Talk:Richie Ramone/Archive 1

Contradiction

First paragraph: "Richie quit in 1987 after almost five years and 400 shows as a Ramone." ...and later: "Richie is featured on the albums Too Tough to Die, Animal Boy and Halfway to Sanity and played over 500 live shows with the band."

400 or 500? The truth must be known!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:20, 4 March 2006 (talk • contribs) Dannyisamazing

other songs

What other songs that richie drummed on were loud punk rock song only ones i know of would be love kills, psycho therapy,animal boy,and somebody put something in my drink i meen something to beileive in,i'dont want to live this life anymore don't sound very punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex ramone (talk • contribs) 9 March 2006

faster drummer

How is richie such a super fast drummer he's no better than marky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex ramone (talk • contribs) 00:25, 10 March 2006

Try listening to some concerts with Richie, he was pretty fast!, he could stay playing 8th notes on the closed hi-hat throughout the entire shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.1.17.105 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 27 March 2006

Also, in the End of the Century documentary, various people comment on how he was faster than Marky.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.13.246 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 27 June 2006

I've seen The Ramones in concert many times,and believe me ,Richie is a far better drummer than Marky. The fact that he doesn't go around saying how hard it is to play Ramones music makes him a better drummer.Marky is always talking about what a difficult drum style he plays. Richie never needed to say a thing.He is also far better in recordings.His fills are more original and song writing and signing puts him way over the top.The Ramones should of never let him get away.................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.7.151 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 29 June 2006

For every idiot that said that richie was better than marky.. faster doesn't mean BETTER... by the way.. marky has a faster hi-hat beat than richie. but i wanna said that ramones don't need more crappy discusions.. they only deserve our completely respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.216.5 (talk • contribs) 22 September 2007

Lawsuit

I have removed the entire section about a lawsuit Richie Ramone was (or is) apparently involved in. The only source for this was a link to a court listing, and is insufficient to support the extent and nature of the information that was in the article. Please do not re-add this information until independent, third party, reliable sources can be found to support it. Risker (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK.

As an additional note, about the sentence saying that one of the parties was stalking, since he is a living person covered by WP:BLP the policy on biographies of living persons, we would need him to have been convicted of stalking in a court for that particular case in order to mention it. And even then, it shouldn't be mentioned unless it's relevant for the article, and in this case the paragraph didn't indicate why the stalking was relevant enough to merit mentioning it. WE would need a independient third party reliable source saying that the stalking had affected the outcome of the lawsuits or had other relevant effect. NOTE: Meh, actually, I just re-read the text I deleted [1] and it just says that it was "alleged on the internet". I'm afraid that this assertion totally fails the requirement for high quality sources at WP:BLP, and seems to indicate that there is no conviction at all because the matter didn't even reach a court on the first place (aka unlikely to be re-added to the article). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit Reply

Why was this pertinent lawsuit removed from the article? Here is a link to the actual court documents directly from the court. This is an independent, reliable, third party source. Reinhardt v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc. et al. You removed this link and all mention of this lawsuit. [2] Why would you just take the word of someone who works for Reinhardt's attorney? user: Kady Miller has a conflict of interest and should not be allowed to post on her client's wiki page. She admitted to being paid to post here.

Richard Reinhardt's aka Richie Ramone lawsuit was dismissed. The case was dismissed. Judge Shira Scheindlin stated there was no merit to Ramone's claim that he never signed off on digital sales of six songs he penned for the legendary '70s punk band. She cited a 1984 contract the band signed that "clearly authorizes the digital uses employed by defendants," because "future technologies are covered by the agreement."

This is direct from the lawsuit motion filed by Richard Reinhardt, aka Richie Ramone. Reinhardt is being asked to pay legal costs of the defendants. He is claiming hardship. In his own words, May 28, 2008, page nine paragraph two of motion filed by Richard Reinhardt: "The Plaintiff however, is an individual who, together with his wife earned approximately $127,000 in 2007. Plaintiff has submitted for this Court's review, under seal, his most recent tax returns."

Annette Stark is the wife of Richie Ramone. She is a writer for LA Weekly and LA City Beat newspapers. Here is a link to her articles in LA Weekly. http://www.laweekly.com/authors/annette-stark/ Link to articles in LA City Beat http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/author/annette_stark/77/

May 2, 2008, page three item seven, "The total amount of attorney's and support staff fees billed to the client in this case prior to the preparation of this application was $52,199.75. It is for this amount that we seek award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 505."

Please, undo the edits to the lawsuit information. Thank you.MediaLawyer (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, with respect to Annette Stark - the reference sources you give do not provide any information about her relationship with Ramone. Therefore, from the perspective of our verifiability policy, its inclusion is subject to our usual policies of removing any unsourced or poorly sourced information. Our policy on biographical information about living people establishes the expectation to remove poorly sourced or unsourced controversial information about living people. Clearly there is a controversy here about this information, and it is not sourced, so it will remain out of the article.

As to the lawsuit, what you have linked to is what we call a "primary source", which is generally considered only acceptable as a reference in support of information also found in and linked to reliable third party sources, for example newspapers, law journals, scholarly works, or similarly well established, reliable sources. The absence of such references also suggests that the lawsuit may not be particularly notable, either.

This isn't the place for either side of this issue to draw attention to its position on this legal matter. You've got a courtroom to do that, and we'd appreciate all of you leaving Wikipedia out of it. Several of us are monitoring this article and its talk page and will be pulling any information violating our BLP policy should it be reposted here. Risker (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not involved in the lawsuit in any way. I am merely an attorney who practices in this field. Would this link to the New York Times article about this lawsuit be acceptable? [3] The Associated Press did an article about the lawsuit being dismissed. It is in the archive section of Associated Press in the pay section. Here is an article written by another reputable source. [4]There are over 175 articles on this lawsuit by journalists on the internet. The lawsuit has already been heard in a court of law and a ruling has been handed down.I am bothered by the fact that you have allowed Reinhardt's employee user:Kady Miller to remove all references to this lawsuit claiming it never happened. If only it were so easy to change history with a delete button. Please, allow Wikipedia to honestly represent the facts. Do not be bullied or swayed by individuals who resort to lies and childish personal attacks. User:Kady Miller has been vandalizing this article. She should not be allowed to post on this article because of her admission to working for Reinhardt. MediaLawyer (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure if palluxo.com is a reliable source here, but it appears to report accurately the court ruling here. I'm adding the court ruling as supporting source. (there is a list of all documents of this case here) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

please remove irrelevant information that has privacy concerns

 I'm satisfied with the edits done --Enric Naval (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please undo this edit. The information of the wife, altought sourced, is irrelevant to the public figure of Richie Ramone, and it appears that an employee of Ramone has been told to remove it from the article (from context, either Ramone told the employee to do so or he is doing it himself). This should fall under Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_names as the addition of the wife information adds absolutely nothing to the article. Basically "presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects" and the subject not being mentioned on the talk page before addition and the subject was mentioned on the talk page before addition but it was not justified why she should be mentioned at all.

Also, about mentioning what his lawyer makes for a living, not only there is no reason to state it on the article, but the mention appears to be an attempt to trivialize the lawsuit and paint it on a bad light. The wording on the article was confuse, the source is talking about the profession of Richie, as stated by his lawyer. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed this request, and I note that none of the references in that section identify the person named as the wife of Richie Ramone. As such, that information will be removed per the WP:BLP policy. Risker (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit about the wife has been already done, and the part about the lawyer was cause by bad wording that has been corrected. I'm removing the editprotected template now since there is no longer need for it. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please allow information to stay. It is public information, not private.

{{editprotected}}

His wife Annette Stark is a public figure as she is a known journalist. She writes for LA Weekly and LA City Beat under her own name. Ramone offered up the information about his wife to the reporter who did a story about him linked below. She is listed as his wife in many Ramone fan sites and she goes to the reunion events. As she is a known journalist I could just start a page about her. This referenced article clearly states that she is his wife.

[5] "Working with an electronic drum kit using ProTools software, Richie developed an early arrangement in a room of the North Hollywood apartment he shares with his wife, the writer Annette Stark."

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is how it works

The page is protected right now, and will remain so for a week. Only BLP-sensitive information will be removed from the article without discussion; any other edits made must achieve the consensus approval of several editors before a neutral administrator will step in to make the agreed-to edit. There are several concerns that have to be addressed here, and we have lots of time to work through them.

The first question is whether anyone has any concerns about the article outside of the sections about the lawsuit and Ramone's wife's name. Does anyone have any reference sources that can be used to attribute some of this information? The article is largely unreferenced at this point, and should probably be bolstered. Is there any other significant information relative to the reason that Ramone is notable that is not covered in the article?

The second is real and perceived conflicts of interest. Please read the conflict of interest policy, and understand that we do take it seriously; it is one of the reasons this article is protected right now.

Finally, there are the two areas of contention: how much information should be provided about (a) the lawsuit and (b) the wife. This is more complex than meets the eye, and will take some time and negotiation to get right. I'm offline for about an hour starting now but will return to this discussion as soon as possible. Risker (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Response to: This is how it works

(a) The lawsuit is important. removed unsourced information --Enric Naval (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC) The defendants have now filed motions for legal fees and costs. In court documents Richie is saying that he and his wife only made $127,000 in 2007 so paying the $52,000 in current costs would be a hardship. removed information that is probably sourced to the court documents but that has nothing to do with encyclopeadic relevance of the lawsuit for inclusion on the article --Enric Naval (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(b) He brought his wife into the lawsuit in his opposition to motion for legal fees. He submitted their tax returns. He freely mentions his wife by name in interviews. She has gone to the Ramones reunion events with him and been interviewed as his wife publicly. She is a writer writing in her own name. She freely and widely promotes her husband Richie Ramone. If his wife wanted privacy, she should not have told everyone she was his wife. Same goes for her husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaLawyer (talk • contribs) 01:26, 25 June 2008

(moved from section above) It's public information, and it's verifiable. However, can you explain how its addition adds anything relevant to the article? And, specially, why the heck is she being mentioned on the lawsuit paragraph? And, being non-relevant to the subject and being that it seems that she has no desire to appear here, why should we add her when wikipedia has a policy to respect privacy? Can you address these questions? You know, altough it feels good to pack an article with all the details you can find, unfortunately the articles on a encyclopedia are not for adding every single piece of trivia under the sun that you can find not only about the article subject himself but also about anyone related to the subject.

adenda after moving my comment here: sorry, but this does not address what the addition of the wife name adds to the article. It's just a piece of trivia. If the person doesn't want to be mentioned, there is no reason not to remove her info since her removal detracts nothing from the encyclopedic value of the article since wikipedia articles are not collections of trivia.

If you want to start an article on her, then go on and do so, but that's not a reason to shoehorn a mention to her on this article. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

WOW. This is what richie's attorneys means by stalker. You don't even know where he lives. First you say north hollywood and then you say scottsdale. which is it??? His website says he lives in New York and when i call him it's in new york. Looks like you provide public MISinformation.

why is any of this so important to you?

you said you were a media lawyer, but you sound like a stalkerFurious ramone fan (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning to Kady Miller and MediaLawyer

You are both one post away from being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Immediately cease these personal attacks; they are being removed from this page. Take your battles elsewhere please. This talk page is only to be used to discuss the content of the Richie Ramone article. Risker (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

You have two news sources with conflicting information, and one says he resides in Los Angeles. Considering that, you probably ought to take our word on this. He lives in New York. As I earlier stated, we're not writing promotional materials. This is a basic fact, and if his management can't offer it, who can? Other basic facts are that Richie Ramone grew up in New Jersey. He wasn't the drummer with The Shirts. He stayed on good terms with Dee Dee till his death. But he only produced one of Dee Dee's critically lambasted hip-hop tunes. Barbara Ramone invited Richie Ramone to attend Dee Dee's funeral in Los Angeles, but Richie Ramone was in New York and couldn't get there in time. The clips from End of the Century were filmed in New York. As videos of his symphonic performance testify, Richie Ramone is a classcally trained drummer. Along with composer Ron Abel, Richie Ramone scored his Suite For Orchestra and Drums--an original interpretation of Bernstein's West Side Story.

Richie Ramone studied drumming with Joe Morello, who also taught Buddy Rich. As he said in a lengthy one-hour interview on KABC radio, he began playing at age 4 and was touring with bands by the age of 11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kady Miller (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All well and good. Now reference sources for this information are required. Not to his website, but to independent third party sources. This is the direction in which things must go on this page. Risker (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The news clips on his website can serve as sources, assuming you care, about the unanimous critical acclaim for his POPS shows. That's up to you. PBS has the information that Richie Ramone was the fastest drummer on their website, and Joe Strummer from the Clash stated it in the Ramones biopic End Of The Century, but again, only if you deem it relevant. We didn't come to tout him. Simply to get incorrect information and defamation removed, as well as protect his privacy where applicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kady Miller (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

However, there is no reference source that can accurately provide his residence. So toss a coin and get it maybe right, maybe wrong, or take our word for it. Like I previously stated, it's irrelevant to us —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kady Miller (talk • contribs) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC) And as I stated, no disrespect intended, we're not going to produce sources for anything. If you care, and wish to concern yourselves with a balanced biography on this artist, rather than what you had, you can go to the website and click on the news links, THAT GO DIRECTLY TO THE VARIOUS NEWS SOURCES WEBSITES, you can watch the FOX news clip, you can listen to KABC, you can see videos of him drumming on You Tube.... We only care about the aforestated issues and won't be spending time on anything else. We're spending too much time on this nonsense already, but there were issues that merited this.

Just an impression, the less trouble you take to balance this artist's biography, the more it looks like someone indeed has a malicious agenda. I'm sure that isn't lost on Wikipedia in light of what we have seen.

also please note somone added to my comment, and didn't sign on. i deleted it.

Finally, Richie Ramone has family in Arizona. Surely you will agree that, considering the zeal expressed here for his private life, rather than his work and legacy, we don't like giving out anything, but maybe that clears it up. But there is no drama around Tommy Ramone. He and CJ Ramone live just as quietly as Richie Ramone. To us, these are excessive occurances of prying into his private life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kady Miller (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)