Talk:Stevie Ryan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stevie Ryan article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Contents

[edit] Pictures

  • I know the initial tendency will be to make the main image be Loca, but I think it would be better to put a pic of regular Stevie in the infobox, and then have pics accompany each account section, like a pic of Loca in that section, Brigitte in the oolaalaa section, etc. x 16:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh and let's face it, instead of pulling images from her site, we'll need to do captures from her vids. It's getting very hard to keep images on WP, and that seems the best way left. x 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I realize that there are those at WP who are concerned about articles being inundated with too many images, but in the case of Stevie, I think it does serve to illustrate her various kinds of appearances, which is a significant part of what she's about. x 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I know that there will be a concern about the notability of this person. Please discuss before doing anything. x 16:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I'm predicting heavy vandalism in this article. Stevie can be controversial. She's also attractive, and sometimes that's all it seems to take.x 16:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] You Tube links

Providing You Tube links seems relavant since that's a main channel for Stevie's work, and makes it easy to see examples of what is referred to in the article. It could appear that the article takes on too much of a promotional flavor, but since Stevie's work is essentially online, it makes sense to provide convenient but informative access to it. I feel these links are illustrative, do not violate copyright, and are not being provided as sources. x 02:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Account sections

Before changing the section titles to a proper name format, please note that the titles are the account names, not peoples' names, because that's how the article is organized, mentioning character names that are involved in each of the accounts where applicable. x 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of what you have written needs to be (better) sourced. Apart from the cited articles, you probably got most of the content from videos and comments on YouTube, hardly reliable sources. E. g. that Faye006 is played by Stevie - a claim brought up by herself, although tongue in cheek, I think - is apparently not true (I'm taking bets on this ;-). There is no way in hell she is doing this voice, and there are numerous other clues that the guy who created "Faye006" is friends and may cooperate with but is by no means identical with Stevie Ryan. The final shot of the "cheaters" video where Stevie is holding the puppet was a pretty good joke, though. 84.178.163.182 00:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of what you have written needs to be (better) sourced. Probably true, that's something that still needs work. But most of the content; no, because you're right, videos and comments are not at all useful as sources. However, very few articles in WP purely adhere to just sourced info, and yes, some of the article hovers close to original research. But I'm also hoping to pull up some more sources as well. Can you help with that? x 01:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


I've added a disclaimer about the links in the account sections. I'm not sure of there's a standard tag that can be used for this. x 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've moved "example links" to an External Links list per WP standards.x 14:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to select examples that are informative, not violating copyright, and generally not offensive. x 14:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

At some point soon I'll break out the reference links to ref tags (footnotes). That will take time so won't be right away, unless others can help. So please don't jump on the article because of that. x 16:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimer for example links

I've put back the disclaimer that the pages may contain objectionable content. It's not just referring to the videos being shown, but refers to the actual YouTube pages where it's unpredictable what may appear in the comments as well, so I felt a caution only prudent. YouTube pages are in constant flux and profanity is not unusual. x 01:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel is right, although to some it might appear prudish, not prudent. It very much looks like you are discrediting Stevie Ryans videos with this disclaimer, which reminds of similar activities at YouTube, where her videos have been "flagged", for no reason at all. It is quite odd that such a warning, and the fear of "profanity", again, would be used in a supposedly neutral article here on WP. 84.178.150.69 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

[edit] falsetto

with an unnaturally high-pitched male voice. was the text I removed. This is pure POV. "unnatural"" is always an opinion, and "high-pitched male voice", unless you have a reliable source beyond you own ear, is an opinion as well. Doesn't mean I don't agree with that opinion, it sounds that way to me too, but it's still POV.
and a male voice speaking in falsetto. Again, unless you have a reliable source beyond you own ear, it's just an opinion on your part.
I'll hold off changing it for a while until you can indicate how you know this voice is what you've indicated. x 23:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Unnaturally high-pitched" is actually the lexicon definition of "falsetto". There is nothing whatsoever opiniated about it! Only the deaf do not hear the difference between a typical male pitch (bass and tenor singing voice) and a female (alto and soprano). Those who don't know about these differences should and will refrain from commenting on such issues. Yes, I have a trained ear, but this is not the point. The voice in question is CLEARLY dark, with the resonance of an average baritone, speaking unnaturally high, i. e. in falsetto, also labelled "head-voice". This is a descriptive statement of fact. The source for the voice - where you could take measurements, if need be, is the LiveVideo channel. The voice sometimes speaks in normal mode, too. I'll look for the link. 84.178.150.69 02:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Expert opinion by an editor is still POV. And taking measurements is OR.x 20:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, where are you getting at? I don't understand why you engage in this pointless discussion. Expert opinion is not the issue, and I did not propose taking measurements. The voice is CLEARLY dark, speaking CLEARLY unnaturally high-pitched - which is obvious to EVERYONE and can be verified by EVERYONE per cited link. 84.178.158.202 06:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
which is obvious to EVERYONE and can be verified by EVERYONE per cited link. But that's what I'm talking about. There seems to be confusion here as to what makes something an opinion and what makes something a fact. Regardless of how many people listen to the video and decide it's male, it's still POV and OR. x 11:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. You thoroughly misunderstand the concept of both POV and OR. POV would only be relevant in this case if we did not agree, or if someone would come along and challenge the (easily verifiable) observation. And not everything that has not been noted yet in a newspaper is OR. To simply state that the voice is dark and speaking in falsetto, a link to the primary source, where everyone could verify this observation, would be enough. Such a statement is not to be confused with a new theory or idea - there is no synthesis of anything in the statement, it's just a description. You should check out once more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR 193.97.170.4 20:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position, not to get into a whole argument about POV and OR:
I've checked the NOR article (again) and it states:
Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. and Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed.. If you watch the video, and then state conclusions about what you've seen, that's creating a primary source. Yes, if you merely state that the voice is falsetto, very little argument will be made (even though that's still OR), but stating that it's unnatural and that it's male are big time POV.
not everything that has not been noted yet in a newspaper is OR. Strawman. I'm just asking for something beyond your opinion of what you've observed.
To simply state that the voice is dark and speaking in falsetto Another strawman. That isn't the statement that was added. I've changed the text in question to a simpler version of this, which I think is reasonably acceptable, and you've basically said would be enough too. So I assume we're set.x 16:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] profanity

"bad language" typical for poor African-American neighborhoods I removed because it was unecessarily inflammatory, and did not improve on the word "profanity" which it replaced. These anon edits by 84.178.163.182 and 84.178.155.193 are verging on vandalism. x 23:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is merely descriptive, a completely neutral statement of fact - I put "bad language" in quotes whereas you are using a term that clearly is a value judgement. So what is inflammatory is in fact your version to describe the language used. The expressions in question are: 1. shut the fuck up, 2. you a bitch, 3. you a hoe. These are expressions TYPICALLY and frequently used in rap music and similar artifacts originating in "poor AA neighborhoods" (short "hoods", sometimes also labelled "ghettos"). They are in fact frequently used in informal language by many AA, which is evident in many online discussions, also in comments sections on YouTube. This register of American English is employed so as to signify distance from other segments of American society. The expressions are not frequently used by Stevie Ryan, just in this video - presumably for a certain reason. The baby, the "boo", is apparently meant to be the product of a certain milieu. Again, to understand this you need some general knowledge. In this case of language and American society at large. If you don't agree, ask questions, or argue. Simply hurling insults at me will not wash. 84.178.150.69 03:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The "factual" basis you may purport is a pointless debate, as it's an insertion of something irrelavant to this article in particular, again not improving on what is already there. If you have a source saying it was spcifically intended to reflect a particlar dialect, great, otherwise all I see being posted is the judgements made from watching the videos, which is POV and OR. x 20:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is the description of a short video that YOU cited and introduced into the article pointless? I merely elaborated - not as an expert, and without OR, and certainly without taking a certain POV - on what you falsely described as "penchant for profanity". "Penchant"? How do you know? What do you mean? Isn't it silly to ascribe a "penchant" to a toddler? Normally - and this is, again, clear to everyone without using "expert opinion" - a toddler will repeat what they have learned. That is their penchant. They will not have developed proclivities for certain speech patterns. They will not differentiate between "profane" and sublime use of language. And "Profanity" is not a neutral term. It is not the function and not the stated position of Wikipedia - as far as I know - to reaffirm middle class American standard values by labelling certain speech patterns as "profane" - orginally a religious term and still reflecting values, it is not merely descriptive.
What I did was merely an attempt to describe - in a more neutral fashion - WHAT YOU ALREADY HAD PUT INTO THE ARTICLE. Why can't you see that? And I don't see the need for a source when stating that the expressions cited above are typically used in poor AA neighborhoods. Are you denying that they are? Are you saying there are different expert opinions on this? And why would such a statement be "inflammatory"?
Finally, what do you think I am doing here? Do you really believe I would argue if my intent was to "vandalize" your work here? Don't you see that I like what SR does and that it is my intention to support your effort here, i.e. to provide useful information on her videos for people who might be interested? 84.178.158.202 07:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Arguing semantics about "penchant" or "profanity" is not the issue. The issue is your text stating that the language is "typical" of a group of people. For one thing, it doesn't clarify anything, and, again, is inflammatory (it should be obvious as to why, so I won't answer that question). In terms of your intent, that's not my concern (though you do your edits anonymously) - just what content finally ends up in the article. x 12:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
If my intent is not your concern then kindly refrain from allegations of "vandalism", thank you very much. Whether or not I sign with an IP rather than with my user name (which is not as anonymous as certain handles) is none of your business, and your comments are completely unwarranted.
As regards my argument, I get the impression that you don't understand it and/or are for some reason unwilling to discuss it so I won't waste any more time on this. IMO it would be ridiculous to portray an artist by blanking out completely what makes her interesting, but you go ahead and own your article, we'll see what it brings. 193.97.170.5 21:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ??? what?

"ryan's littleloca character was based, according to her own account in various interviews, on Mexican-American girls in her neighborhood that she grew up with, amalgamating them into "Little Loca", an 18 year old Latina attending college.",dude, thats total queef with no sources. Everyone knows she started that account to bash peeps and use that account as dummy to dodge blame,especially that bex girl(who didn't do anything to her).

The interviews mentioned are the sources. Granted we still need to break out ref tags, but the info is there. And what "everyone knows" is irrelevant to a WP article. Besides, what you quote and what you claim aren't mutually exclusive. x 14:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] birthdate

From what I see in two of the reference articles, Stevie's age in 2006 is said to be 22, so I assume that means her birth year is 1984. Of course it could also be on the tail end of 1983 as well. Anyone with some useful references on this? x 10:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Stevie was born in 1984. The birth year should've been left at 1984 (it was recently changed erroneously to 1985). 72.130.43.20 (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)