Category:Mexican American singers? She may only be half, but her oeuvre does include Spanish language recordings in traditional Mexican genres... I know ethnic categorization is touchy, but the last consensus on it I read was this one, which said regarding ethnic subcategories:"Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic"...--Rockero 07:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

She isn't half, though. Her father is half Mexican and half German. I think people should only be given a "something-American" label if they have a parent from that group. However, if they have less ancestry but show some kind of special identification/etc. with that group, I think it would be worth mentioning. From what you said, it sounds like she might, do you have anything where she singles her Mexican heritage out? JackO'Lantern 07:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How about the album Canciones de mi Padre? If it isn't mentioned in the article it should be. It has the Mexican standards I'm talking about...--Rockero 10:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, her father is Mexican with a German ancestor who immigrated to Mexico. He would be a regular Mexican, Mestizo...Most Mexicans have European ancestors as well as Amerindian ones. Her Mother would be a 'White' American, so then Linda Maria would be half Mexican, although she was brought up mostly with Mexican culture (music, food, catholic upbringing, etc.). If you don't agree, google it. Thank You. --C.Kent87 06:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, based on this article [1] it does seem like her Mexican side has an influence on her, so I'll restore that cat (but not the others, however). JackO'Lantern 15:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If I could weigh in on this discussion, as a Latino with the last name Velasquez, my family and I have always considered Linda Rhonstadt a mejicana. Most definatley we always thought of her as "one of us." My mother was quite happy when she went back to her 'roots' later in her career and was found singing with the mariachis. One Latino family is a very small segment of the population, but all your splitting hairs and deciding ancestory to the 10th degree are irrelavant to us. To us, she's a Mexican-American singer who decided to sing American music for a long time and fooled around with Govenor Moonbeam. Case closed. Yanqui9 01:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Mexicans are quite mixed and may have different European heritages as well as an Amerindian heritage...I don't think "splitting hairs" is quite what this discussion is about. I consider Ronstadt a "Mejicana" as well, but that doesn't take away from the fact that her mother was Anglo (to sum it up rather widely) and her father was part German. Besides, the degrees of ancestry are of interest to some,..and they don't have to be relevant to you. Now, cased closedC.Kent87 04:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but there are plenty of Mejicans with both German and Spanish ancestry. A large contingent of Germans moved to Mejico/American SW in order to escape the slave power in the east/south. Many of those Germans were refugees from the failed 1848 revolution there and were socialists. A lot of them helped Mejico against USAmerica in the war. Another term for them was "Conjunto," firstly the musical mix of immigrants from Central Europe with more traditional Spanish sounds, resulting in such as "Mexican Polka." Are you going to say that no one is "American" unless they have an English surname? JBDay 20:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You're excused. I never said that there aren't any Mexicans with German/other European roots...I don't think you actually read what I wrote...all that goes without saying. I actually couldn't agree with you more...Where were you going with this? C.Kent87 06:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I read what you wrote. I must have been commenting on people thinking that all Mexicans have Spanish surnames, much like a lot thinking that only English surnames are USAmerican. My post was on the thread's tendency in general, not you in specific. I see a definition clash. By the way, I only saw your reply right before I typed this, not as "net-intent" as I used to be.JBDay 18:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The dates given for Mary and Carlos' births aren't accurate based on the USA Today article of 11/04 which said Mary was 13 and Carlos was 10 or today somewhere around 15 and and 12. Wikipedia says they were born in 1983 and 1987 making them 23 and 19.

Mexican American

I noticed people changing her status to mexican-amercan, although her formative years were with her dad, he was part mexican and german , hence Ronstadt, and her mom was german and dutch , hence Copeman, to label her just Mexican American would be a descredit to her German AND mother's non-hispanic roots. (Sharkentile 20:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)).

You also have to realize that she thinks herself to be Mexican-American and is very much into her Mexican roots...Also, many "White" people in the U.S. have American Indian ancestors, however they call themselves "White"....where is the "credit" to their Indian roots? If she calls herself Mexican-American, then nobody can discredit her from being Mexican-American. Her father had a German ancestor, Ronstadt, we know...but most Mexicans have European ancestors anyway...does that make them not Mexican? Mexico is over 75% European/Amerindian...Her father was very much Mexican. By the way, she won best Mexican-American performance in the 80's...if only people would see the real her instead of putting her in a "White, Rock and Roll" box. Linda Ronstadt is technically very much Mexican American.

(sorry, deleted youtube video ...Check her "non Mexican American" self out. )

Linda Ronstadt -

It’s hard for me to not know that other people are not digging on the same Latin music artists that I am. And actually, there is a huge section of the world that is. It was important to me because I’d see these little Mexican-American girls trying to imitate Madonna. They’ve got to do that because it’s part of the culture. But, I also wanted them to know that there is something else. A style and a tradition in the dancing, which Madonna herself would agree with. Traditional Mexican dancing has a lot more to do with modesty and is so sexy because the skirts come down to the ankles and the eyes are lowered a lot, and every once in a while they flash up and it’s like lightning and thunder coming out of those eyes. It’s so potent. Why would anybody want to do anything else? I wanted those girls to know that they had something that really was strong and it was pure Mexican and that they should feel proud of that and they don’t have to sell it down the river to this kind of commercial thing that’s around now, no matter how artfully assembled it is.

She sounds proud of Mexican American roots to me...

How about http://www.cobblestonepub.com/resources/cob0405t.html, she's mentioned as a Mexican American or http://www.jsri.msu.edu/museum/pubs/MexAmHist/chapter20.html ...acknowledging her as a Mexican American?

Not Quite a Levin

Yes, it is that same Ronstadt family, by the way -- Alex and Zenona's daughter Sara was the first wife of Fred Ronstadt; when Sara died, he remarried Lupe Dalton, and their granddaughter is Linda. The Ronstadts have been been major players in Tucson's history since the 1880s.69.109.163.218 01:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source? The source cited says that Ronstadt is descended from this Levin guy. Mad Jack 17:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think I found your source.[2] It appears to be reliable, so I'll remove the Levin bit (it doesn't seem important enough to add an explicit correction). Cheers, Mad Jack 20:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. You mustn't get all carved up about it. ;-) 69.109.163.218 01:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC) OOoops, it appears my IP address has rolled over since yesterday... Oh well, 'tis the season for disguise. 69.109.163.218 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

South Africa

I just came across this:

"But even as a musical diplomat, Simon courts controversy – both he and his collaborators have technically violated the United Nations cultural boycott of South Africa, the same resolution behind the musical ban on playing Sun City. And although Simon has twice rejected offers to appear at that South African resort, Graceland features an appearance by Linda Ronstadt, who has unapologetically played there."[Emphasis added]

from the last paragraph on this site. Just wondering if it needs mention in the article. - Ozzykhan 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should be mentioned in the article. I had actually added something, but someone else erased it. I will put it back.

What makes Ronstadt especially interesting in this section is that she is one of the rare music artists to be criticized by both the political left and the politcal right.

Also, here's more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_City%2C_North_West

Sun City became the subject of considerable controversy in 1985 when E Street Band guitarist Steven Van Zandt made it the focus of his music-industry activist group, Artists United Against Apartheid. Forty-nine top recording artists - including Ringo Starr and his son Zak Starkey, Bono, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Run DMC, Grandmaster Melle Mel, Duke Bootee, Afrika Bambaataa, Kurtis Blow, Big Youth, David Ruffin, Pat Benatar, Peter Gabriel, Eddie Kendrick, George Clinton, Joey Ramone, Jimmy Cliff, Daryl Hall, Darlene Love, Linton Kwesi Johnson, Bonnie Raitt, Ruben Blades, John Oates, Lou Reed, Bobby Womack, Jackson Browne, Peter Garrett, Nona Hendryx, Ray Barretto, and Kashif - collaborated on a song called "Sun City", in which they pledged they would never perform at the resort. Additionally, Simple Minds, on their double-live set album "Live in the City of Light" released in 1987, included a song called "Love Song - Sun City - Dance to the Music" in which they declare "I ain't gonna play Sun City."

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fan-language

This article sometimes reads a lot as it was written by fans. I'm removing/changing some of the problematic parts. I'll try to be comprehensive in my edit summaries. Feel free to discuss here any problem. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that the work done in the article was astonishing. Almost all source asked were provided within ours! Congrats User:Sharkentile. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

great, your welcome. thanks for checking ^(talk) 13:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Literacy Inquiry, Not illiterate

I was wondering if anyone else besides myself has read that when Linda was young and possibly when she began singing she was illiterate. Obviously this would be touchy and need confirmation. My best friend was a huge Linda Ronstadt fan and I read it in one of his fan magazines when I was bored since that's all there was to read. At first I thought it might have played a part in her career as she pretty much was a cover artist. But of course I realized she joined the Stony Ponies when she was in college. I can't imagine myself making this up. It never would have occured to me had I not read it. I apologize I do not know how to set off the text into its own headline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.87.244 (talk • contribs)

I recall reading that her mother taught her to read before the 1st grade. So not illiterate. How can you be illiterate and read music? "Pretty much was a cover artist" most people will call this interpreter of songs like Sinatra, Elvis. She's written a couple of songs, like Elvis. I still read that she reads a lot too.{{Sharkentile}}

I could find no references for her being illiterate in any form at any time of her life (nor any references to early literacy), so i think we can safely leave this speculation out of her article, especially per BLP guidelines on defamation. I did find a source where she encourages young people to learn to read music if they wanted to become musicians. This probably renders invalid any idea of her being illiterate in her early music creating years, as she surely would have brought up her literacy problems at the time of that interview, to encourage youth who WERE functionally illiterate to try harder, or to show that you don't need excellent reading skills to become a musician (which of course is sometimes true).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Discography merge

This list from List of Linda Ronstadt recordings should be merged into this page for reasons of: there is significant overlap and it would benefit from being in context as per WP:MM. Maintaining two discographies in two locations strikes me as a little redundant. If the Discography grows large, moving it to its own page, Linda Ronstadt Discography, would be easy to do. dissolve^talk 18:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now done the latter option. Wasted Time R 23:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

great, I moved the link up, where it's easier to see. Sharkentile 17:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:AdieuFalseHeart.jpg

This is a album cover for which the article refers

Solely to illustrate the album in question.(Sharkentile 17:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)).

Fair use rationale for Image:Evergreenv2.jpg

This is a album cover for which the article refers

Solely to illustrate the album in question. (Sharkentile 17:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)).

Fair use rationale for Image:LRV1AND2.jpg

This is a album cover for which the article refers

Solely to illustrate the album in question. (Sharkentile 17:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)).

Fair use rationale for Image:RollingStone1980.jpg

This is a magazine cover for which the article refers

Solely to illustrate the magazine in question. (Sharkentile 17:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)).

Fair use and now "noteworthiness issue" of photos

One example is the Linda Ronstadt Time magazine photo. As discussed, this is a notable image, about feminism, women in music and the future image it conveyed for women in music, as noted by the citations. This is an important image in the point of history in female music. Also one has to consider Ronstadt's stature as the most famous woman in the world in music at the time, The Time magazine is controversial for the image that it projects and one that Ronstadt still does not like. As noted Ronstadt's image at the time was just as famous as her music. So I see the thought of this photo being removed as totally arbritrary and a misunderstanding of why it is there. Think about it?? TIME magazine thought it was important publish this photo and not just write about her. Whether one thinks its important enough to publish on the encyclopedic site is left to vast interpretation and maybe a non understanding of the subject. (Sharkentile 19:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)).

This is a public encyclopedic forum and site to inform the public, non english speakers likewise need visualization, idioms are said on this site that are hard for a non english as a first language person to gist. Its been noted that the fair use rules on wiki are much stricter than copyright law, but after reading rule #8, this is subject to broad and sometimes subjective interpretation by one person. This should be a democratic forum where one person does not have the ability to interpret things their way. People do not get paid for doing what they do here or get interviewed for their position or power here, sometimes it appears to be its policing that is subject to overreaching. There are dozens of photos on Wiki that could be audited and removed for the exact same reasons that one person presents and a good internet law attorney can find a way to do this if you get on their bad side. This image coupled with a photo is important, and if this is a enclyclopedic internet forum to learn about the subject that the publication of this image is JUST AS IMPORTANT as the words telling you about the image. (Sharkentile 19:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)).

Criteria for Speedy Deletion

Criteria for speedy deletion has not met and photos seem to be deleted immediately by someone and alternatives to deletion exist (Sharkentile 19:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)).

The following is the excuse and rationale I received when images on this site were not only tagged but immediately removed"

The photos I tagged where accidentally removed (and promptly restored) by admin Nv8200p. See this and this talks for understanding what happened. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in this gave me the impression that they replaced the photos, themselves.. We replaced the photos. Keep an eye on this site, it appears that certain people seem to be overreaching in reading, tagging and demanding citaions for obvious knowledge (Sharkentile 19:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)).

The Ronstadt IMAGE vs. her Music

Its been noted and cited that her image - photos, magazine covers, and album covers were carefully tailored to present an IMAGE, visualization in the 1970's that was just as important as the music that she was singing. In fact she got a lot of criticism for this. Do people want to discuss how important her image was and those slick album covers. would it have made her as famous if there were no photos or the album covers were not as sexy and alluring. IMAGE WAS EVERYTHING WITH RONSTADT'S 70'S CAREER and photos appeared to help and show a point of reference in her career where it seems she doesn't get photographed in public anymore. anyone have a comment?(Sharkentile 19:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)).

Fair use rationale for Image:Don'tCryNowRonstadt.jpg

Image:Don'tCryNowRonstadt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cancionesdipadre12.jpg

Image:Cancionesdipadre12.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cancionesdipadre12.jpg

Image:Cancionesdipadre12.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pirates-of-penzance-DVDcover.jpg

Image:Pirates-of-penzance-DVDcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RonstadtTime.jpg

Image:RonstadtTime.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RonstadtTime.jpg

Image:RonstadtTime.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RonstadtTime.jpg

Image:RonstadtTime.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronstadt's Actual Sales vs RIAA Certification

Initially when this was added to the article, I removed. It should be removed for the following reasons:

• Whereas the rest of the article is well sourced, well written, and defines the career of Ms. Ronstadt - this does not. There is nothing "unique" with RIAA vs actual sales. It applies to every US artist. Keep the article to being about the life achievements of Ms. Ronstadt.
• While it states "real" or "actual" sales, these can only be estimates, as the only Authority on US sales is Neilsen Soundscan and they have not published this detail. At best it is a fan's estimation.
• The article specicically states that Ms. Rondstadt's Record Company sought last audited certifications in 2001. Yet the albums mentioned did not reach newer certification - thus (speculation) that they were not at a level to be certified any higher.
• Living in the U.S.A was last certified 2x Platinum in 1997. Fansite suggests therefore that in the past decade that it has sold another 2 million. When you consider that some of the biggest sellers do not achieve this, it is not credible for these to be big sellers. i.e one of the biggest albums of the 90's in the US "Millennium" is now selling 10,000k per annum. Refer Best-selling albums in the United States since Nielsen SoundScan tracking began. "Thriller" is selling 130,000k p/a in the US , and this is the type of sales this album would require to get another 2 million sold since 1997. The data given is not possible, and not credible. Likewise with the 48 million sold in the US. This is a fan estimate and with the other figures mentioned, without any substance. They simply expect you to believe what they write is correct, and that RIAA certification is 70% out since 2001 (last audit).
• As part of wiki policy on living persons, any fact that is attributed to a person that is not referenced from a verified source should be removed immediately. Therefore the supposed quote from Joe Smith, former CEO of Warner & Elektra Records - should not even be in the article.
• As part of wiki policy on verifiable sources, a fan site is not considered a verifiable source. As mentioned earlier, the only official organisation that can supply such data is Neilsen Soundscan. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Age of Children?

The article makes no mention of when the children were born or when she adopted them. This article, published in 2004, says the girl is 13, meaning she was born in about 1991; and this article says the girl was adopted in 1995. Her IMDB bio says they were born in 1991 and 1994. Can we get any other independent confirmation? 208.58.71.231 (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Article length

This article is freaking looooooooooong, it nearly crashes my browser to read it. Something really needs to be trimmed and/or split. (By the way, don't put her nicknames in the infobox. The "alias" field is only for alternate names that the act has recorded under, not for nicknames, according to the documents at {{infobox musical artist}}.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's absurdly long. I'm sloooowwwly copyediting it, paring a bit here and there as I go. When that's finished, I think it should get cut drastically, perhaps with some of the material spun off into a new article or two. There's a wealth of information here—I haven't looked through the history but am impressed at how much was pulled together and sourced—but the level of detail in places is definitely excessive. Rivertorch (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm doing my part: I shrank the Stone Poneys section a lot by greatly expanding that article. What has been done with other long articles like this? The discography is already separate. Shocking Blue (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

. . . But, maybe that is the way to go: How about separate articles on the Country Music Years, the early Country-Rock Years, the Platinum Years, the New Wave Years, the Nelson Riddle Years, the Spanish Language Years, the Collaborations (which span a lot of time), etc.? (Not by those names probably, but you get the idea). Leave in two or three paragraphs on each, and put the rest in separate articles, like I have helped do with the Stone Poneys. Linda has recorded enough material for three or four careers anyway. The main length in the article is in the work, not in the personal life and other such. From what I have seen (and I have certainly not read the whole thing), the article doesn't have a lot of flab that needs cutting out; there is just a lot to talk about. Of course, the Stone Poneys article is getting pretty long also (not to mention the Stone Poneys album articles – and I will probably move on to the later albums eventually); but as long as these spun-off articles aren't unwieldy as a whole (like the Ronstadt article clearly is at present), I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that. Shocking Blue (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the article has been shortened the issue is that Linda Ronstadt has done so much in her career that is so varied it ridiculus and interesting and in many instances underappreaciated. Thanks for shrinking the Stone Poneys. Sharkentile (talk)

Personal life section, bad link

Ref. 27 (Cape Cod Times) link is dead. The article is still availabe at a different url but only for registered users who pay a fee. The citation probably should go, but it would be a shame to kill the quote, since it's Linda discussing music. The reason I checked the link in the first place was to see if the Back in Black reference (which was neither italicized nor in quotes) was to the album or the song. Since the internal link on B in B was to the album, I went ahead and put it in italics. Anyway, maybe someone with more time would like to find a different source to verify it. Rivertorch (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

A sentence in the Interpretive singer section quotes a sentence from a Rolling Stone biography of Ronstadt [3] thus: a whole generation "but for her, might never have heard the work of Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, or Elvis Costello". This is what the RS bio says, but Linda Ronstadt was burning up the charts when Costello was still in diapers. (I exaggerate mightily, but the principle is sound.) Perhaps they mean that other Elvis guy . . . dunno. At any rate, I'm rewording it so that part of the quote disappears. Rivertorch (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The references to Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry certainly seem like a stretch to me also; she only ever recorded a song apiece of theirs anyway as I remember. However, she was one of the first to put Elvis Costello songs out there on a platinum level via her under-appreciated Mad Love album from 1980 (Linda-bashing was quite fashionable by then), so that is for real. I am quite impressed with what is in the article; as far as I am concerned, her whole career has been under-appreciated for decades, and the article lays out a lot of support for her ground-breaking work over for years. Shocking Blue (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury and Linda on Saturday Night Live...

Does anyone remember this? It was one of the finest musical performances I have ever seen (and the one that sticks out in my head as the most awesome).

Freddie and Linda showed up on SNL some 20 or 25 years ago with a choir behind them. It was aural ambrosia. Can anyone out there help me find this superb piece of Americana?

98.185.244.52 (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Shelton PacTribeWest@Hotmail.com

Full Name

The article now starts "Maria Linda Ronstadt"; I always thought it was Linda Maria Ronstadt. That was actually the name given for her on the early Stone Poneys albums. Anyone? Shocking Blue (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we leave it "Linda Maria Ronstadt" unless someone can come up with definitive proof one way or another. I've never seen her referred to as "Maria Linda Ronstadt" anywhere, but I HAVE seen several instances of her called "Linda Maria Ronstadt" or "Linda Marie Ronstadt". A copy of a birth certificate, for example, would suffice.Mytvc15 (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Keeping Out of Mischief

Check out newspaper article on this webpage that mentions Linda barring the release of her jazz album: http://ronstadt-linda.com/v-web/bulletin/Christmas/viewtopic.php?t=816 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.140.210 (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If the two editors involved in the ongoing content dispute will open a discussion here, that would be a positive step. I'll be glad to weigh in, or either of you can request a third opinion, but the talk page is the place to hash this out. Let's not play tug of war with the article, okay? Rivertorch (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm dumbfounded to learn there's somebody out there who doesn't know "Keeping Out Of Mishcief" was intended to be released by Elektra until Linda herself pulled the plug. If the interviews with her stating as such aren't enough, I can show pictures of my AUTHENTIC(NOT bootleg) uncut, unfolded album slick of "Keeping Out Of Mischief" I obtained from an employee at Elektra's printing plant in 1981-82. I would then ask why Elektra would go to all the trouble and expense of designing and printing such a slick if the recordings were merely a "demo" and never intended to be released. I'm fully aware of the "bootleg" copies of the studio tapes that have been floating around, I happen to have one myself. But the evidence is clear - the only reason "Keeping Out Of Mischief" was not released was because Linda thought it wasn't good enough to release. She said so herself! I also heard this from someone inside Elektra at the time, but I have no way of proving that.Mytvc15 (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And that's the rub. The standard here isn't truth or logic or obviousness; it's verifiability. (Read WP:V for all the gory details.) What you heard from a source—no matter how informed—cannot form the basis of a statement in the article. Inferences—no matter how reasonable—drawn either from the cover of a pressing you own or from oblique statements in an interview aren't kosher, either. What we need is a verifiable reliable source. That could be a magazine or a book or a trustworthy web site. Time allowing, I'll poke around a bit online and see if I can come up with anything in the next couple days. If you have access to a good library with back issues of music magazines, that might be a better bet. Rivertorch (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read this : http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949833,00.html Linda is quite clear as to the intent of recording that album. Notice she NEVER calls it a "demo". If the other editor can come up with proof that it WAS just a "demo", I'd be very interested to read it.Mytvc15 (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I read it (and fixed the link to it). As far as I know, the wording is okay now. Rivertorch (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rivertorch - I'm not sure what you're justification for changing "compelled" to "led" is, there's nothing in the article that would favor one over the other. I'll let it stand, but this kind of capricious changing of wording for no apparent reason(other than a bruised ego, perhaps) sucks. Shall we now go through the entire article picking and choosing which words seem right to us, and tagging every single unattributed subjective entry with [citation needed]?Mytvc15 (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Assuming the goal here is to create a well-written article, word choice is critical. Compelled seemed undesirably strong in the context, so I changed it to led, which denotes simple cause and effect. I have made dozens of similar changes to this article (and hundreds to other articles) to date without being accused of capriciousness. And I placed exactly one tag. Frankly, the article is a mess. I made a start, copyediting and rewriting the first several sections a while ago, and hope to get around to finishing the rest soon. I'm afraid that will inevitably involve more changed words, and perhaps even a few more tags. That's the way it's generally done. Rivertorch (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. So if I decided(not that I'm going to) to change it back from "led", which seemed "undesirably weak", to "compelled", which seems to me to be more in line with Ronstadt's conflicted state of mind at the time, you would also see that as a valid edit? That's how edit wars start here, with which I'm sure you are familiar by now. I suggest you stick to objective editing like grammar, punctuation, and attribution edits, and leave this subjective word-juggling alone.Mytvc15 (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would be difficult. I'm afraid I've been juggling words for most of my adult life as a writer and editor, and I'd find it rather hard to stop now. If you changed led back to compelled, of course I'd see it as a valid edit. Editors disagree on word choice all the time, and it rarely results in an edit war. After almost three years of active contributing to Wikipedia, I have yet to be involved in an edit war. Assuming this is your only account, you've been actively contributing for six days. I sincerely hope no one has tried to draw you into an edit war in that time! Rivertorch (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been contributing for over a year now, and I've seen, but not been part of, quite a few nasty edit wars in that time. You're lucky you haven't stumbled on someone who is passionate about the subject of their editing, and takes great offense at someone like you changing their wording on a strictly "personal taste" basis. As you yourself said: "Most editors have thick skins, but all it takes is one oversensitive editor who takes offense at perceived incivility to throw an article or whole category into progress-impeding drama". Personally, I don't look for opportunities to piss people off at random for no justifiable reason. But to each their own.Mytvc15 (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. However, word choice is about much more than personal taste. And, while you're right about people taking offense, those people need to realize that it isn't "their wording": from the moment they click Save, it's everybody's wording. When wording I write gets changed in a way I perceive as negative, if it's important to the meaning or tone of the article I try to explain as precisely as I can why I think the previous wording was better, and in most cases consensus is reached quickly and painlessly. If the changes don't affect the meaning or the tone very much, I generally shrug and ignore it. What I don't do is question the competence or motivations of the other editor. Since you appear to be heading down that road, and since this thread has gone beyond the scope of the Linda Ronstadt article, I'm going to bow out of the discussion. Pax, and happy editing! Rivertorch (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Linda Ronstadt article/neutrality

My oh my, there is a lot of changes to be made to this article. First of all the "career overview" section is not necessary. Why would you add such a section, when the overview is already (and suppose to be) included above the article itself? Secondly, the "vocal styles," "influences" sections, should be moved to an artistry section because it seriously confuses the reader. There should be a completely new section for personal life at the bottom of the page because at the top it just makes no sense.

The entire article is seriously overly-opinionated. Take these sentences for example, "Ronstadt also developed a knack for picking good songs, finding obscure songs, and shining a light on up and coming songwriters. In many instances, her own interpretations were more successful than the original recordings and many times new songwriters were discovered by a larger audience as a result of Ronstadt interpreting and recording their songs. Interestingly, Ronstadt had major success interpreting songs from a diverse spectrum of artists. This skill would eventually serve her later in her career, as a noted master song interpreter."

Wow, this paragraph clearly shows that is written from the point of view of a user who wants to ultimately praise Linda Ronstadt and thinks she is God. I'm going to put a "neutrality dispute" sign at the top of the article to indicate this problem because this seriously needs to be settled. I would love to say more on this intriguing subject, but I'm about to gag...gahhhh. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

After 3-4 years of editing and changes and plenty of discussion, what you now think is of necessity and what flows and what you think is completely not necessary is all relevant.

I'm sure one can go to Dottie West your #2 favorite and LeAnn Rimes' and find my oh my plenty of changes. This is an informative, encyclopedic cite whose citations are a lot more than Cline and Rimes combined.

First, the CAREER OVERVIEW is as necessary as any synopsis and will stay, it adequately summarize its contents. and complies with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, Second the truth is what one believes it to be and your truth is all opinion, ironically enough.

As a matter of note Dottiewest1fan seems to have addition editing arguments with -Don1962 (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC), and others. Sharkentile (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ironically when Dottiewest1fan edited the Linda Ronstadt Wiki site it was their editiorials that were highly opinionated and inflamatory. Is it an OPINION to consider Linda Ronstadt a "Rock Artist" when she is not in the Rock Hall of Fame and does not consider herself a Rock artist anymore. I would consider reading citations and reading articles before making opinions. Sharkentile (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether a Wiki subjects Personal Bio is at the end is another matter of Opinion, and over time the Opinion that Linda Ronstadt's Personal Bio and family history comes at the beginning has become fact. Family means a lot to Linda Ronstadt. Sharkentile (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

WE ALSO FIND IT QUITE PRETENTIOUS THAT Dottiewest1fan WOULD COME TO THIS SITE, AND in one day change the complete layout of it - because it did not flow according to them - and change THE HEADINGS and other things. WE SEE THAT HEN Dottiewest1fan DOES NOT GET THEIR WAY CALLS THIS ARTICLE OPINIONATED

MY QUESTIONS TO Dottiewest1fan - WHY DID YOU NOT QUESTION THE SITES NEUTRALITY AND OPIONION BEFORE YOU DECIDED TO CHANGE THE COMPLETE LAYOUT NOT ONLY OF THIS SITE BUT ALSO OF LINDA RONSTADT'S DISCOGRAPHY??? WHO ARE YOU? IT SOUNDS LIKE RESENTFULLNESS AND ARROGANCE. Sharkentile (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the "vocal styles," "influences" sections, should be moved to an artistry section because it seriously confuses the reader????? The section has flowed and facilitated itself right where it has been for 2 years. It sounds like you are the only one that had been confused, so far. Sharkentile (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Dottiewest1fan LOOK AT YOUR USER HANDLE AND READ YOU PAGE. We are supposed to take subjectivity from you? Where is the credibility? Dottiewest1fan I think you are Projecting here, buddy. Sharkentile (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok well I am sorry for calling you out in capital letters about the situation, my apologies. I removed it because I know it was rude, I'm sorry. However, this doesn't resolve the fact that the article's neutrality is a serious mess. In terms of this fact, the article is breaking the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, which states,

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability."

Things need to be changed and sections just need to be moved to other sections of the article. Is that really too much to ask? Dottiewest1fan (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You can questions A "SECTIONS" NEUTRALITY an we'll discuss it and all work on shaping better. Agree? but don't decide to change the entire layout of the article on your own.

by he way, Things have been changed over time with a lot of input over years. Calling the article neutrality and "serious mess" is that in and of itself and very subjective and un-neutral comment. Dottiewest1fan, you pointed to an instance of neutraility not the entire article.

Ronstadt is known as a Song Intepreter and picking good songs - know if we can agree to refine that sentence - we will. ok, by the way I like you intro that included Ronstadt as "first major touring female artist, selling out major venues, and she also became the top-grossing solo female concert artist for the 1970s" This was a could addition to the intro, although I had this up before and someone else decided to question too. so as you can see that you are NEW TO THIS SECTION and THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS AND DISCUSSED AND AGREED ON. You can questions A "SECTIONS" NEUTRALITY an we'll discuss it and all work on shaping better. Agree? but don't decide to change the entire layout of the article on your own.

Sharkentile (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

University of Arizona

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

Please provide the link to the U of A library that says Ronstadt was a student there. As I said before - the existing references on the subject are conflicting - including the two I provided in the article, and there exists not a single quote from Ronstadt herself that confirms which college it was. Also, in this February 2001 Arizona Daily Star article about her performing at U of A - "Joins UA groups for Nelson Riddle tribute" Ronstadt never mentions being a student there, including this passage - "Her relationship with the School of Music has been a delightful surprise to Ronstadt. "Who would have known it? I did not come out of an academic past." If she did indeed attend U of A, don't you think she'd mention it in an article like that in which she sings the praises of a school she supposedly attended? As it stands, it's not clear which college she attended. I say the entry should say "she attended one semester at college", without specifying which one. 24.24.220.25 (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is apparently from People (magazine), Oct. 24, 1977: "Linda gave the University of Arizona one semester, then quit in 1964- at 18- to go to L.A." That seems better than this source[4], which doesn't seem to support her going to U of A at all (am I missing something?) Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If this[5] is the source Ronald Joe Record was alluding to, I see no support at all for her attending U of A. As for the People Magazine article, how is that more valid than my refs that say she went to ASU?24.24.220.25 (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That is the source I'm alluding to (and, obviously, Ronald Joe Record, as he uses it) - and I agree with you that it does not support her attending either university (from what I can see). As for your refs... mine is not much more valid. The source I gave is from an article (incorporating an interview w/Ronstadt) from a widely published and recognized source (like yours) - doesn't make it necessarily true. But it's about verifyibility, not truth. We seem to have conflicting sources, here - this should be noted, and both sets of sources should be mentioned. That seems to be the appropriate course to take... Doc9871 (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The UofA Library ref does not appear to be a good one. The article at divastation.com led me to believe otherwise. There are literally dozens of reputable citations to support her attendance at UofA while I suspect those indicating she attended ASU were largely based on the incorrect Wikipedia article. Time Magazine, in an interview with Ronstadt, reports that she attended UofA [6]. However, in the big picture, her college attendance is relatively unimportant unless that is where she met Bob Kiminel. Citations do not need to be unanimous. Conflicting citations can be found for almost everything. If every Wikipedia article had to report all the variants of every citation it would be a fairly useless resource. If the overwhelming majority of reputable citations agree on something then that is what we should use. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Dozens of reputable citations"? So far I've only seen three - hardly an "overwhelming majority". The two conflicting sources I produced were from periodicals that were published long before Wikipedia existed, and are just as valid as any other. Wiki articles regularly include conflicting sources in situations like this where there is no direct quote from the subject of the article, sometimes even citing conflicting quotes. In such cases, each entry is accompanied by its own citation. But since even you admit that the exact college is relatively unimportant, it should be left as "a college", since I know of at least one quote from Ronstadt where she says she went college.24.24.220.25 (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The "can of worms" has already been opened here, it seems. Both the Time and People magazine sources saying she went to U of A were written at the height of her popularity (with included interviews): these two sources alone would justify the inclusion (and were certainly written before WP was even a young geek's dream) ;> All three of us agree that the current UofA "ref" needs to go ASAP, as it supports her attending neither school. 24.24.220.25, could you link your sources here that say she attended ASU (using diffs? - I'm having trouble finding them. If they are as established as the Time and People sources (not the "dozens" as Ronald claimed without "backup"; but two is actually quite enough), and they say she went to ASU and not U of A - this must be pointed out in the article. It's too late to go back to "a college" now, with revealed reliable sources giving a specific college. I eagerly await a response... Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Here ya go Doc: [7] [8] Let me add this: you have to wonder where the sources got their information, since there is not one single quote from her either way that I've been able to find. I'd be happy if someone COULD find one and put it into the article! This whole "I went to one semester of college" thing might just be a product of PR gone horribly wrong in an attempt to make up for her dropping out of High School, which she DID admit to.24.24.220.25 (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You might be onto something with the "PR" thing - it is odd that 50% of the four sources we come up with are diametrically opposed. It would be great to have some quote from her: any radio interviewers out there watching? As it stands now, I think it should change to reflect the discrepancy. I can't write it tonight (gotta work), but there's no deadline. We'll all figure this one out... Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful! I will fiercely support this revision. Great job! Now, how about registering (standard advice I like to "wag" at IPs)? Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I see by the edit comments that we have reached "consensus" that, according to a couple of sources, she commuted over 100 miles from Tucson to Tempe to attend college briefly. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources differ on the matter - that much is for sure. A direct quote from her would be great and would clear it up. But mentioning that sources differ on which school she attended is a fact. We can't unequivocally say she went to one and not the other unless a quote is found - I can't find one as of yet, myself: doesn't mean it's not out there. Consensus can certainly change. I personally feel for now that this is the right choice. Cheers, Doctorfree :> Doc9871 (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. In this situation, a direct definitive quote from Ronstadt is needed to clear up the confusion. She's still doing interviews, so it's still a possibility.24.24.220.25 (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Placement of "Political Activism" and "National Arts Advocate" sections

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

Please move it. It's way out of the "timeline" as well. "Known career progress" section heading - I hope you didn't write that. Because it kind of is "not good", and should also be changed. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. And no, I'm not responsible for "Known career progress". Is there "Unknown career progress" we don't know about? That should definitely be corrected.Shirtwaist (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Queen of Rock

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

Sun City

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

{{cite web}} clean up

• Use more precise {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, etc., when appropriate
• Use original source when available, e.g. nytimes.com, rather than http://www.ronstadt-linda.com/ archives.
• Parameters often missing: date, author, etc.
• Parameters bollixed: title, work, publisher. These are obvious when editing.
• For news articles in http://www.ronstadt-linda.com/ or other archive sites, use the same title, author, work, etc. parameters as if the article were in the original source's website.

Dead links

• Verify all links and note which ones are dead links.
• Find dead links in archive.org and update citations.
• Replace dead links with new sources.

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

reliance on fan site

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

Circumspect - cautious? Yes. Discreet? No. This is a case of "archive or copyvio". Archive.org has survived many challenges on copyvio grounds. Fansites which post scans/photos of sources - with full attribution - try to operate under the same rubric. In ronstadt-linda.com's case, the articles are transcribed, so real verification requires an extra step, sigh. The reliable source is there, just one layer deeper than we want. If the claims in the article are important, we should try to verify and dig up the original source, with a convenience link to that, or some better archive (or none, if all efforts have failed.) I succeeded in finding the New York (magazine) article at Google Books. Rolling Stone wants money for access, so I'll AGF for now, delink it, and see what WP:RX digs up. Fixed some others, as well. --Lexein (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to weigh in here. :) Lexein's approach seems like the best one to me. Linking to the website seems clearly like a problem under WP:LINKVIO. They should be delinked in accordance with policy. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There is one citation with content from a reliable book, with "Used with permission" which I've hidden commented as ok to link to. --Lexein (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've replaced several citations of ronstadt-linda.com after verification of (and in some cases arduously tracking down) original sources. If anyone wants to help, please chip in. --Lexein (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

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

The word "successful" appears 33 times in this article.

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

WP:SOFIXIT. I dislike the blatant, unquoted, unattributed, uncited praise used here, too, and have been slowly chipping away at it. --Lexein (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, removed 14 instances, all that didn't qualify the adjective or were not direct quotations. Makes it a little more objective and palatable, I hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scopius (talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice! Better already. We need more prose analysis tools (not you, I mean Javascript).
There's a nice Word Frequency bookmarklet at SearchLores. --Lexein (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

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

I know it really sucks as does most of the tone of the article. ughh Dottiewest1fan (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The lead

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

Maternal grandfather

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