Talk:Ron Sexsmith

Untitled

"Sexsmith"? "Affective voice"? Sounds like an obvious ridiculous hoax-article.

Hm. It appears that this man is very much so real. RonSexsmith.com, as well as his MySpace profile. If this is a hoax, then it's a very elaborate one. I don't know anything about this man or his music (I came across this page at random), but I thought that I'd share. 4.224.132.237 12:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't this guy appear on an episode of Cheppelle's Show? I think the was the guitar player on that sketch about white people and dancing... ~ 65.96.103.25 09:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, that was John Mayer84.142.227.39 (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This hoax claim should be removed from the wiki, since Ron Sexsmith is a well known artist, one person's ignorance of his music does not a hoax make.

It's insane that this even came up. I saw him at the Juno's way back, and in Ireland. He's fantastic, one of my favourite musicians.

Hoax tag pulled

I've pulled the hoax tag, as this person is indeed a prominent musician. I get 1.3 MILLION Google hits for "Ron Sexsmith". So, I'd say it's a nobrainer. --Pleather 14:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "metronews" :
  • {{cite web| url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508458967.html | title=A master of restraint| work=Fairfax Digital| accessdate=2008-05-22}}
  • {{cite web| url= http://www.psnw.com/~randyk/072695.htm | title=Metronews Music Reviews| work=Randy Krbechek| accessdate=2008-05-22}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

he cowrote 'brandy alexander' with feist

http://trianglemusic.blogspot.com/2008/06/ron-sexsmith-brandy-alexander-mp3.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.43.217 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ron Sexsmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ronsexsmith/articles/story/5927073/ron_sexsmiths_beautiful_view

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ron Sexsmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/Sexsmith+finds+redemption+Long+Player+Late+Bloomer/4361446/story.html?id=4361446
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090104170642/http://www.psnw.com/~randyk/072695.htm to http://www.psnw.com/~randyk/072695.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture of Colleen Hixenbaugh

Colleen Hixenbaugh in 2010

@Revirvlkodlaku: In this edit, Revirvlkodlaku removed this picture of Colleen Hixenbaugh, with the comment "I don't think her picture should be included, unless Sexsmith is also in it." I disagree. (Naturally enough, since I added the image.) Since we can only use free licensed images, we don't have a limitless number of images we can add, in fact this is the only free one of her I could find. I do agree that one of them together would be even better, since this is the article about him, and the only reason we are discussing her at all is because of her relationship to him - but this one of her without him would be perfectly fine. We've got plenty of other biographies that have pictures of that are important to the subject, without including the subject. For example, Thomas Jefferson has pictures of six buildings, four maps, and for pictures of people, Albert Gallatin, Lewis and Clark, Black Hoof, Aaron Burr, Abigail Adams, ... - all without portraying Jefferson himself. Are going to delete them because they aren't pictures of Black Hoof and Jefferson, or Burr and Jefferson, or Lewis and Clark and Jefferson? This principle, that we shouldn't have a picture at all if we could, in theory, have a better one, even if we don't have it now, is called perfect is the enemy of good, and it is not how we do things in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia we are all about many small improvements, not waiting for the ideal image which we might never get. Sure, one of them together would be better. But until we get that pic of them together, one of her alone is much better than none. --GRuban (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@GRuban, thanks for bringing this up. I don't have a hard stance on this, but it just isn't clear to me how a picture of Hixenbaugh enhances an article about Sexsmith. I get that they're married, but I think it's sufficient to mention her or provide a link, if available. Sexsmith is known for his music, not his personal life, so I think images that appear on his page should be restricted to what concerns his work, not his private life. Again, this is not a hard stance, and I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise if there exists a strong precedent or a convincing argument that counters mine. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

She's his wife, and is also a notable musician. It's hard to argue she's not one of the most important people in his life. I think she's worth an image. Whether someone is known or not determines whether or not we have an article about them or not, but once we decide we will have an article about someone, we don't restrict ourselves to writing only the most known things, we write a biography. WP:NNC. Jefferson wasn't known for his relationship with Abigail Adams, but we have a picture of her in the article about him; Hixenbaugh is much more important to Sexsmith than that. --GRuban (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@GRuban,I don't find that convincing—you're basically reiterating your original point.

I acknowledged that I'm aware of their marital status.

She can't be that notable if she doesn't have her own page.

I'm not disputing that she's important to him, just that I don't see a reason to include her picture. If we had a picture of one of his siblings (assuming he has any), would we include it, since they would presumably be an important person in his life? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason to include her picture, like everything else we include, is that it improves the article. It is my opinion that having a picture of the subject's spouse and tour manager who is also a musician in her own right, with news articles about her work without him, would improve the article. But I see you disagree, and you are right, we are repeating ourselves. In the end, what improves the article is an opinion, not something that can be proven. Let's get a Wikipedia:Third opinion. --GRuban (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I don't have a strong preference either. I'm not sure it really improves the article and the image itself isn't exactly the best so I'd lean against inclusion. Nemov (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That counts, thanks. Will leave out. --GRuban (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Poorly sourced, blow-by-blow occurrences

@Revirvlkodlaku:, you've now restored contents sourced to WP:QS that don't comply with WP:RS. The contents in question was added recently by the band's public relations representative. You should not be continuing to restore contested contents. The burden to establish that inclusion is on you. Please do not keep restoring recently added challenged contents, especially without adequate sourcing. Bandcamp? No! Graywalls (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Graywalls:, Apple Music and Discogs (which includes album sleeve photos) both list Sexsmith as featuring on the album. How much more legit do you need this collab to be? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

You restored /www.yeproc.com, sun-years.bandcamp.com and YouTube, all of which were inflicted into the article by public relations rep representing SunYears. Discogs is an unusable junk source. Graywalls (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Graywalls:, none of what you just said changes the fact that this is a legitimate collaboration, and you haven't mentioned a good reason to remove it from the article. Photographic evidence of Sexsmith's contribution to the album makes any source usable, IMO, unless you're suggesting that the images are doctored. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTEVERYTHING, then someone else would have taken notice of it. We can't use those garbage sources. You're under the wrong impression that anything more likely than not to be factually correct remains and things default to inclusion. WP:BLP., Graywalls (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

This is factually accurate, and I see no strong reason to remove it. If you don't like the sources despite the fact that the content is clearly factual, then find better sources, don't remove the content. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Don't re-add contents whose due weight has been questioned. I lean omission per NOTEVERYTHING. If you want to include it, find better sources that support due weight. Not every factual trivia needs to be included. Graywalls (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

You're just repeating the same argument without actually addressing my points, so I don't have much to add here except to say that there's no strong reason to remove a valid collaboration that can easily be verified on sites such as Apple Music. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

You're failing to address why these things ought to be included simply because it can be verified. You're not the arbiter of the strength of an argument to which you're a part of. Graywalls (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that specific point needs to be belaboured though: an item of information should be included because it can, unless there's a strong reason not to include it. You haven't presented such a reason, and while I reluctantly accept NOTEVERYTHING, this doesn't provide a clear guideline for what to include and what to omit, so on some level, this becomes a question of discretion and consensus. My discretion is to keep it, so now it's a matter of consensus/agreement. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

In this kind of case, it falls on exclusion. WP:ONUS. The edit summary you left here indicates you're of the impression your discretionary choice somehow overrules mine. It doesn't help that you insist on using unacceptable source, such as WP:DISCOGS. In other words, you need to produce strong argument supporting inclusion and if that isn't reached, it should be a neutral editor who is the arbiter, not you or me. The lack of coverage in sources beyond junk sources is an indication it doesn't need to be included. Graywalls (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

As I've stated repeatedly, I disagree with you, and the fact that discogs is currently used as a reference in the article is a red herring, since the claim can easily be verified on Apple Music, for example. Anyway, we're not making any headway here, perhaps it's time to request a 3o. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

an item of information should be included because it can, unless there's a strong reason not to include it., please provide guidelines and policies supporting your approach. @Revirvlkodlaku: Graywalls (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I need a guideline/policy that says "do include stuff relevant to the article topic". Where's your guideline/policy that says "do not include musical collaborations in article about musician"? Like I said before, we're really not making any headway here. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

That's what WP:NOTEVERYTHING is about. Encyclopedia isn't to chronicle everything exhaustively and these inclusionist arguments come up all the time. I disagree with the inclusion and it needs to be omitted until consensus is formed in favor of inclusion. Graywalls (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

NOTEVERYTHING is discretionary though, it doesn't specify what to include and what not. It is not necessary to get consensus on every item of information to be included in an article, but since I contested your deletion, it seems like you're the one who needs to seek consensus on the topic. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

No, this is what WP:ONUS is about. The inclusion seeker is the one responsible for seeking consensus. Graywalls (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't add the content in the first place, I'm opposing its removal. I've gone ahead and requested a 3o, so we don't have to keep going back and forth on this without making progress.Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

3O Response: Revirvlkodlaku, I don't think you properly signed your 3o request. For future requests, please sign them with 5 tildes so that only the time stamp shows up. Now, onto the dispute: As I understand it, the issues seem to be whether certain music collaborations should be in this article, and whether the sources for them are reliable. Please correct me if I have misunderstood something.

Should the content be in the article? I believe that Graywalls' interpretation of WP:ONUS is correct. Just because a piece of information is verifiable does not mean that it belongs in a given article (see WP:trivia). That being said, I personally don't see why the music collaborations shouldn't be here, provided they're reliably sourced. Speaking of which...

Are the sources reliable? Revirvlkodlaku has added sources of mixed reliability, and I think Graywalls was right to remove them. As for what's currently in the article: the sources for "Granddad's song" seem to be reliable, and they back up the content. However, I can't say the same for "Don't wait". The source currently cited only says that Sexsmith is a guest in the album, not which song he was in. Therefore, the sentence as written is not backed up by the source. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Chess enjoyer, thanks for the input, and sorry for missing the fifth tilde.

I will do my best to find a better source for "Don't wait". Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku In the meantime, the sentence shouldn't be in the article. Feel free to add it back once you find a better source. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Chess enjoyer:, just so you're up to pace with the disputed material, the addition about Peter Moren/SunYears was done by paid public relations representative promoting their client in Special:Diff/1304163320 and the edit history indicates the same promotional addition. Another way to look at this would be a regional/local paper might say that their town's supplier provided some of the parts/work for the Statue of Liberty or that they worked with a highly notable museum. The project or landmark is exponentially more important and notable than the little known company. In such case, there's really no reason to doubt the reliability of the claim that so and so company that is barely known did so and so work with the famous museum or work on Statue of Liberty. Now, if the publicist hired by the little known company inserted their company's presence into Statue of Liberty saying something like "xyz company of insignificant township fabricated the rebars used in art work", that's an issue of inclusion worthiness. Here, we're talking about non-notable SunYears being inserted into a more notable Sexsmith by public relations firm representing the SunYears record label and one editor insisting on retaining it. Since PR rep from SunYears is a COI party to the inserted content, I think they're (the editor who initially inserted it) not part of the decision making weight. So, it's basically Revirvlkodlaku feeling it should be included and I feel it shouldn't. I do think non-notable SunYears in this article is non inclusion worthy WP:TRIVIA. The use of Apple Music to justify inclusion is questionable. Graywalls (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Graywalls So, to summarize, you think this content shouldn't be included because the person who originally added it had a COI, and you think that the content itself is trivia? I'm not sure if I agree with that.

Firstly, while COI editing isn't a good thing, we should generally make our decisions based on the content, not based on who added it. The COI editor should have put in an edit request, but I don't think the content is promotional in tone.

Secondly (forgive me if I'm missing the point here), I don't agree with your analogy. The Statue of Liberty is more notable than some small supplier, but that doesn't mean the supplier shouldn't be included at all. Who supplied the parts is important information that should be in the article. Likewise, who Ron Sexsmith collaborated with is important in this article.

Thirdly, I don't believe that music collaborations that an article subject did count as trivia. That would be like classifying books that an author had co-written as trivia in that author's article. I think this holds true regardless of the notability of the other person.

Lastly, per this reliable sources noticeboard discussion, Apple Music is okay for facts about the piece of music. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

If you think that some little town electroplating inc of township of 500 should be included in Statue of Liberty citing the township newspaper, I strongly disagree it's appropriate per WP:DUE. One of the comments in the discussion you linked was that it's undue in prose, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_476#c-Launchballer-20250505200600-HorrorLover555-20250505161400 Graywalls (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Graywalls If the hypothetical newspaper in question is deemed a reliable source by the community, then yes, I think that information should be included. As I understand it, WP:due is about disputes and their viewpoints. Unless you have a reliable source that says that this collaboration didn't happen, I don't understand how it's relevant to this discussion. Regarding the discussion I linked, another comment says that Apple Music is fine for basic facts about the piece of music. All of that is beside the point, though, because another source is cited. Chess enjoyer (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

It would be under WP:PROPORTION and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. So, a little township being a supplier to Statue of Liberty maybe a big deal to that township, but in no way should the name drop be introduced into Statue of Liberty page. This kind of public relations editing happens all the time, generally done by those seeking to increase the prominence of insignificant run of the mill presence by introducing it into a more prominent page. Graywalls (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Graywalls Having read the links you provided, I think I see your point, but I disagree. Knowledge of who supplied what materials for the Statue of Liberty would not only be of interest to the small town, and such information would be worth adding to the article, if only as a single sentence ("x company provided y amount of material for the construction") or as part of a list ("materials were provided by x company, y company...."). Likewise, who a musician collaborated with is important information for an article about the musician. I don't see how the one sentence that mentions it in this article is undue weight. Chess enjoyer (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Chess enjoyer:, that's where a line, albeit blurry one exists between an encyclopedia and a book or a study devoted to the subject and the relevant policy is WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Graywalls (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Graywalls I don't think that policy applies to this article, at least not as you interpret it, for the reasons above. We seem to be at a stalemate. Technically, you hold the minority opinion here, but this is a very WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Do you think this is worth opening an RfC over? I would be more than willing to abide by its results, whatever they would be. Chess enjoyer (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Chess enjoyer:, I wouldn't call it a "minority opinion" because a second person came in and agreed with one side or the other and simply shifted it from 1:1 vs 1:2. What I'm saying is that an exhaustive list of every person the article subject collaborated isn't necessarily due. If the article collaborated with A and the only basis is "verfiable" it's opening it up to insertion of collaboration B... C... D... and Z without bounds. This is just that even though the list out isn't that big. Graywalls (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Not part of 3PO

Special:diff/1309709252 was not specifically part of 3PO discussion. @Revirvlkodlaku:, the 3PO didn't specifically suggest to anything and everything that happened that is "verifiable" but not cited is good to go and due. Graywalls (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Graywalls, I'm aware of that, but I'm not sure why you feel the need to add cn tags to album releases, which is not standard, and in addition, to leave disingenuous edit summaries; all this suggests frustration, or perhaps confusion, on your end. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Here is my read on the situation -- the career section is not in a good state as it largely filled with "X did Y", is not a WP:RESUME to be filled with every little detail that we can find reliable sources for. This is expecially true for the sections that were tagged for CN. Instead this section should be redone in proper narrative prose, and limited to notable things worth talking about. At the end of each paragraph, as yourself, why does this matter? Most of them appear to just be puffery and clout, but not actually anything meaningful. Perhaps in other words, if you were in an interview and someone said, tell me about the things you've done -- you wouldn't rehash all of these details unless there was specifically a good or noteworthy reason -- otherwise it just sounds like Name-dropping. Turning towards Special:diff/1309709252, there is no need to include this in the career section unless something specific about that release was notable in the advancement of their career -- the release of an album (Carousel One) or a generic collaboration (Marike Jager), is trivial and routine for bands/artists. Instead, facts like this should be placed in separate sections (like disogrpahy table, tour table, etc) - and it is not uncommon there to provide citations if articles do not already exist. Now if there was significant coverage about a specific ablum or collaboration making it noteworthy, the that would belong in prose style in the career. TiggerJay (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

However, a lot of the "other contributions" might not even belong in the article. A person on whom a Wikipedia page exists had a role in various movies that his name appears somewhere within the end credit. Being listed as a gaffer in end credit in notable films doesn't justify a table on his article with all the movies his name appeared in the end credit Graywalls (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay As the 3O respondant, thank you for your input. I myself was only arguing that the information should be in the article in some fashion, not necessarily in the career section. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the article being rewritten, but in my view, album releases are essential to a musician's career (not trivial or routine), so they should not be omitted. I've edited countless articles on bands and musical artists, and the throughline in all of them is musical releases and performances—the two things musicians do. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)