Talk:Ronnie Spector

A news item involving Ronnie Spector was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 January 2022.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). The Beatles Low‑importance This Apple Records/Apple Corps-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: For WikiProject The Beatles A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Beatle wives Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here. This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one? New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pop music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Women in Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: January 9 to 15, 2022

Didn't she and/or the Ronnettes sue Phil for back royalties? If so this info sould be added.

Yes she succesfully sued, a case that took a couple of decades to wind it's way through the courts, and through a total of 17 appeals. Badgirlrock (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)GSP o/b/o Ronnie Spector[reply]

Is there someone who actuall has this album and can read aloud the year of its publication?
Whereas Genya Ravan writes in her book: 1982, I found several 1980s, including one that claims, that two of the tracks were recorded in 1981(!). If you deem this important enough, also go to Genya Ravan and correct me (along with the rest of my bad English).

(Thank You)--Psycho Chicken 14:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can we have a different photo? This one is really awful. -andy 92.229.166.34 (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely second this. --RaygunShaun (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - Came here just for that reason - PLEASE ditch that nasty pic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.48.76.59 (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

could you possibly have picked an uglier photo of Ronnie; she is a beautiful woman but what the fuck is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.48.54 (talk) 12:37, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

the disambiguation link at the top is so bizarre that I'm afraid to change it - is "simular" a new word based on "simulate" or is this just a very un-wikipedialike error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevintimba (talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Portrait of Ronnie Spector in NYC in December of 2018.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a little confusing because "Spector" refers sometimes to Ronnie and sometimes to Phil. I suggest that all references to Phil be changed to "Phil Spector" (or "Phil" where needed for brevity). -- HLachman (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I felt it was a fair request that a new picture of Ronnie Spector is used as her primary photo that doesn't look like she's trying to hide her blackness. This is tacky and I think many people would appreciate this revision. 2603:6010:8845:5900:2874:6E5E:ECF1:F829 (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Probably due to the lighting. All images of Spector on Commons are not recent or not in color, so this is the best one we have right now. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are other photos in the article that show her "blackness". Sigh. But as stated, she was a mix of African-American–Cherokee and Irish–American. Wyliepedia @ 22:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that the article is inconsistent with names. It uses both "Bennett" and "Spector" to refer to Ronnie (or is it Veronica, i don't know). Lead uses Bennet, Early Life starts with Spector, Spector is used even after her name changed to Greenfield, etc. I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia alphabet soup policy to help determine which to use, but it should probably be a little more consistent. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 06:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be "Ronnie" the whole way through. ili (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per

MOS:SAMESURNAME we only use "Ronnie" when it's not clear which Spector we're talking about. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

In several sentences, you have left "Spector" and "Phil" in the same sentence. Why should "Phil" not be called "Spector"? Or - better, and far more clearly to readers - we should use "Ronnie" and "Phil". Even later in her career, the name "Spector" when referring to her could easily be misinterpreted. It suggests to me that we are hiding behind general guidelines, when a more common sense approach of using "Ronnie" and "Phil" would be far less confusing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is on Ronnie Spector, so between her and Phil Spector she should be prioritized as being referred to as Spector. It should be easy to distinguish which Spector is being referred to in the context of the sentence and pronouns.Twixister (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the different surnames, it is common in articles that the subject is referred to different names depending on the period of their life. Bennett is used prior to her marriage to Phil Spector. After they married she was referred to as Spector, even after she divorced him (and later remarried) she used that as her stage name.Twixister (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to disregard the MOS, the polite thing to do is discuss it on the talk page rather than re-applying an edit that's already been reverted once. GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance says: "To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to them by their given names for clarity and brevity. When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing." The problem here is that we seem to disagree over what will be "confusing" to readers. In one paragraph we say that "Bennett and Phil Spector began having an affair... She was allowed to call Spector.... ", and then in the very next paragraph: "Spector revealed.. that following their marriage, Phil subjected her...". Now, that technically meets our guidance, in that between those two references Ronnie [Bennett] took the name Spector. However, it still jars - the word "Spector" in one paragraph refers to a different person than "Spector" in the opening sentence of the very next paragraph. To many readers it will appear incongruous and confusing, and we need to avoid language that appears incongruous and confusing. It requires readers to be aware of our own internal guidance, which obviously is not the case for many readers. So, it would be better to make more use of "Ronnie" and "Phil" where there would be a risk of confusion. It may be an occasion where

WP:IAR applies on common sense grounds, or for further discussion in a wider forum. Incidentally, I only reverted GA-RT-22's edit once, and raised the point here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree. With two famous Spector's frequenting the article, we should use "Ronnie" and "Phil" (rather than Spector) to avoid confusion. WWGB (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghmyrtle: Please stop edit warring over this. It's disruptive. GA-RT-22 (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "edit warring". You did not respond to my previous post, explaining the issue. I have now clarified the text for readers. If you wish to pursue this, there are other forums where that can be done. Thanks.

WT:MOSBIO. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That makes it sound like Phil voiced his objections in 2007, while he was awaiting trial. He did not. He sent his letter in 1994. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]