Talk:Suzi Quatro/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article could be more clear about her origins

The article fails to mention that Suzi Quatro was born in in Detroit, Michigan, and although, it mentions that she is American born, somehow it is not clear enough about this. The article needs to be way more definite about her origins. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I made the necessary correction in the heading. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Suzi Quatro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080605073459/http://www.suzyandlosquattro.com:80/ to http://www.suzyandlosquattro.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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} 14:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

TV Appearances

I don't see the point of "Guest Appearances" part. It lists a handful (which are no more important than others) out of the literally thousands Suzi has made in her time....Faren Short — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.193.250 (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Suzi Quatro. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715135754/http://www.quatrophonic.com/michael.htm to http://www.quatrophonic.com/michael.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720143234/http://www.suziquatro.com/news.htm to http://www.suziquatro.com/news.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720143234/http://www.suziquatro.com/news.htm to http://www.suziquatro.com/news.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214235942/http://metrotimes.com/music/glycerine-queen-forever-1.1304902?pgno=2 to http://metrotimes.com/music/glycerine-queen-forever-1.1304902?pgno=2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.suzyandlosquattro.com/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page/December%201986/138/857876/Stage+and+Screen

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) 07:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2018

copied from User talk:84.46.52.217#December 2018

Please refrain from making major edits on Wikipedia pages such as those you made to Suzi Quatro, without first discussing your changes on the article's talk page, Your edit(s) require discussion to establish consensus as this is considered a major change. Your edits do not appear to have been discussed and have been reverted. Thank you.

These are no major changes, it's just housekeeping:

1. The Hamburg detail is a copy from dewiki in #Personal live.
2. Google translate is no reliable source, converted to normal cite web style in #Satire.
3. Unfixable web archive error for Suzy & los Quattro, per WP:BLP the remaining unsourced paragraph had to be removed from #Satire.
4. Added date=1991 for the Danish band in #Satire.
5. Removed archived Picasa image for this band in #Satire.
6. Resolved {{when}} + {{fact}} in #Independence.

For #3 compare the now archived bot info. –84.46.52.217 (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

…and thanks for fixing the |importance= nit here. –84.46.53.94 (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

re Penthouse claim

Re this Penthouse stuff, an new anon editor (72.198.73.235) wrote:

I am suspect of the Penthouse claim. It is fact that Suzi was featured in Creem magazine, 1973, as a centerfold clad in her full body zippered leathers... (etc.)

(The person wrote this in the main article, I removed it from there.)

Since this is a BLP, the material is inflammatory, a person has contested the material, and the refs can't be checked without a subscription, I've removed all of the material re the Penthouse thing, per WP:BLP. Herostratus (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Herostratus: One anon editor cannot trump several potential references on the first page of google:suzy+quatro+penthouse plus Penthouse Magazine Vol.7 No.12 (1973) offered for sale on eBay. I'll revert that and add one of these references. Not the blogspot thingy, we don't want alternative facts possibly copied from enwiki, IIRC there's some guideline about cycles in references. But she's alive and kicking, and would certainly tell "us" where to stuff it if the Penthouse detail wasn't as it should be. –84.46.52.2 (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Turned out to be tricky, because "Punk Penthouse fodder" Nick Kent NME 1975  sources only support that Nick Kent used this phrase in NME. But she confirmed it on the added The Herald (Glasgow) (2017) reference, that should be good enough until somebody can prove that she lied just for fun. –84.46.52.2 (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Surely "Penthouse Magazine Vol.7 No.12 (1973) offered for sale on eBay" trumps everything? Still trying to hunt down a copy. Can only regret not buying one at the time. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC) ... but hang on, here it is at Amazon - no mention of Suzi on the cover?

amazon.co.uk doesn't know me for a preview, amazon.com is unhelpful wrt Penthouse, and amazon.de doesn't know £9.20 (ready for Brexit), but offers a clue, Penthouse US  was a thing. If you're mostly interested in a photo, it's kind of everywhere (with a copyright of nada, I can't share it directly, an overzealous edit filter doesn't grok that the "app.goo.gl" cruft is required to get a fresh access key: hxxps://photos.app.goo.gl/LGRQh4JYypjiudQ96) –84.46.52.2 (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

How confusing! Thanks for that link - I added the tt's myself. 46 years on, I still not sure if I'm a "tit-talent spotter" or a "frustrated record buyer". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Well all this is a bit confusing. If people would speak more plainly and less ornately, that'd be helpful in sorting all this out. I'm not exactly sure even of all that's being claimed above, but:

Contra the above, I haven't found any evidence that Quatro ever appeared in Penthouse. Googling various iterations of "suzi quatro penthouse" etc has not let to me anything. If I had found evidence in the primary source -- that is, in Penthouse itself -- that'd be no good, cause primary sources are not AAA-level and WP:BLP requires AAA-level sources for contentious, contended, or fraught material on persons. We need secondary sources to indicate that the material is notable and is being interpreted correctly (that is, not by use).

If I had found evidence in the primary source -- that is, in Penthouse itself -- that'd be no good, cause primary sources are not AAA-level and WP:BLP requires AAA-level sources for contentious, contended, or fraught material on persons. We need secondary sources to indicate that the material is notable and is being interpreted correctly (that is, not by us).

Again, I will point out that the only secondary sources are either not AAA-level for this purpose because they aren't accessible to me or to most people wanting to check the reference (since they're supscription sites) or are The Herald, which has the one phrase "Or how about the doyen of NME writers, Charles Shaar Murray, commenting on her appearance in Penthouse (NB: she didn’t take her clothes off)". There're are a few problems with this passage, one being that it doesn't support the material.

Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Playboy. I would not like that fact to be morphed in a statement in the Wikipedia to the effect of "Hillary Clinton appeared in Playboy (she kept her clothes on)". I get that Ms Quatro is a rock and roll musician and is not not the Secretary of State. Still... We are an encyclopedia, not Titter. Material -- in our voice, not even a quote -- like as "Unusually for that role, she was fully clothed" is not where we want to be going...

Also, handwaving about "it's everywhere" isn't how we source stuff.

Anyway, I don't think the whole section belongs (that is, "By October 1973, she had featured as a centerfold for Penthouse. Unusually for that role, she was fully clothed, although the feature did include risqué anecdotal captions. Frith noted that while any publicity was a bonus, "Tit-talent spotters don't buy many singles and record buyers aren't yet that frustrated.").

I don't think it belong because it's trivial -- really, out of that whole long and interesting Herald article, this is what you want to pull? That's lazy writing. But I'm pulling it because IMO it's a WP:BLP ref problem (can't access the refs but one, and that one doesn't support the material). Unless you want to claim that this action is madness, idiocy, or trolling, it's up to you to prove and convince that the material belongs.

I raised the question of the refs being not easily accessible at the BLP Noticeboard in a section under the name of this article. Hey maybe I'm wrong, y'all are welcome to chime in on the question raised. Herostratus (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just thought that the actual claimed issue of Penthouse would be the best place to start. If it's not there, then there is no point even looking for secondary sources. And we will know all those currently claimed are false. But I'd be surprised if Charles Shaar Murray had made such a blunder. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

"In 1974, she posed for a Penthouse centrefold - not nude but, at her insistence, in full leather costume and proudly declared that she had not worn a dress since childhood." (Best, Sophie (19 February 2005). "Leather-clad Suzi still living her rock'n'roll dream". The Age. Melbourne. p. 2.) Neil S. Walker (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh. That looks quite convincing. I would have thought that The Age was an accepted WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems like Suzy doesn’t remember the magazine name correctly, but she mentions just such an appearance in her memoir. [2] Slp1 (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

and here she talks about it in an interview. [3] Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2019

and Google books gives a a snippet view of the penthouse "in view" section for a 1973 edition suggesting she was indeed in [ https://books.google.ca/books?id=dbFXAAAAMAAJ&dq=suzi+quatro+penthouse&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=suzi+quatro+]Slp1 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Herostratus:

Teddy Jamieson (July 17, 2017). ""My leathers fit me real nice." Suzi Quatro on sex, drugs and rock and roll". The Herald (Glasgow). Retrieved February 11, 2019.

That's as clear as it gets and was stated above, we can certainly add a…

|authorlink=Charles Shaar Murray |quote=commenting on her appearance in Penthouse (NB: she didn’t take her clothes off)

…to emphasize it. Some vigilance on a BLP is fine, but removing good references isn't, The Herald (Glasgow) founded 1783 is a AAA-source  (whatever that is, I want a Wikilink for a discussion on Talk:List of sex symbols, where folks disagree about sources.) Finding original Penthouse sources is tricky, there were lots of international editions, lots of recent bankruptcies, etc. –84.46.53.230 (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Normally a specific edition would need to be given in the reference. But are we saying that the original Penthouse source(s) cannot be used as WP:PRIMARY? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

For a BLP something that could be considered as slander (by the living person, not some 3rd party including enwiki contributors) isn't okay, but as she actually confirmed it (correctly or not) that's no issue here. I don't get why you consider Penthouse as "primary source", AFAIK primary  is something in the direction of self-published or WP:NOR. –84.46.53.230 (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That is not my understanding of those terms. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Mine either. Self-published is unreliable rather than primary (altho I suppose self-published can also be primary, depending on what's in it and what you're reffing.) Herostratus (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But anyway, we don't Penthouse itself since now we have a couple good refs. The Age quote is good. I mean, we didn't have that before, I don't think. So good, it's good to dig up refs. the Dluxe interview is good too. Finding good refs is the best outcome of a discussion like this, so congrats to all.

(So we don't need The Herald, so thank God you can stop throwing that up, since while The Herald is a very very very reliable reference I will concede, it only says "her appearance in Penthouse" (the "NB: she didn’t take her clothes off" is not useful for further describing the nature of her appearance to a sufficient level of confidence), so the only material it supports is "There was a piece about Quatro in Penthouse". I can keep saying this all night, but now I won't have to I hope?)

FWIW the other refs aren't useable... Her book, as pointed out, says she was Playmate of the Month in Playboy. Can't really use that as ref that she appeared in Penthouse, even if it is just a misrememberance.

However, now we have The Age and Dluxe.

Oh, wait, OK, I'm pretty sure I've got the picture... hmmm the image ratio is pretty consistent in all the instances, it's about 1.55 to 1... Playboy is more like 2.18 to 1. Playboy centerfolds fold out twice, and so these number would be consistent with Penthouse centerfolds having just one fold... Also there's no text saying "Pet of the Month" or anything else on Quatro's pic. So if Penthouse centerfolds folded once and didn't have text in 1973, then the pic we're talking about is probably the centerfold and Quatro was Pet of the Month. If not, its just a photoshoot picture. I don't know if it's possible to know either of these things easily, tho. Maybe somebody knows. I mean neither of these things seem right to my memory, but this was a long time ago... If I could find any other Penthouse centerfolds on line, that'd confirm it. But, oddly, I can't.

But nevermind, assuming none of that matters, then fine, we have:

In 1974, she posed for a Penthouse centrefold - not nude but, at her insistence, in full leather costume and proudly declared that she had not worn a dress since childhood.

and

CY – In October 1973 you featured as a centrefold for Penthouse Magazine fully clothed – was that your idea? SQ – ‘laughs’ I find that very funny. They asked me to do the centrefold and I said yes no problem, but with my clothes on and they said ok ‘laughs’. It’s just so funny, how cheeky can you be?

As usable refs for whatever material you want to put in.

I mean, if you three really want to. It's OK material. There's a lot of material in The Herald article and the Dluxe interview that that's more helpful to the reader in getting a handle on Quatro IMO, but if it's three against one, OK. Herostratus (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The question posed was whether this was a BLP issue because one of two sources could not be easily verified. It was a valid question in part because of the nature of the content, which some might see as negative/inflammatory. As noted there are now multiple sources (including 2 in her own voice) confirming that she did appear in such a magazine. Not all are useable as sources for material in the article, (just as the evaluation of the photo size isn’t) but it is clear from all these data points that this isn’t a blp vio because of verifiability concerns. I agree that the real question is whether including it is WP:UNDUE. If it rates only a throwaway (and inaccurate) line in her whole book, it is questionable whether it deserves any space in a summary article here. if it does go in, in needs to be very short. Slp1 (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion about various sources here and the Blogger page claiming that there never was a Penthouse photo (but a photo in some other magazine) shows that this is a relevant topic, a 2016 interview about a 1973 event in a WP:42 source indicates that it would be WP:UNDUE to not mention this, otherwise we'd re-enact Orwell's Ministry of Truth or Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition on the wrong side of WP:NOTCENSORED. –84.46.53.230 (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Noooo 84.46.53.230, NOTCENSORED doesn't work like that, at all, it doesn't valorize or require publishing prurient material. Being new I understand it takes time to get all the details of these rule right away. Herostratus (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll ignore the WP:PRIMARY is a part of the WP:OR page  detail, because we agree on WP:BLP, and any further CYA desires on my side are addressed in WP:42.
To see any photo related to the List of Penthouse Pets check out this NSFW link, but the watermark 2007 might not match 1973, what I had linked above (hxxps) was the left part (watermark on the right would be lost), and of course we know already that Suzy Quatro is not in the List of Penthouse Pets, that's where I looked first when the issue popped up here. –84.46.53.230 (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Huh... those all look to be about 1.5 to 1... OTOH hand they have text... on the other other hand, those can't all be centerfolds... so are any of them centerfolds? On the other other other hand, as you say 1973 and 2007 are 34 years apart, so not sure if any of this means much...they still have a print edition... hmnh is says in the Penthouse article that Pets "customarily" wear a necklace with the Penthouse logo... the person in your link isn't wearing this, and Quatro also doesn't seem to be... but it does say only "customarily". Now I want to track this down and get an answer!

And yeah I agree it's not a BLP issue anymore. I don't have a super strong opinion about whether we should include it or not. Herostratus (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Uh-oh, wait, our article List of Penthouse Pets does not include Quatro... if she was not a Pet, then I don't think "centerfold" would be an accurate way to describe her appearance, right? There's only one "centerfold" in an issue (by definition -- "center" fold), and it is the Pet, right? All of the sources that do say Quatro was the centerfold... putatively reliable or not, reliable sources make lots of mistake in real life on stuff like this. We've already seen Quatro disremember, and The Age, I doubt if they really fact-checked to this level of detail... Herostratus (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

All this stuff about "1.5 to 1" and disputing the sources... You're starting to drift into WP:OR... Neil S. Walker (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Nah, WP:OR only applies to articles, not our talk page detective work to vet refs. As to disputing sources... absolutely. To be honest, the reliability of sources is like the reliability of eyewitness testimony in court: shockingly less than is supposed, but used because we have to have something. If the New Yorker said "centerfold", you can take that to bank, because they would have had somebody get ahold of the actual issue of the magazine or otherwise verify, because that's how they roll. Very few other entities vet to that rigor tho. Did the writer of The Age article just hear or read "centerfold" somewhere? Probably. Did he check this to the level of getting ahold of that issue of the magazine, or would The Age have independent fact-checkers that go to this level? I'd be surprised if they did. I'm sure they double-check important stuff (names of accident victims, exact words of what a judge said, etc etc) but they have to publish every day and I doubt they vet to that level of detail (I have read up on this some). I'm not of the mind "true or not, it's a Reliable Source™ so let's print it". Herostratus (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen any Penthouse magazine in real life, I don't know if the enwiki Pet list is complete (= covers all editions), but there's a good chance that only one edition existed in 1973, or that the Pet of the Month was always the same in all editions. I don't know if "centerfold" is necessarily the Pet of the Month; for Sasha Grey I checked it as far as the link above goes, so I also don't know if any of these photos was a centerfold, or if it's only any photo of her excluding the centerfold.
Presumably the blurb about Suzy Quatro with the unclear source was on the Suzy Quatro page for years, that she was the only "non-nude" Penthouse model ever is a part of the legend: It would be "notable" even if it somehow turns out to be untrue.

Possibly not centerfold  makes sense for me, 1973 and Can the Can was the begin of her career, Penthouse or others might have covered her elsewhere in their magazines. The leather for Emma Peel and Suzi Quatro was the thing (for 15 years old boys including me), not some expensive magazines with photos… –84.46.52.90 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ohhh... We know Quatro appears in a 1973 issue (indicated by this -- look down). Assuming that this 1973 appearance is the one we're talking about... Ebay has all the 1973 issues of Penthouse. None of them have Quatro on the cover, which I think the cover girl is The Centerfold model (not totally 100% sure, but seems very likely). And none of the issues mention Quatro's name on the cover, which would be very odd if she was The Centerfold for that issue. Looking at the link I just gave, it says (in small print) "In View this month, Suzi Quatro (etc.), and then "Mr Barber" and "Peter Cook" etc.). It seems that "View" (capitalized like that) probably indicates a section of the magazine called "View". It could be a typo, but... assuming it's not, I'd surmise that "View" is a section that includes several topics covered in a couple-few pages (with those subjects/people not given on the cover). So... looking more and more like "The Centerfold" is hyperbole that just got established and passed on.

(It could be, tho, that the 1973 thing is red herring and she appeared in a different year. Also, I could have been looking an a different edition (the British edition or whatever) for the month she appeared, and they didn't use her in that international edition. Neither of these are impossible, but...)

Anyway... I think that it could be that the famous picture folded out once. That's not the same as being The Centerfold, and anyway "could be" is not sufficient basis for statements of fact in articles, usually.

You can buy these issues on Ebay for a couple-few dollars. If we could pin down the month, and somebody was willing to take one for the team, we could settle this that way. Herostratus (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, Ebay has a few centerfolds too. So, 21st century centerfolds do fold out twice, BUT the one from 1973 (here, NSFW) only folds out once (this, Quatro's picture has the same aspect ratio as a 1973 centerfold), BUT then on the other hand that centerfold does include text, which no instances that I've found of Quatro's famous picture does. Since Quatro's picture doesn't, I think all in all that's another strike against Quatro being The Centerfold. Herostratus (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is the sort of basic, leather-based, research the WMF should be paying for. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh Jeez yeah, I'm so broke the moths in my wallet are starving. So anyway, a couple more thoughts about this question:

• If Penthouse had featured a fully clothed model as The Centerfold, a lot of regular readers would have been disappointed and some angry; this would seem to be really stupid marketing, and Bob Guccioni wasn't stupid.
• On the other hand, both of our good refs say Quatro was "a centerfold". Can an issue of Penthouse have more than one "centerfold", and assuming that Quatro's pic folded out the same as a regular centerfold (quite possible), does that make her "a centerfold"? I would say that there can be only one centerfold. If they had ten pages folding out, would they all be centerfolds? At any rate, saying "centerfold" will put some readers in the mind of "Oh, she was the Pet" I think, which appears to probably not be true. Herostratus (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that in all likelihood she was not the centrefold, based on the evidence. We don’t have to repeat probable inaccuracies. If something needs to be included then something like “in 1973 she appeared - fully clothed - in Penthouse magazine” is accurate and sufficient. Slp1 (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW worldcat tells me that various libraries hold back issues. Including SUNY Buffalo.[4], which also has a “Ask the librarian” online service. So if somebody felt like contacting them or another place, we might be able to nail down the year and issue more definitely.Slp1 (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

1975 (section: Work with Mickie Most)

"With the exception of Australia, her chart success faltered thereafter, as proven with her 1975 hit "Your Mamma Won't Like Me", which proved to be a moderate success in the UK." This sentence seems muddled. The latter half does not prove the former. The record (single?) mentioned is described both as a "hit" and a "moderate success" - perhaps to avoid awkward decision on whether to describe it as a song? Are "moderate success" and "hit" interchangeable? Could we get a chart position or sales figures to make this more concrete? Dichohecho (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

No 31. See Your Mamma Won't Like Me. 86.188.121.92 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)