Jump to content

Talk:R.A. the Rugged Man

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.40.250.86 (talk) at 19:49, 20 October 2014 (→Real Name and Birth Date). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biggie Smalls

According to this article, Biggie was not a fan of RA: [1] Let's not get into an edit war. If Biggie was a fan please provide a link proving it like I have. Thanks. MrBlondNYC 04:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is bogus and the alleged interview in the article came out years after Biggie had died (it's fake and no tape of that interview can be found.) While B.I.G. was alive he recorded two songs with R.A. The quote from biggie "I thought I was the illest" reffering to R.A. is fact and was published in Ego Trip magazine in 1994 while B.I.G. was still alive, the quote was also used several times while Jive was promoting R.A. as Crustified Dibbs from 1992 -1994. For more REAL proof not a bogus internet article check both Notorious B.I.G. albums 'Ready to die' and 'Life after Death', you'll see Biggie thanks 'Rugged Man' in the shout outs.

It's real easy to say the article is fake with ZERO proof. Just as I can say the Ego Trip article you referred to fake with no proof. What does BIG's death have to do with the validity of the article if it occurred before he died? Are the songs released after his death fake too? Maybe this is a whole big conspiracy against R.A. the Rugged Man. Yes, Peace magazine is trying to bring him down. Look, I don't want a childish edit war with you and it's obvious you love this guy. But you still need to have a citation for such a claim. As long as you don't remove the "Citation needed" tag, the sentence remains suspect as it should. And as long as that tag is there the entire sentence can be removed at any time in good faith. So please keep that in mind. MrBlondNYC 20:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ONCE AGAIN--- For more REAL proof from the real NOTORIOUS B.I.G. check both Notorious B.I.G. albums 'Ready to die' and 'Life after Death', you'll see Biggie thanks 'Rugged Man' in the shout outs. --- Did you know B.I.G. personally? Try asking the people associated with B.I.G. and R.A., that knew the both of them. Jive records could not have used B.I.G.'s quote without serious lawsuit from Bad Boy if it were not true. Yes, and the magazine with the fake interview saying B.I.G. didn't like R.A. can not produce a taped recording of the interview. They have been asked to before and can't produce. It is false. That's why it was never published in a legitimate magazine because any magazine worth something would've feared a lawsuit. Don't you think a long lost B.I.G. interview would've been able to be published in a far more esteemed publication such as XXl, or SOURCE, or even URB ? Ofcourse, anyone would have taken that interview if it were real but nobody wants to publish an interview with no recorded proof. understand? In order for VIBE, SOURCE, KING, etc, to publish something like that the legal department needs the recorded tapes to varify if it is true.

Please provide a citation of the quote. A citation of which magazine, author, article, date title will suffice. Just because Biggie thanked RA in his liner notes does not mean he said "I thought I was the illest". It means he said "Shout out to R.A. the Rugged Man" and that's not the same thing. Reverting good faith edits could result in blocking. MrBlondNYC 22:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notorious B.I.G. quote "I thought I was the illest" reffering to R.A. the RUGGED MAN (Crustified Dibbs at the time) was published by EGO TRIP MAGAZINE (1994) Vol. 1, Issue 3: Smif-N-Wessun/on the cover. Published by E-Wilson who now is head at XXL, Sasha Jenkins, Chairman Mao, etc. It is a fact that the quote is in this issue. If it is removed from wikipedia the way it is written now you are removing historical truth. Please, stop trying to rewrite history and violate peoples reputations and names out of hate. Thank you.

Haha. I don't "hate" RA the Rugged Man. Wikipedia wants all articles to be correct and prefers them to be cited. Quotes especially HAVE to be cited or they get removed. Sorry but there's rules here. Another rule is you have to provide edit summaries along with your edits. Another is you have to sign your name when you write on the talk pages. Just remember the rules and there won't any Bloodshed Hoo Ha Hoo. OK? MrBlondNYC 01:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Die Rugged Man Die.jpg

Image:Die Rugged Man Die.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Explanation Needed

"Due to violent and disgusting behavior R.A. was blackballed and feared by music industry executives throughout much of the 1990's." - there has got to be specifics on what the "violent and disgusting behavior" is. thanks. Sfrostee 5/26/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.231.249 (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year of birth

This XXL article states he was born in 1974. And if he was signed to Jive at 18, in 1992, that would also put his birthday in 1974. However an IP-editor has been removing this information and claiming that it's incorrect. This Amazon review states he was born in 1975, but of course an Amazon review isn't a reliable source. It would also mean he was signed to Jive at 17 in 1992 or at 18 in 1993, but not 18 in 1992. Can this IP-editor find any reliable sources to contradict those already referenced? If not, s/he should stop removing the info. Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with R.A. the Rugged Man on the Combat Jack show at 31:35 the date of birth is discussed. R.A. explains wikipedia has inaccurate information http://www.2dopeboyz.com/2013/03/25/r-a-the-rugged-man-on-the-combat-jack-show/ http://allindstrom.com/2013/03/combat-jack-rugged-man/?utm_term=[Allindstrom.com]&utm_source=Allindstrom.com&utm_medium=twitter http://nahright.com/news/2013/03/25/r-a-the-rugged-man-on-the-combat-jack-show/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.182.90.147 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.182.90.147 (talk)

DELETE this page. My rights are violated

This is R.A. the Rugged Man, I continue to send messages with no response. I want the wikipedia page that is written about me removed. I do not approve the constant false and private information that continues to go up on the page. This is my life and you are falsely representing me through your website. Wikipedia is the first thing that anyone reads when they google something and it is violating my rights. I do not want my name on your website anymore.

Edit request on 10 February 2013

Enough. The request to delete the article has been asked and answered with an explanation and links to the various policies. We cannot help it if you are not happy with the answer. Singularity42 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is R.A. the Rugged Man, I continue to send messages with no response. I want the wikipedia page that is written about me removed. I do not approve the constant false and private information that continues to go up on the page. This is my life and you are falsely representing me through your website. Wikipedia is the first thing that anyone reads when they google something and it is violating my rights. I do not want my name on your website anymore. RAThorburn (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the "false and private information" that you are referring to? Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is never ending. Since this page has gone up it continues to be bombarded with false and private information. It has been non stop through out the years since this page about me was created. Having false information constantly posted up as facts on this page is a violation. Do you really need me to go through the entire history of false information that has been posted up about me? You can have some one contact me direct ratheruggedman516@yahoo.com and when they contact me I can leave a phone number so we can get this resolved and the page gets deleted. I'm not going to go back and forth arguing with somebody on this message board. You can not continue to violate the rights of hard working people just because wikipedia is a known organization. RAThorburn (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll look into how this works. I'm not sure the subject of an article can request its deletion simply on the grounds that it's a target for vandalism (lots of people's pages are targets). What's more likely to happen in that case is that the page gets protected and more closely patrolled, so only registered users can edit it and any new info is checked for verifiability more stringently. There's no need to go through the article's history, but if you could point out what "false and private information" is currently in the article that would help. Thanks. Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll probably want to take this up with an administrator; here's how you can do that - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who protects me from the "registered users"? or so-called " verifiability" just because some media source claims it to be true? I do not want to be part of wikipedia, they already violated and slandered my name on several occasions. RAThorburn (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism is mostly carried out by unregistered users editing from anonymous IPs. As for verifiability, Wikipedia has guidelines regarding what can be considered a reliable source. You can correct information yourself also. If you specify what "false and private information" is currently on the page I might be able to change or remove it. As I said though, I don't think the subject of an article simply not wanting a Wikipedia article is grounds for deletion. I'll find out though. Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "Personal life" section in its entirety. Unsourced or poorly sourced material won't appear there again. Is the content of the article okay now? If not, let me know specifically which information is false or private and I'll see if it can be corrected or removed. Thanks. Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not good enough. I do not wish to have my name used on wikipedia. I do not trust the registered users or administrators and I do not like the way my name is constantly slandered. I do not approve of the content or my name being used. If you do not have the authority to remove it please have someone who does contact me. RAThorburn (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has the authority to simply delete the page. Again, I don't think simply not wanting your name on Wikipedia is grounds for deletion (just like if you didn't want your name in a magazine, they wouldn't be obliged to cut it out). Of course, if there's libelous material in the article, and if you'll point it out to me, I'll correct it or remove it. If you won't tell me specifically what information is false or private, or if you just want the page deleted irrespective of what's currently in the article, then there's nothing more I can do. In that case, you'd be best to follow the instructions here: Wikipedia:Contact_us_-_Subjects Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This scenario is covered at WP:BIODEL. If the subject of the biographical article requests deletion, then if the subject is relatively unknown and not a public figure, Wikipedia will generally favour deleting the article. However, this is not a case of the subject being relatively unknown, etc. This is a well known hip-hop artist under a signed label, who has been involved in high-selling recordings, and has an official website. If a person signs a recording label, and publishes high-selling recordings under that label, that person cannot claim to be a non-public figure. As such, I am not inclined to do a good-faith deletion nomination. Singularity42 (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who's rules are these? They are not written laws. If you are not inclined to delete my page then put me in touch with the higher up person at wikipedia who is. Obviously someone at wikipedia is capable. Here is what you told me "I dont think simply not wanting your name on Wikipedia is grounds for deletion (just like if you didn't want your name in a magazine".... but in reality its not "simply not wanting my name on wikipedia".. I have been slandered time and time again on wikipedia. if Any magazine slandered my name with as much false information as wikipedia has through out the years the magazine would be sued and held liable. If I go through the history of false information that has been spread on this page the list would be endless. I demand you have somebody contact me ratheruggedman516@yahoo.com so this issue can be resolved. RAThorburn (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.182.90.147 (talk) [reply]

I think it falls under freedom of speech, same as the press. If an editor can source it, then we can add it. Our standards are far higher than tabloid and regular news. We only include material that we think is worthy, not just dirty laundry for the sake of using it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People higher up in Wikipedia are able to remove the article - but they will only do it if they decide that its subject is not "notable". There is a consensus that you are notable. However most editors, and particularly registered editors, are concerned that statements in the article should be verified by reputable sources, and relevant to the article. So we would like to help you. But your saying "the list would be endless" does not help us. Let's start with the piece about agent orange. It looks unlikely to me. Is it true? Is there any trustworthy published evidence for it? Maproom (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask this guy: user talk:Jimbo, but like others have said, you are probably to famous for Wikipedia not to have an article about you. The article seems fine (as in not mentioning anything unreasonable) to me as I read it now, but the bit about next studio album needs updating. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About written laws, I think THIS is what goes in the US. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been slandered for years on wikipedia time and time again. You say you won't remove my page because I am a public figure but I am a person who has been violated continuously on your site. I do not trust your administrators, they have put up false and private information up countless times. you have already slandered my name on far too many occasions. Rather than making it a legal issue why not just cooperate and delete my page? And if you are not authorized to do so have someone who is.. contact me ratherugggedman516@yahoo.com RAThorburn (talk) 9:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Name

Is there a reason his full name is not in the lead? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no good source on it. It's possibly Reginald Arbuckle, but he "won't divulge what the initials stand for". Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed a valid reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this interview from March 25, he reveals that R.A. stands for Richard Andrew, but that that's his middle name (skip to 31:20). His first name remains unknown. Wetdogmeat (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the link to 2dopeboyz is now a different interview, and the actual interview is located here. Skip to 31:20 to hear him state his middle name. Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you were a hardcore rapper and your real name was Reginald Arbuckle, would you want anyone to know? Haha, even his Dad was good enough to refer to him as "R.A." in the documentary footage shot before his death. 91.125.215.160 (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Father

Article currently says "R.A.'s father, Staff Sgt. John A. Thorburn, was a Vietnam veteran affected by Agent Orange. R.A.'s home and family life was significantly affected by his father's experience."

I have no reason to think this is not accurate, but is information of this kind ok to source to a personal website? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint from IP (claiming to be the subject)

How can wikipedia get away with this?.. they deleted all of the factual information and start the page with "R.A. began recording independently in the 2000's". .... R.A. - an artist that has been signed and had released material on majors since the beginning of the 90's.. This is not cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.182.90.147 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the IP's comments down to the bottom of the page, as per discussion page guidelines. Singularity42 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Okay, two things:
  1. Where does the article say that he began recording independently in the 2000's? I do not see that anywhere in the article. In fact, the article says he has been active since 1992.
  2. Stop making contradictory arguments. Your first complaint was that the page should be deleted because too much "false" information was being put up (while refusing to give details), and you did not trust page protection, etc. Your request to delete the page was denied, and the community begain pruning back the article to remove everything that could not be verified by reliable sources. Now you are complaining that too much information is being removed?! Singularity42 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this "rapper" is trying to take control over the article so that it says only what he wants to have it say, and then, make it follow his personal agenda. Wikipedia is an open platform anyone can edit, and what information is, or not, included, doesn't depend of the subject, but of the editors that volunteer here. — ṞṈ 21:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Okay Answers: #1 it Did say... "he began recording independently in the 2000's"... Did I just make it up? NO.. and if you check an edit or two back it was removed after the complaint was made. Thank you.

  1. 2: They did not "Prune back and remove everything that could not be verified by reliable sources". They removed all information, Including factual well sourced information. And the argument isn't contradictory. I wanted the information removed that was false or else I wanted the page deleted. But what I definitely didn't want was the page to remain up only to have all of the factual documented information removed. That is no contradiction. If the page remains I want Factual information and accolades.
  2. 3 as far as fitting personal agenda. No. I want it to fit "truth" and "honest" agenda and "truthful" well-known Accolades to be reported and false information removed. That is pretty easy. Just because you are offended by the "Rappers" displeasure in wikipedia is no reason to try to diminish his wikipedia page. And yes, if this continues we would like the page removed permanently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.182.90.147 (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boo, bullshit, from what I've seen since I was a teenager, back in the 90's, Rugged Man is a notoriously good self-publicist (and promotionist) and yet, also very adept at keeping aspects of his personal life out of the media that he doesn't want publicised. I would also assume that he's got better things to do than get personally involved in an edit war on FUCKING WIKIPEDIA. Really? Find better things to do, fellas. 91.125.215.160 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is from quite a long time ago, so its not really relevant anymore, but I saw this and had to reply. Wikipedia has an alexa rank of 6. Hundreds of millions of people come here for information. If you search for "ra rugged man", the VERY FIRST result is this article. If you were a "notoriously good self publicist", dont you think maybe you would care about what the most popular information repository in the world said about you? This is likely the first place people will come to when theyre looking for information on him. It is completely conceivable that he is (or was) involved in an edit war on his article. Lots of people get a publicist to do this, but as you said, he seems to prefer to self-publicise. Benboy00 (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial overstepping by Hahc21

This article was fine, there was a regular cadre of interested editors who made sure this stayed up-to-date and up-to-standards about a contemporary pop culture figure. The only issue (which presumably brought it to the attention of disinterested parties, i.e. admins who just like using their powers rather than editing articles they care for the subject matter of) was when the subject himself wanted the whole article deleted. I mean, really? A BLP issue? How and when has "Associated Acts" ever been a BLP issue??? Sure, overzealous fanboys add more (and dubious) connections than are necessary, but that's true on probably every single artist with an infobox, and they're quickly returned to status quo by mere non-admin editors. Absurd. Ignore the anon-IP who claims to be RA and let the editors who are more interested in maintaining a proper, informative, and well-cited article than let power-hungry admins just delete entire pages. He's well established as a writer and critic, and it was well-cited. He's been published in at least ten magazines on subjects ranging from film to boxing. But noooooo, Hahc21 just decides that's a BLP issue and deletes it. Sigh.... JesseRafe (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look. I have had a personal talk though email with the real R. A. Thorburn, and the removal of most information is done under the guidance of our WP:BLP mandatory policy, and at his personal request. I deleted all the information that was not properly cited. If you find good references for those sources, you are very welcomed to add them again; otherwise, I'd recommend not do do so. I am doing a neutral editorial oversight of the content, given that it has been the subject of many issues that violate our current policies. I agree that I removed some uncontroversial information like the long list of associated acts and producers, so you can add those back again. Anyways, I'd prefer if you discuss any addition (apart from those that are very uncontroversial) here at the talk page. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 03:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're personal talk said nothing about keeping the page up and removing all credible information, the talk was about removing false information or deleting the page. Here is articles and many sources where you can hopefully do a respectable job and fix this page as soon as possible.

The October 2006 issue of The Source featured R.A. The Rugged Man verse on Uncommon Valor: A Vietnam Story as its "Hip-Hop Quotable" of the month and HipHopDX named it as the "Verse of the Year" [7] AllHipHop.com states that "This record will be remembered most for R.A.'s robotic flow recounting his own father's story of war while absolutely murdering the beat." http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/interviews/id.693/title.2006-hiphopdx-awards

Here is a bio on IMDB http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1587402/bio

proof of R.A. on Jive http://www.last.fm/music/Crustified+Dibbs

http://www.google.com/#q=crustified+dibbs+jive&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=ca0vUaqBHePA0AH2yoDgDw&ved=0CAwQ_AUoAQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43148975,d.dmg&fp=49d359aa7bf455f6&biw=1160&bih=686

Proof R.A. on Priority and Capitol http://books.google.com/books?id=Wr1lmklsD8QC&pg=PT534&dq=ra+the+rugged+man+priority&hl=en&sa=X&ei=960vUceWPLD00QHQr4HIAg&sqi=2&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBg

R.A. from suffolk County Long Island http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.10240/title.ra-the-rugged-man-talks-latest-release-smithhaven-mall

R.A. was a journalist for SOURCE, VIBE, MASS APPEAL, KING, COMPLEX, etc. http://books.google.com/books?id=tyYEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA46&dq=ra+the+rugged+man+vibe+magazine&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ObEvUbjtL-6P0QGi9IDQDw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ra%20the%20rugged%20man%20vibe%20magazine&f=false Complex http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2005/12/ushers_confessi.html etc.. Mass Appeal http://massappeal.com/chuck-norris-kicks-r-a-the-rugged-mans-ass/ http://babylonfalling.tumblr.com/post/5805933806/r-a-the-rugged-man-interviews-scarlett-johansson

R.A.'s PERSONAL LIFE about my father well documented by Newsday http://www.newsday.com/news/health/can-dad-s-agent-orange-exposure-cause-birth-defects-1.1856373 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WNNL2MIE8w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivspltnMCr0

R.A. currently has a web series through MTV's film.com called Film School where he breaks down his love for cinema

http://guycodeblog.mtv.com/2012/06/22/r-a-the-rugged-man-film-school/ http://guycodeblog.mtv.com/2012/07/20/movies-r-a-the-rugged-man/ http://www.film.com/uncategorized/film-school-with-r-a-the-rugged-man-r-a-goes-hollywood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.182.90.147 (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Useful resources for editors

Source Url
bio on IMDB link
Village Voice article link
2006 HipHopDX Awards link
Last.fm link
Tony Hawks Underground video game link
Suffolk county, Long Island ref link
Complex link
Mass Appeal link
Mass Appeal 2 link
Aget Orange Newsday 1 link
Aget Orange Newsday 2 link
Aget Orange Newsday 3 link
MTV Film School 1 link
MTV Film School 2 link
MTV Film School 3 link
  • Sacha Jenkins; Elliott Wilson (3 December 1999). Ego Trip's: Book of Rap Lists. Macmillan. pp. 156–. ISBN 978-0-312-24298-5. Retrieved 3 March 2013.
  • Vladimir Bogdanov (2003). All Music Guide to Hip-Hop: The Definitive Guide to Rap & Hip-Hop. Backbeat Books. pp. 534–. ISBN 978-0-87930-759-2. Retrieved 3 March 2013.
  • Vibe Media Group (April 2004). Vibe. Vibe Media Group. pp. 46–. ISSN 10704701 Parameter error in {{issn}}: Invalid ISSN.. Retrieved 3 March 2013.

DOB

I am removing the DOB. I understand this may be controversial, but at the moment, I believe there are multiple sites with multiple dates, none of which are highly reliable. In some situations, if there are differing dates from decent sources, we will report it exactly that way–something along the line of "some sources report X while other sources report Y". That may be the way to go, and if someone want to craft such a sentence, we can make sure that the sources are adequate and report it that way. However, one cannot have multiple dates in the info box, or in the simple parenthetical remark after the first mention of the name.It ought to be a stand-alone sentence or paragraph. We must also consider the possibility that the year can be identified, or narrowed down, but the month and day might elude satisfactory referencing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are multiple sites with multiple dates, just one site that says 1974 and another that says he was 18 in 1992, corroborating the 1974 date. There's nothing controversial about the day either, January 10. See his official Facebook and Twitter. Given that date, and given the widely reported fact that he signed to Jive in 1992 at the age of 18, that puts his birth year at 1974, as per the XXL article. Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I haven't seen the site with other years, I'll have to check.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm going to restore the birthdate. Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's being persistently removed, seemingly by the subject. I have no idea why, as it's fully referenced and correct. I can only speculate that he doesn't want people to know how old he is. Since Wikipedia is not a platform for personal promotion, and the subjects of BLP articles don't have authority over the inclusion of publically available information, I have to suggest the article be protected. Wetdogmeat (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with R.A. the Rugged Man on the Combat Jack show at 31:35 the date of birth is discussed. http://www.2dopeboyz.com/2013/03/25/r-a-the-rugged-man-on-the-combat-jack-show/ http://allindstrom.com/2013/03/combat-jack-rugged-man/?utm_term=[Allindstrom.com]&utm_source=Allindstrom.com&utm_medium=twitter http://nahright.com/news/2013/03/25/r-a-the-rugged-man-on-the-combat-jack-show/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.182.90.147 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article claims that the year of birth we have listed is incorrect, but he refuses to correct it; he just wants it removed. This means that he doesn't want people to know his year of birth. We therefore have reason to believe that he is lying in the interview referenced above. The date is fully referenced. The subject has not taken issue with the claim that he signed to Jive in 1992 at the age of 18. If he was 18 in 1992, then he either turned 18 or 19 that year, which means he was either born in 1973 or 1974. His birthday in on January 10, which means that unless he signed to Jive in the first 9 days of the year, he turned 18 in 1992 (he was either 18 for 9 days of the year or for 357 days of the year). This means that his year of birth is 1974. This is also explicitly stated by XXL magazine. For the subject to simply say the information is incorrect is not sufficient to contradict or undermine the secondary sources we have, since the subject refuses to correct the information and we therefore have reason to believe he is lying when he claims it is incorrect. Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Building back content

Much of the content was removed, due to some diputs about what was factual and what was not. I'd like to start the process of building back the contnet.

RA suggests the following wording, or something like it was in the article at some time:

At 18, R.A. signed with Jive Records and then in the mid-1990s signed with Priority Records/EMI. His contract was later absorbed by Capitol Records but he began recording independently in the early 2000s. He has worked some of the greatest in history including the Notorious B.I.G., Mobb Deep, Sadat X, Akinyele, Chuck D of Public Enemy, Jedi Mind Tricks, Kool G Rap, Wu-Tang Clan, Rakim, and producers Trackmasters, Erick Sermon, DJ Quik, Buckwild, Havoc, Alchemist, and Ayatollah. He was featured on all three of Rawkus’s Soundbombing albums, as well as the platinum-selling WWF Aggression album, performing the theme song for Chris Jericho. In Ego Trip Vol. 1, Issue 3, the Notorious B.I.G. was quoted as saying, "I thought I was the illest," when referring to R.A.[2] He is closey associated to the Wu-tang clan and its various associates.

Of course, we do not simply copy and paste, we decide what to include and how to write it. For example, I don't think we can refernce the list as "the greatest" without some solid references.

However, it is a starting point.

The opening two sentences seem fine, if they can be supported by references.

I suggest:

In 1992, R.A. signed with Jive Records and then in the mid-1990s signed with Priority Records/EMI.

supported by:

BLP thread regarding article

Hi all. I've filed a request at the BLP noticeboard regarding this article. You will find it here. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 14:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where he is from in lead sentence and lede

I removed this from the lede per WP:OPENPARA. It should be included in the body of the article. --Malerooster (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name Issue

As far as I can tell, the problem with the name is the R.A and the DOB, not the thorburn. The thorburn is certainly his real name, so it seems right to put it up there. I shall replace it tomorrow if no-one has any objections. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I reverted the addition in (I suppose) error, my apologies. This has been a very conflicting article and I had this idea that we never sourced the DOB or real name. If we did then by all means. I've reverted myself. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, both his name and his DOB have been reliably sourced. I'll try to explain the controversies.
  1. The name: The initials R.A. stand for Richard Andrew (he divulged this himself on the Combat Jack show), but Richard and Andrew are his middle names, and his first name is still not public information, so when the lede began Richard Andrew Thorburn he felt that it made it look like his first name is Richard. Which it does, of course, but (and this is my argument) no more so than a lede that begins R.A. Thorburn makes it look like his first name is something beginning with R. He obviously just prefers to be referred to as R.A. I personally think it's daft and unencyclopedic to write the initials when we know what they actually stand for, just because the subject prefers it that way (WP:PROMO). BLPs typically start with the fullest known statement of the name of the subject. That's why someone chose to begin with his stage name instead, and I think that's preferrable to the half-measure of just using the initials. The article should really begin Richard Andrew "R.A." Thorburn as per any other BLP where the common name is a nickname.
  2. The DOB: The article had long stated that Thorburn signed to Jive in 1992 at the age of 18. Now, you don't have to be a math whiz to deduce a DOB from that. He was either born in 1973 or 1974. Since his birthday is January 10th, the overwhleming probability is that he turned 18 in 1992. He could have signed to Jive in the first week of the year and then turned 19, but he's also quoted as stating that he was 18 while on Jive. Anyway, the dates (both the DOB and 1992/age 18 info) was sourced in the Village Voice, XXL and a few other places, but he kicked up a stink and insisted that he was not born in 1974. But he refused to divulge when he was actually born. He has openly stated (on the Combat Jack show) that he doesn't want his DOB to be known. So he doesn't want the information corrected, he wants it redacted. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about his reliability based on that fact alone... Anyway, at some point it became clear that pretending we have no idea what year he was born is absurd and embarrassing when we're still openly stating that he signed to Jive in 1992 at the age of 18, so this was changed to "in the early nineties", despite the fact that the info was reliably sourced. We essentially censored the article at the behest of the subject for reasons known only to him (I mean it's not like he's passing for any younger than his late thirties in any case; he's been putting out music for 20+ years). And this is info that couldn't possibly be construed as libelous, it's a DOB and a name for crying out loud. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that a comment has been made on this at the blp noticeboard, and a decision was made to leave out the RA and the DOB due to the subjects OTRS stuff. I was merely saying that the Thorburn bit does not seem to be the problem. If you think the DOB and RA should be added, I suggest that you post on the BLP noticeboard. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, see 'Real Name and Birth Date' section below. He wasn't necessarily signed to Jive at 18. It wasn't reliably sourced, after all. 92.40.250.86 (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did post there. People didn't really engage with the facts or the arguments and seemed pretty quick to remove the info, even to the extent of effectively censoring the article (changing the sourced "1992" to "early nineties" so as to not imply the undesired DOB). Odd, unencyclopedic, WP:PROMO like woah, but whatever, I'm not about to go on a crusade to get it reinstated. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real Name and Birth Date

.

According to research (all from free websites and online databases):

R.A.'s real first name is Ryan, and his actual year of birth is 1973 (not 74), which makes his DOB 1-10-73. Yodabyte (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Well, for one, the site claiming his name is Ryan suggests his name is "Ryan Andrew Thorburn", but Richard-Andrew is known (stated by him) as his middle name, and what the initials stand for, so there's a conflict of information there - in my mind the subject is the most reliable source, therefore any other source can suck it. However, I actually came to the same conclusion about his birth year. He mentions in an interview:

"That happened to me early in the game. I was an 17, 18 year-old kid at the record label getting deals, so when my career felt like it was over and I was blackballed and all that stuff, I was only 21 years-old!"

There's also another interview (arguably not a reliable source since it's a blog, but the author of the blog is considerably reliable and the interview contains accurate details only R.A. would know, so it's safe to say these are all R.A.'s words) which states:

"Flatline: You were 18 or 19 when you hooked up with Jive Records right? R.A.: Well, goin' on 19 I had nine record deals on the table for a lot of money because I kept holdin' out..."

This is important - he got an offer for a deal at 18 (ED: actually to correct myself there, he got nine deals on the table "going-on 19" - for all we could know, he waited for a better offer until he was 20+), but didn't necessarily sign with them straight away, until he passed 19, suggesting, but not definitively confirming, a 1973 birth year. He also says something to suggest a 1975 birth year but it's rather vague. Also, in the former (unkut) interview he's also quoted...

"R.A. Rugged The Man: I met my boy Bub, who was a neighborhood beat boxer – Human Beatbox Bub. He was like fifteen, sixteen and I was like eleven. He was in a shopping center and I seen this kid blowing-up a shopping center window with an M-80. He was like, “C’mere kid, watch this!”. He blew off the window and we were friends ever since. He’d say, “Yo, check out this tape! It’s Whodini ‘Escape’, it’s the best album ever!”"

Whodini's "Escape" was released late in 1984 so if he was still 11 or possibly 12 by that time (and didn't hear it until next year after his birthday), it would still suggest 1973 (72 at the earliest, 74 latest) as his real birth year. So in case anyone is in a rush to go adding more details, perhaps they need to pay attention to all the available sources instead of just a select handful, and even then there is always room for error (though I'm pretty satisfied with the likelihood of 1973) so let's not rush to tell the subject we know his birthdate better than him before we look stupid, m'kay? 92.40.250.86 (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:R.A._the_Rugged_Man&oldid=630417139"