Talk:Ashlee Simpson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This biographical article is part of WikiProject Dallas, a WikiProject related to the city of Dallas, Texas (USA). WikiProject Dallas' goal is to build a comprehensive and detailed guide about everything Dallas-related on the English Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project, check the worklist, or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated Mid-Class on the importance scale.
Explanation Needed! add comments
This article has been rated, but it needs a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Dallas "To Do"


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Good articles Ashlee Simpson has been listed as a good article on a performer or composer for meeting the criteria for this category of articles. If you can expand or improve it further, please do so!
If it does not meet the criteria, or has ceased to since its inclusion, you can delist it or ask for a review.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Peer review Ashlee Simpson has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

To-do list for Ashlee Simpson:

 edit - history - watch - refresh

FAC comments that are unresolved

  • Keep Ashlee's Pieces of Me single picture, as the main picture.
  • In the interests of being fair, the lead has swung too far the other way. In my best attempt to be neutral I think it is clear that while the criticisms are strong and common, it is also clear she is very successful and her music sells well. If the lead has two sentences clearly stating the negative criticism (well done I think), it could now use one mentioning how succesful. Instead of chart topping, which sounds promotional, just mention her albums have sold very well and she had her own show on MTV that did well (try to specify how well). Try to keep it short too. One sentence should really do it, two could easily overdo it. After that is fixed, I'll probably go neutral. I don't think the article is great, no offense, but I don't think I could motivate myself to find specific issues. Maybe that's just my bias against pop culture topics in general, so sorry, but neutral won't hurt the article. Autobiography has the opposite problem, in that the only non positive mention is that reviews where mixed. Some mention of the negative publicity/criticism that came from the promotion of the album should be mentioned in the lead. Again, probably only one additional sentence. Sorry for combining the advice, but they're related and it saves an edit. (Taxman)
  • Writing is not up to featured standard, and needs work for flow and style. Description of future events is not encyclopaedic. (Exploding Boy)
  • I'm still very much dissatisfied about the criticism section being weaselly, as many assertions we make there are not being backed up by the references, which only make one or two broad generalisations. The Orange Bowl incident has some speculation that is not referenced (i.e. backlash against MTV-isation of the halftime show). Overall, the article is starting to look a lot better than it used to be, but I'm not ready to support just yet. A lot of the sentences don't flow well (although there are slightly fewer of them than before), and their phrasing often sounds similar to what you'd find in a fan magazine. (Johnleemk)
  • Regarding Paris, at least she is notable for "famous for being famous" and for being in the tabloids on her own right for her wild antics. Further, the article clearly addresses what is notable about Paris. In this case, it is "famous for being a sister of someone famous" and "famous for screwing up the incredible opportunities presented to her after having years of professional training and the world's best media exposure." The article does not come close to addressing this and is much more suited to a fan site (Noitall)
  • But the article is compromised, in my eyes, by the "Controversial incidents" section, which reeks of spin. That was the reason I disliked the article back then; not so much the excessive detail, which is hilarious, but the spin, which makes it hard to trust either the article or the person writing it. A lesser criticism is that the article says nothing about the process of manufacturing Ashlee. I have a rough idea how people such as this transition from being competent singers and the sisters of famous people into actual pop stars, with a contract and a product and songs, but this article skips the process entirely.(Ashly Pomeroy)
  • This article seems shallow to me. On reading this I get no impression of how she fits into the history of American popular music. I'm not even sure what genre of music she performs, other than "pop" or "pop rock." The closest thing to this is the single dismissive statement by a critic that her music is a "mundane melange of Avril-ish brat pop and Sheryl Crow cod rock." Which artists have influenced her? Whom does she acknowledge as her musical mentors? Whom are the artists she has influenced? There is a great deal about her life and career, very little about her music. For that matter, there is very little about her voice. We are told that Mariah Carey sings in a whistle register, but all we learn about Simpson's voice is that on occasion it has been damaged by acid reflux. The whole article reads like something from People magazine (which is high praise, of a sort). A hundred years from now, people reading this article would have some idea of what kind of celebrity she was, but very little idea of what kind of singer she was. (Dpbsmith)
Wikipedia CD Selection Ashlee Simpson is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!

For older discussion, see
Archive 1 (July 31 2005)

Future Events:

Her next tour is planned for the fall of 2005, and she is scheduled to appear on The Oprah Winfrey Show in October, both to sing and to discuss the SNL incident. Simpson has said that she would like to return to SNL, although nothing has been confirmed as of September 2005. Her second album, I Am Me, featuring the single "Boyfriend", is scheduled for release on October 18, 2005. [1]

Contents

[edit] Footnotes?

The footnotes here seem to be completely misaligned; in addition, there are 33, and only 32 referenced in the article. Anyone have the time to go through and fix this? Odysseyandoracle 21:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it probably needs work. The problem with setting things up that way is that it becomes very complicated and hard to change. Everyking 06:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia again

Earlier an anon vandalized the "trivia" section with the comment "what a retard". Once again I lobby for this section to be removed. I got two votes in favor and none against last time; should I take that as sufficient consensus, or would someone else like to weigh in? Everyking 04:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and removed it. This sort of trivia (for or against Ashlee) isn't really appropriate, IMO. --Deathphoenix 13:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's discuss removing the "spammer" trivia. If we included everything as trivial as that our article would be enormous. In fact, in the past many things more notable than the spammer trivia have been removed, so I think it's time for that to go as well. Everyking 19:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Two things:

A) Unless someone opposes it in the next day or so, I'm removing the spammer trivia.
B) I would like to go ahead and start the article on the new album In Another Life, to be released in October. There is information about it I'd like to add to Wikipedia, but I feel it would be too detailed for this article. However, I'd like to hear some other opinions first, because I know some people think writing articles on yet-to-be-released albums is like trying to tell the future (which I think is flatly wrong, because you're using verifiable info, but that's just my opinion). Everyking 03:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe the spammer trivia has already been discussed above, and consensus was to keep it. I believe it should be kept too, since the level of triviality of this item seems consistent with the level of triviality for some of the other items mentioned in the article. --Deathphoenix 04:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing else even close to the level of non-notability of that bit of trivia. It's some posts on internet forums! Stuff that was five times more notable has been removed. It stands out like a sore thumb. I don't see how you can make this argument. Everyking 04:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Look. I made this point before, but I'll do it again: the spammer trivia made no newspapers, no magazines, and no TV shows. It's nothing! It was reported on some internet site and I, who keeps up with this stuff, didn't even hear about it until someone added it here. On the other hand, we have removed numerous things that have made it into all three of the above forms of sources. Everyking 04:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
You have just made the case for keeping it. If it's not recorded here, this historically notable fact will disappear and be forgotten.
Well, you definitely know much more about Ashlee than me. I'm just putting in my opinion, as requested. If you remove the text, I won't revert it (though I can't speak for the others, of course). --Deathphoenix 06:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
A) http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/start.html?pg=10 Keep it.
B) No objection
C) I've restored lipsync.us to the external links section. I may be mistaken, but I don't believe Wikipedia has any "recent updates" requirement for external links. Skyraider 14:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
A)Right, and if I provide a link (or 10) for the hairstyle info, then can we restore that?
C) It's an argument, not a rule. Everyking 18:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
A)I never said the hairstyle info wasn't mentioned anywhere, just that I didn't consider that level of detail to be encyclopedic. As for the astroturfing matter, you stated that it wasn't mentioned in any magazine, and I provided the Wired link as evidence to the contrary.
C) Fair enough. Reasonable people can disagree about it. Skyraider 21:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I can't tell if that's print or internet only content. If it's the former, I guess you proved me wrong, but the point still stands that her hairstyles get a lot more print coverage and yet we removed that. As for lipsync.us, I'm struggling to understand your motives for defending the inclusion of a ridiculous little hate site that hasn't been updated in six months, especially when we already have another hate site link. Help me out here. Everyking 03:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Is Jargon Watch featured in print? Its inclusion by a Wired staffer makes it more notable than not, though. I personally don't think lipsync.us really needs to be kept, and I have no real opinion on her hairstyles (though I think the level of coverage given to it seems a little much). --Deathphoenix 04:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Jargon Watch is most assuredly part of the print magazine. The link I provided relates to Volume 13, Issue 5, the May 2005 issue. My motive for keeping lipsync.us is a desire to preserve balance. In the link section, we have an official site and two declared fan sites. (The Wikicities site is not exactly NPOV, either, but for argument's sake, let's assume it is.) Under those circumstances, I don't think it's unreasonable to include 2 detractor sites, especially when the "ridiculous little" one apparently gets a quarter million hits a month. On hairstyles, Everyking, we did not "remove that", as there are at least two mentions in separate sections of the article. There was simply a disagreement about the appropriate level of detail, and I appealed to the consensus. Skyraider 00:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, let's say we cut it down to one fan site and one hate site. Deal? Everyking 03:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
If that's the consensus, I'll accept it, but it is actually a worse balance than we have now. Skyraider 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Why should we remove lots of links, just because Everyking doesn't like one or two of them? Worldtraveller 23:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Recent edits have added to the article that Ashlee was "accused to lying to the American public" and so on (the additions stress lying). I believe this should be reverted as POV and excessive. Does anyone agree or disagree? Everyking 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I fixed up the hair paragraph only to have it removed within minutes, without even an edit summary. Would the user who did so please account for this deletion? Otherwise I'm restoring. Everyking 07:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't. First, you're not allowed to revert this article, per your arbcom decision. Second, I'm not sure that a detailed account of Ashlee Simpson's changing hair color is necessary in this article. Mrfixter, could you explain your removal to Everyking, though? Wish you'd used an edit summary. Rhobite 08:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
I am allowed to revert the article. Nothing in the decision says I can't revert. Everyking 17:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking#Revert limitation
For a period of one year, Everyking is prohibited from reverting articles relating to Ashlee Simpson except in cases of clear and obvious vandalism (as per definition at Wikipedia:Vandalism), with penalties as per the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. What constitutes a revert shall be left up to adminstrators' discretion.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking#Clarification by arbitrators
Any article which contains a link to Ashlee Simpson or mentioning Ashlee Simpson, see what links to Ashlee Simpson, is an article "relating to Ashlee Simpson"; therefore falling within the articles covered by the revert limitation, if Everyking is editing with respect to that portion of an article which is concerned with Ashlee Simpson and in the opinion of an administrator reverting the article.
Is that clear enough? --Carnildo 17:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I was just about to link to that too. Everyking, as a mentor I am also asking you not to replace the hair paragraph for the time being, please. Rhobite 17:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
I have been explicitly told by the ArbCom that old cases are supplanted by new cases. That case does not apply any more, and hasn't for two months now. Everyking 18:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Since only one of Everyking last three edits had an edit summary, I confess I am suprised at his reaction. Either way, this hair color trivia is too trivial to be mentioned in this article. --Mrfixter 18:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The one edit summary I made covered all three of those edits. They all pertained to the same thing. But one was major and two were minor. I gave the major one a summary. Everyking 03:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken EK, but I've requested clarification. Rhobite 20:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not mistaken. This was spelled out very clearly. Everyking 03:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


Well, I don't know about the controversy surrounding this article, but I thought I'd weigh in with my two cents (I hope nobody minds). I think that the paragraph about Ashlee's hair colour could be condensed and turned into the caption of the image present in the "In 2005" section. Speaking as an Ashlee fan, I thought it was too trivial for its very own paragraph (no offense to the original editor). One problem with this suggestion is that information on the current image's source copyright status is missing on its description page, but I suppose the image could be replaced with a fair use screenshot from a recent television appearance or something. Extraordinary Machine 23:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't mind if you revise it however you like. I personally don't think two sentences was at all excessive, but if you think so you can change it to a caption or whatever, no harm done. Everyking 03:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

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)

[edit] references/links

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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". [2] 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 [3] and Village Voice [4] 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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. 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)

[edit] Favor

Could somebody separate her music career, movie career and the controversies?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
  • Never mind. This particular page appears to accept submissions of trivia information from the general public without source citation. --Deathphoenix 06:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Featured Music Project evaluation

Ashlee Simpson has been evaluated according to the Featured Music Project criteria, most recently affirmed as of this revision. The article's most important issues are listed below. Since this evaluation, the article may have been improved.

The following areas need work to meet the criteria: Lead - Pictures - Audio
The space below is for limited discussion on this article's prospects as a featured article candidate. Please take conversations to the article talk page.
  • Lead: Needs to be a longer and more comprehensive summary
  • Pictures: Needs fair use rationales
  • Audio: None
  • Needs print sources, musical style, influences and legacy, but that may be impossible due to the recentness of her career; still, more substantial sources would be good
  • Discography presumably complete, but seems to be giving a lot of information that may be better in a subpage
  • Format and style good, but the external links ought to be trimmed, or it ought to be made more clear why those are useful

[edit] 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.[5] --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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)
The stop Ashlee Simpson online petition has now reached over 400,000 signatures. [6] 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)

[edit] Plastic Surgery?

Should there be a section or content reffering to Ashlee's recent plastic surgery? I think so, it's a pretty big change. She looks more like Sarah Michelle Gellar now.

[edit] 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)

[edit] invisible in 'i am me'

i removed references from the two sections stating that invisible is from 'i am me' unless that's something they do in music, where new singles are associated with the most recent album. if that's the case revert my edit.

[edit] tatoos

i guess she has one more tatoo on her middle finger: http://www.ashlee-s.com/09livingbydesign/images/tattoo.png

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/s/h/Talk%7EAshlee_Simpson_e3aa.html"