Talk:Little Richard/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Age

Is this guy really 76? I find that hard to believe, I thought 80 year olds had all wrinkles and saggy skin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.27.30 (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the most incredible things about Little Richard is he never aged. If you compare pictures of him from the 50's, 60's, and 70's to those now he looks almost exactly the same. Eatspie (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with a process called plastic surgery? Tom Green (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2009 (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 :)

• "white" :
  • White, Charles. (2003). ''The Life and Times of Little Richard: The Authorised Biography.'' Omnibus Press.
  • White, Charles.(2003).
  • White, Charles. (2003). ''The Life and Times of Little Richard: The Authorised Biography.'' Omnibus Press., Pg. 227.
  • White, Charles. (2003). ''The Life and Times of Little Richard: The Authorised Biography.'' Pg. 15-17. Omnibus Press.
  • White, Charles. (2003). ''The Life and Times of Little Richard: The Authorised Biography.'' p. 17. Omnibus Press.
  • White, Charles. (2003). ''The Life and Times of Little Richard: The Authorised Biography.'' p. 18. Omnibus Press.
  • White, Charles. (2003). ''The Life and Times of Little Richard: The Authorised Biography.'' p. 103. Omnibus Press.
  • White, Charles. (2003). ''The Life and Times of Little Richard: The Authorised Biography.'' p. 16. Omnibus Press.
  • White, Charles. (2003). ''The Life and Times of Little Richard: The Authorised Biography.'' p. 25. Omnibus Press.

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To join Little Richard

On Bob Dylans page it says "To join Little Richard.", but on Little Richard's page it says ""To follow Little Richard." which one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.16.217 (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The "aliases" in the info box

i'd like to remove most of the aliases currently in the info box - they're not his pen names, stage names or (except for The Georgia Peach) nicknames, but more like "titles" bestowed on him (by himself or whoever else). if there are no objections, i'll go ahead and delete all but The Georgia Peach. (if they're going to be kept, though: "the undisputed/true/real queen of rock & roll" is the way i've heard it, not "king" as currently given.) thanks Sssoul (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

update: okay so i've gone ahead and made that change, as well as finetuning some of the stylistics in the article. hope that's some help. Sssoul (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

welcome back from mars ssssoul - Little Richard IS known as THE KING, The ARCHITECT OF ROCK n ROLL, and a number of other nicknames. The Geogia Peach is also a nickname, but not as common as the aforementioned. man, you're so misinformed! once i learn how to lodge a complaint through the wiki process, i would love to do so. while i appreciate some of your feedback, much is inaccurate and senseless. Smoovedogg (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.211.70 (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed

since someone restored this paragraph after the notable facts in it had been entered in their proper chronological order, i guess it needs to be discussed here:

In recent years, Rev. Richard Penniman's spiritual fervor has increased, with him testifying more often on stage again and preaching, such as when he eulogized his old friend Wilson Pickett at his January 2006 funeral, when he officiated at a wedding of twenty couples in December 2006, and when he spoke at Ike Turner's December 2007 funeral. He also allowed a DVD to be recorded of him preaching as he sang "Precious Lord" at one of his bandmembers mother's funeral in June 2008.

if there's a quote from Richard Penniman himself saying that his "spiritual fervor has increased in recent years" then it needs to be cited; i don't see how anyone but the man himself can make that assessment. similarly, if he has indeed been testifying and preaching more in recent years, then it shouldn't be hard to find a reliable source to support that statement. meanwhile, the statement about a DVD being made of him "preaching as he sang" at a private funeral in June 2008 is 100% unclear; it needs to be rephrased so that it's comprehensible, it needs a source *and* it needs to be established whether a private funeral of someone not apparently in the public eye is notable for an encyclopedia's purposes.

oh and: i'm putting the "needs citations" tag back on the article. the tag is not an insult, it's simply a request for help that is indeed needed. (eliminating tags without providing reliable sources doesn't fix anything.) thanks Sssoul (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Orientation

The article does not make it clear what orientation he currently is / defines as. The category ex-gay people was recently removed - why? F W Nietzsche (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

He is straight now-71.241.91.35 (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that everything about his very public statements about his personal life have been deleted and the article contains nothing whatsoever about his personal life is a fine example of what makes Wikipedia a joke in the eyes of serious writers and publishers. --Tysto (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, there are MANY articles at Wikipedia that suffer at the hand of "editors" that take ownership and push a view. Proxy User (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Testimonials Section

I have removed a large section which consisted of only positive testimonials about this artist. This not only violates WP:POV, but is quite superfluous for the article. If some of these quotes are considered worthy of noting in the article, it may be more encyclopedic to mention them in the text, rather than in their own section. 2help (message me) 16:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this debate has developed further at my talk page. 2help (message me) 16:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop incorporating the praise section into the lead section, as it is far too detailed. 2help (message me) 19:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

and please read WP:Peacock, okay? the outline of the man's career, his awards and the statements from other musicians make his stature abundantly clear, and adding unattributed POV terms ("greatest", "most influential ever", etc) just hurts the article (besides being against Wikipedia policy).

another (relatively minor) request is: can we please reconsider the order in which the artists are listed in those "influence" paragraphs. the current order may be "the order in which they appeared in the charts", but since that isn't at all obvious (or particularly relevant), it just looks haphazard. Sssoul (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

... and the "aliases" in the info box

to 142.165.211.70: it would be great if you'd start using the talk page to discuss these things, but: one of your recent edit summaries asks "what is the problem with listing 'The King', he is most often referred to as such, along with The Architect of Rock n Roll - where's the redundancy?"
my reply: 1] the "also known as" field already included "the King of Rockin' and Rollin' Rhythm & Blues Soulin'"; 2] it is not in fact Little Richard who is "most often referred to" as "the King"; and 3] see Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Alias: the "also known as" field is for professional names the artist has used, not for honorifics, nicknames, etc, so in fact ALL of those listed should be removed - which i've now done.
meanwhile, the overly repetitive "influence" section is now too monotonous to read, and piling up more of same is just hurting the article. Sssoul (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So, where is "The King of Rockin' and Rollin' Rhytm & Blues Soulin'?" Someone keeps taking it out of the article without commentary. And again, he is most commonly introducved and refferred to as The Originator, The Emancipator, The Architect of Rock n Roll when being introduced onstage. I think this should be reinserted.--142.165.92.247 (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How someone is announced on stage is not an "alias" - see Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Alias. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Per dictionary definition: Alias: An assumed name. Those tacked on titles are not by definition, either in a dictionary nor by definitional usage for the line in the infobox, an alias. Why is this such a hard point to get through? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Smoovedogg, how many times does it need to be repeated??? The man's stage name or professional name is Little Richard. The line in the infobox of "also known as" is designated for only that kind of name. It is not for including self-proclaimed or other deemed "titles" like "The Architect of Rock 'n' Roll" or "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" or other such promotional titles. It is for the name the person is credited under - Little Richard. It doesn't matter how many references you put in, they still do not support that the man's stage name, alias, professional name is anything other than that. Stop sticking those titles into the infobox or I will take steps to stop you from inserting it there. I simply do not understand why we cannot get that through to you. It doesn't belong in the infobox. Period. I will ask again, why is this such a hard point to get through to you? It's not subject to a debate or putting there in the middle of the night - it does not belong in the infobox. From this point point forward, since you will not accept that you are misusing that line and deliberately ignore any attempt to explain it to you, it will be considered vandalism. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie - Would you find it acceptable to list Elvis Presley's alias as The King, The King of Rock n Roll, Elvis The Pelvis, etc.? If it is acceptable for Elvis to be referred to as The King, it is equally acceptable to refer to Little Richard as such. They are the only two recording artists that have been introducedto/billed as The King of Rock 'n' Roll. Little Richard is the only one to have the title The Architect of Rock n Roll. I am not being sneaky in the middle of the night, inserting this or that. I find that offensive, and if you are wrong, then your edits could be 'vandalism.' Just because someone does not agree with your point of view, would you call that vandalism? I work tirelessly and am committed to continue to do what I can to work within the wiki parametres to improve Little Richard's article and give him the credit that he has for so many years been robbed of by racist people and others. I can be fair and impartial. If the titles do not belong there, then they need to removed from other sites. Why does it seem that Little Richard always takes the hits? I know that when someone's contribution to twentieth century music is arguably unparalleled, there are many 'haters' out there who (out of jealousy or protectiveness due to affiliations or biases toward other artists) will want to block the truth from coming forward. I am passionate about this because I have studied the history of rock n roll for decades and been active as a catalyst to see that inaccuracies in the encyclopaedias are corrected. I am mature and responsible enough to admit if I am wrong (I am learning about the many rules and policies within wiki as I go along) but am also resilient and determined to see the truth emerge in print some appropriate form.--Smoovedogg (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, in fact, I do not find it acceptable to list such titles in the infobox. Using that it might be listed on another article, as I pointed out earlier in the week, falls under the category of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are nearly 3 million articles on Wikipedia and there are plenty of instances where content may not match criteria, but it isn't a reason to ignore the criteria when the issue is brought up on a particular article. The problem is, this has been stated over and over and explained in more than one way, but you continue to put it in. That is a problem. You even refer to this as titles - they are not stage or professional names. No one is yanking your chain about that, no one is deceiving you. We've posted links on this page to direct you to the instructions for the infobox and yet all of those efforts have not gotten through. None of this is racist, no one is trying to give hits to Little Richard, none of this is based on hate of Little Richard, nor is it trying to minimize his career. It's simply and basically not the place to put that. I've said it more than once, others have too. I find it offensive that it has to be repeated over and over. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that just because other wiki articles breach the rules, Little Richard's should be no different. However, if you saw things from my perspective, you would see why I'd be a little bit sensitive on the topic of biases from others. Almost any time that I try to give credit to Little Richard, even with appropriate citations, people almost immediately delete the material. I am not referring to the alias section so much as other sections, even in other articles. But the info that I read about other artists that should not be there is left unchallenged. This has been happening for decades. Years ago, Little Richard and Bo Diddley were uncredited for starting new kinds of music in the 1950s. All the credit went to other artists. It has been an uphill climb to even get the ice broken (and I am so far behind in my work for Bo), but there have been large gains made along the way and the 'historical accounts' have begun to change to be more accurate. Again, I will work within the parametres set out by wiki, but please understand that I am learning what the rules are (there are many) and we are facing a mountain of opposition from forces that do not want this material to surface (for one reason or another).--Smoovedogg (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The primary problem, as I see it here, has been sourcing that doesn't meet requirements under WP:RS and the issue over where some content belongs. Various articles have varying numbers of people who watch the article or take an interest in it, so you're going to get varied responses. But like I said in a roundabout way is that we can only address this article here. It's not an issue on this article of trying to obscure accurate data, it's about properly presenting and sourcing it. I don't know what you encounter on other articles, but I assure you that no one on this page is misleading you when they offer Wikipedia policy and guidelines to support their comments. I've not seen a single instance of bad faith commentary on this page regarding such things. What I hope you understand is that on a daily basis, we generally run across scores of people who do not care whether their edits violate policy or are improper and quite often, when a new editor comes along and repeatedly doesn't edit in accordance with them or doesn't seem to believe what we're saying, it gets to be troublesome. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

indeed: when other editors here point out Wikipedia policies to you it is not a hostile act - it's because we want it to be a well-written article that meets Wikipedia standards. one good place to start getting familiar with the policies here is WP:Simplified ruleset; please also read WP:Advocacy, which seems relevant to your edits here and on the Rock and roll article. Sssoul (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

comment from Smoovedogg

[transferred from Sssoul's talk page:] The slew of famous people are only a fraction of the large pool from which have been selected the most significant artists due to their various roles in the development of rock n roll and modern music. Your previous 'butchering' attempts discount Little Richard's unique role in the development of the most important art form of the twentieth century. This is something that people who have been jealous of his role have tried to do for years. You do a diservice to the public - those who need to know the facts - when you eliminate quotes from Elvis Presley and Pat Boone - the biggest pop/rock stars of the mid-1950s, Otis Redding the personification of soul music, James Brown - the Godfather of soul, Jimi Hendrix,and the others listed. Please do not continue to minimize Little Richard's influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoovedogg (talk • contribs) 19:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for being willing to discuss the problems here on the talk page - i hope other interested editors will add their views.

the edits i made were not an attempt to "discount" or "minimize" Little Richard's importance; they were an attempt to bring the "Influence" section more in line with Wikipedia standards, and to improve the stylistics and readability. Little Richard deserves a well-written and appropriately encyclopedic article. Sssoul (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

ps: it's not the biggest problem with the section, but: this myspace page is cited as a source several times in the "Influence" section. it appears to be a fan-created tribute page. please see this Wikipedia policy and this one as well - no matter what else we decide about the section, it needs to be based on sources that are in line with WP:RS. Sssoul (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

the little richard myspace site is a site created as a gift for Little Richard, supported by Little Richard, his family and business camp, by a rock and roll music historian who was successfully involved in motivating the revision of the history of rock and roll in the major encyclopeadias, resulting from inaccuracies in the previous versions. all quotes listed on the site are verfiable as indicated in the detail on the myspace page. the writer and citations can be accessed by contacting the site manager. further, some quotes also indicate some detail for example, Dick Clark's quote is highlighted in video and is on record with Dick Clark Productions if not available on the internet at any given time. the George Harrison quote is also verifiable through the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Smoovedogg (talk •

Could you also let us know what your opinion is about my comment listed immediately below? Thanks, 2help (message me) 00:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel we should attempt to make this article and section pleasant to read, rather than a tedious list of all the people, notable or otherwise, who have praised Little Richard. I am in favor of condensing the section only to include those we consider "most notable" and worthy of including in the article. 2help (message me) 05:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the previous comment. Believe me, no one has higher regard for The Greatest Living American than I do, and his "influence" (or better put, wrongly, as "genesis"), on R&R is beyond question. I have two points:

(1) since this is a reference work, who might come to this page in the first place? People who don't know who LR is (possible); people who have heard of LR and his songs and want to know more (likely); and people who are already fans and want specific details (date Tutti Frutti was recorded), etc. None of these 3 classes of people need the sort of rambling, fansite detail that the Influence section presently contains. In this regard 2help is spot on: some notable persons, such as Elvis, Otis, JB, and Jimi, for instance, might be retained, and others, like Bowie and AC/DC, while fine artists themselves, don't typically (and historically) follow the lineage, for lack of a better term, of the others mentioned.

(2) Just for kicks, I visited the pages of some other pioneers: Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Jerry Lee Lewis, James Brown, and several others. Only the Berry page contains an "Influences" section, and it looks suspiciously like the LR section, except haphazardly and badly sourced. I don't want this discussion to get hung up on Wiki policy if possible, but the other "Genesis" articles read just fine without Influences sections, and I really don't think we want to get a movement started.

I suggest contributors to this page assemble a list of a half dozen "notable" quotes, edit the section, and all as one say "Finito." Thanks. Seduisant (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for stating your views, 2help and Seduisant. indeed, the whole point is that Little Richard deserves a well written, well sourced and appropriately encyclopedic article. the idea of limiting the number of "notable quotes" to something like six sounds good, but i'm not sure what criteria would be used to establish which half-dozen are "notable enough" - it seems like an inherently subjective judgement call. and of course even if there are only a few quotes they need to be properly sourced, and assembled in a way that doesn't glaze readers' eyes with an overly monotonous "X said this and Y said this and Z said this" form.

i think the first thing needs to be to eliminated are the bits that are supported only by that myspace fan page - those are clearly not in line with Wikipedia standards ... but it may be better to create a new subsection for those details. Sssoul (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ssssoul, the little richard myspace site is a site created as a gift for Little Richard, supported by Little Richard, his family and business camp, by a rock and roll music historian who was successfully involved in motivating the revision of the history of rock and roll in the major encyclopeadias, resulting from inaccuracies in the previous versions. all quotes listed on the site are verfiable as indicated in the detail on the myspace page. the writer and citations can be accessed by contacting the site manager. further, some quotes also indicate some detail for example, Dick Clark's quote is highlighted in video and is on record with Dick Clark Productions if not available on the internet at any given time. the George Harrison quote is also verifiable through the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoovedogg (talk • contribs)

thanks for using the talk page. i was not questioning the authenticity of those quotes; the point is that to be included in a Wikipedia article, quotes and assertions need to be supported by sources that meet Wikipedia's standards. please read this Wikipedia policy and this one as well - a myspace tribute site does not meet those standards, so appropriate sources need to be cited.

another point that concerned editors here have made is that the "Influence" section currently doesn't read well, or comply with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. please understand that efforts to ensure that this article is well-written and compliant with Wikipedia's standards are not attacks on Little Richard - au contraire! he's a great artist and deserves a well-written and appropriately encyclopedic article. Sssoul (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 2help to fail in responding to your (above) question. I just noticed it now and there was so much commentary following it before I could respond that I did not see it. I am in favor of condensing the section (as it has since occured) only to include those we consider "most notable" and worthy of including. I think that the article is close as it stands right now in mentioning key notable people who borrowed his style of singing, music and performing (with the exception of Otis Redding, Mick Jagger and, perhaps, McCartney or Harrison). I think it fits as it is at present to have James and Elvis in the lead and suggesting that Otis be included in that sentence as well, as very influencial people within the R&B, rock and soul music genres that LR inspired. The influence section is close, as well, although it does not explain what another editor suggested earlier, which is to explain the nature of his influece - what made him so innovative and remarkable as an artist. Although this might be better explained somewhere else in the article.

improving the "Influence" section

in accordance with the discussion above i've deleted three quotes that had no source cited other than that myspace page - not they they aren't "notable", but they weren't sourced adequately by Wikipedia standards (see this Wikipedia policy and this one). the myspace page remains as one of the sources listed for two more sentences, which is not okay - but it's not clear what it's doing there: what is it cited for at the end of "In addition, [McCartney Seeger Fogerty et al] are among the artists who have stated that Little Richard was their first major rock 'n' roll influence"? and why does it appear at the end of "Six of the seven artists who preceded him on the list have stated that they were significantly influenced by him"? Sssoul (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

[transplanted from Sssoul's talk page] Ssssoul, ssso ssssad. I reinserted Ray Charles quote with another reference. Your repeated efforts to deny Little Richard of his rightful place in music history are deplorable. George Harrison's quote was a direct wuote from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame when he accepted the induction on behalf of the Beatles. Many witnessed this and it is on record. This has been referenced. Dick Clark's quote is from the American Music Award of Merit sugment of the broadcast. Again, a record exists. You are somewhat of a vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoovedogg (talk • contribs) 09:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

please see WP:RS and my post just above: the sources cited need to meet Wikipedia's standards.

please also see other editors' concerns about the "Influence" section. we want this article to be well written and in line with Wikipedia policies. please also see WP:NPA. Sssoul (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line on all of this discussion is based in Wikipedia policy on what external links are acceptable. WP:ELNO specifically excludes the use of pages such as the MySpace tribute page, in saying "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject one should avoid: 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[2] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists." It doesn't matter how many music historians created a MySpace tribute page, it violates Wikipedia policy on External links. I'm sure Little Richard appreciates the page, but it is not allowable as an external link and it in no way meets criteria under WP:RS. Period. And I'd remind you again, Smoovedogg, to stop making personal attacks on this page, other talk pages, or in edit summaries. Period. This has nothing to do with personal viewpoints and everything to do with hard line policy on sourcing and WP:POV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

if you more closely examined sssoul's editing, you would see that it does not all have to do with "all of the discussion based in Wikipedia policy." i will back down on using the myspace site, because the social networking framework falls outside the wiki rules. however, the alias section (and sssoul's comments above), for example, is what i am talking about as rubbish - Little Richard is the ONLY other early rock n roll artist referred to as "The King." Many consider him to be the 1st king of rock n roll, many the True King. He is often referred to as the Achitect of Rcok n Roll by some of the greatest icons in Rock n Roll History (Wilson Pickett, Philip Bailey, etc.) i am learning about the rules in wiki, but feel that sssoul is taking liberties that should not be taken. it is not a personal attack to say that someone is a poor editor of a particular article. when the encyclopedia britannica chose a write for an article on Little Richard, did they pick someone who was simply a good writer, or someone who could write but was also an authority on the subject. to simply remove something without suggesting alternative wording or contacting the writer first to discuss begins a warring process that is counterproductive. if i wnated to get personal, i'd offer to excahnge phone numbers so that we could take this outside for a man to man fist fight, however, i am interested in continuing to try to use words to get my point across. i will continue to work along with others to make this article more encyclopedic - i personally find the sections that pertain to the 'decades' most incomplete and needing attention. But i will not let go of a few major points and the information needs to be made available to the public within wiki rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.211.70 (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for understanding the policy regarding the Myspace fansite. Regarding the aliases section, please take a look at the relevant policy at Template:Infobox_musical_artist#Alias, which clearly states it is meant only for "official stage names", not for names people use to refer to him. Please understand that the fact that you consider yourself an "authority on the subject" does not provide you with any privileges in contributing to the article over others (see WP:Ownership of articles. We are all editors, not authors). Also, although it may not be your intention, and I realize the debate has gotten heated, several of your edit summaries have been clear personal attacks. Please comment on users' contributions, not on the user's themselves. Lastly, thank you for your willingness to debate and your desire to improve Wikipedia. Please don't take our efforts as an attempt to diminish Little Richard's achievements. Thank you, 2help (message me) 17:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

He is often refered and introduced onstage as "The Originator, The Emancipator, The Architect of Rock 'n' Roll", much more than "The Geogia Peach." He is also referred to as "The King" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.211.70 (talk • contribs)

Regardless, that is not his stage name, those are catchphrase names or nicknames that have been given to him. He isn't billed as any of those on a concert announcement, on credits given, on ticket stubs, or when he is written about. That line in the infobox is reserved for names under which an individual is known professionally, not catch names. And please sign your talk page postings. `Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

just for clarity: yes, on one occasion nearly a year ago i edited the infobox to remove all the nicknames and honorifics except one; leaving one was misguided, because that line of the info box is not meant for nicknames and honorifics. i pointed that out two weeks ago (see this subsection - please click on the blue phrase - it's a link to the relevant subsection) but perhaps Smoovedogg/142.165 didn't see it?

but anyway thank you for discussing these things here on the talk page with editors who want this article to read well and to comply with Wikipedia's policies. Smoovedogg/142.165, if you want to get more familiar with Wikipedia's standards, one place to start is WP:Simplified ruleset (please click on the blue phrase - it's a link to the relevant page). there are lots of links there to more detailed articles about policies, standards, etiquette, etc. Sssoul (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, Little Richard is referred to onstage, in the media, and in writing, as The Architect of Rock n Roll and The King of Rock n Roll. Youtube videos show him referred to by Mohammed Ali and again in the pr video for the motion picture King Ralph. There are many other examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoovedogg (talk • contribs) 06:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I posted about this in the section above about the alias line. Regardless of how many times he's referred to as the Architect of Rock n Roll, it is not not not his stage or professional name. There is no separate billing, film credit, recording credit, onstage, media or publication reference or any other formal contract that refers to him in that way unless it is preceed by or eventually followed by his stage name of Little Richard. That line is only for stage or professional names. If you return this to the infobox, I will start reporting you for vandalism. This is not a matter for debate or disagreement, it is simply and only you refusing to understand the difference between a stage name and PR, promotional fluff and self-styled references. It. Is. Not. The. Stage. Name. Period. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the informal mediator for this case. Sorry for the delay in starting. If there's an edit war, the article can obviously be protected. Would a compromise along the lines of mentioning in the main body of text, instead of the infobox, that Little Richard is sometimes referred to Architect of Rock n Roll or The King of Rock n Roll be possible? PhilKnight (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) thanks PhilKnight - i think the other editor has taken it on board that the info box is not where these honorifics and nicknames belong. yes of course it would be fine if we can have a well-written and well-sourced statement in the article about the origins of the use of "the Architect of Rock & Roll" (i believe it was Richard who first started referring to himself that way). i reckon other editors would be fine with that as well, but trust they'll speak for themselves.
meanwhile, PhilKnight, could you join us in the section below where Smoovedogg has asked for more information about the mediation process? thanks Sssoul (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the suggestion Phil. It is worth mentioning in the main body of text that he is sometimes refered to as The Architect of Rock n Roll and The King of Rock n Roll. The Rock Hall of Fame quote did include "He claims to be the Architect of Rock n Roll and history seems to bear out his boast. More than anyone, save, perhaps, Elvis..." The first sentence was removed. It does currently mention "Architect" in the inlfuence section. It is from the transcript of Wilson's funeral where his brother Max mentioned that he remembered Wilson calling Littel Richard the Architect of Rock n Roll. At least it appears somewhere. I appreciate your input.--Smoovedogg (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your input Phil. it is entirely subjective at this point for Sssoul to say that Richard first started calling himself The Architect - it may have been Wilson that fist did, and many others have or continue to call himself that(as well as "The King"). The Rock Hall even states that history seems to bear out his boast, which has been edited out of the article a number of times.--Smoovedogg (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

smile: on a talk page, i'm allowed to state that "i believe it was Little Richard who first started referring to himself that way" without citing a source - but if you want a source, that same Rock & Roll Hall of Fame piece states that it is Little Richard who "claims to be the Architect of Rock n Roll". (nota bene: i am not the one who removed that from the article, although i understand why it was done - see WP:Lead.) i suggested finding reliable sources that go into the history of the use of this honorific so that something well-written and well-sourced about it could go into the chronological section of the article. if nothing about the history is available, maybe something about it could go in the "Influence" section - but again it needs to be well-sourced, well-written and discussed first.

meanwhile, as i pointed out in the section below on sources, the blog that's being used as a source for that Wilson Pickett statement is not an acceptable source by Wikipedia standards. Sssoul (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Phil, is there any way that the transcript of part of Wilson's funeral could not be used? Also, is there any down side to informal mediation? I feel led to trust you, despite facing a mountain of opposition to building a case for Little Richard. He was unique in his contribution to twentieth century music. He started a new kind of music, according to Ray Charles, James Brown (who referred to him as his "idol"), Smokey Robinson, (all supportable) and many others. What was different about him? Why did he do to make such an impact in so little time and why was he so influencial and groundbreaking? Any effort to describe this is meeting with opposition, referring to peacock terms and neutrality. There must be a way to give the man the credit he deserves without violating wiki policies. Or is there a problem with one or more policies? Are policies bulletproof? He was a first rock 'n' roll inspiration for Otis Redding and David Bowie (they keep being removed - there was a page error at first but was corrected, as per talk page), as well as Bob Seger and Rod Stewart. He was the primary influence on John Fogerty's vocals. Chuck Berry did his thing and had his impact - so did Bo. Little Richard did something DIFFERENT - and this needs to be described. Too many people drop in on the wiki to seek information to deprive them of the truth. To not mention that he inspired Elvis ("Your music has inspired me - you are the greatest") and mentioning how James Brown idolized him. Those two artists alone were considered amoung the most influencial of the twentieth century. So, for Richard to have inspired them to that degree NEEDS to be mentioned. Richard wasn't the greatest person in the history of the world, but he was unique and remarkable in his contribiution. More research will be formally released to the public in the near future to solidify his place in history - so this could really get interesting. From what I have read about informal mediation, and with the sense that I get from you (that you seem fair), I am not opposed, but I don't want to walk through a door that could have a down side to it. Your input/feedback and assistance, Phil, is appreciated.--Smoovedogg (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

I've added the tag as I believe that the article needs a lot of work to make it more encyclopedic, remove peacock terms and so forth - particularly prominent phrases like "..history would seem to bear out Little Richard’s boast..." in the introduction. Just to avoid any confusion, I personally love Little Richard's work, but he deserves a better article than this - which, for example, should say more not less about his influence on other artists, in a less biased way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

what do you suggest? more about his influence in a less biased way. i can't find a way to 'pussyfoot' around this. it is fine to say what you did, but why not put below what you would find to be appropriate wording and we could ponder it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.211.70 (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to get round to it. I hadn't realised that the opening para was a verbatim quote from the Hall of Fame citation - not sure it's appropriate to put that in the opening para, it may be better paraphrased or put later on in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the third time that the inappropriate tone template has had to be added in the last 24 hours and if it is removed again, I will take this directly to WP:AN/I. I don't know who "a number of others" is, but they have not voiced an opinion here. It is entirely inappropriate to remove maintenance tags because "a number of others" disagree, especially when it does not appear that those others seem to know about basic policies and tenets. I will not go through the entire article line by line to point out hyperbole and peacock terms here, but I'd be quite happy to go through and tag each and every instance of it in the article. Basically, if you're using an adjective or an adverb in describing something, it is going to have to have a reliable source that said it first. The Hall of Fame quote doesn't belong in the lead section of the article, but in a section that covers that induction. An example is how many times in one lead is it appropriate to use the "raspy, shouting vocals" phrase? It is used three times in the article and does not need to be belabored beyond the use in the quote. "Blackwell, who knew a hit when he heard one, was knocked out" - say what? "Then, suddenly, when at the top of the music world, Little Richard, fearing his own damnation" - unsourced. "[H]is impact on late-twentieth century popular music was incalculable and arguably unparalleled amongst American-born performers" - unsourced and therefore peacockry. These are some of the problems that bring the inappropriate tone tag and the tag should not be removed until this is addressed.

Please read WP:RS, WP:NEUTRAL and WP:PEACOCK for a better understanding of the problems within the article. Also, please read WP:LEAD for an explanation of what goes into a lead section of article. It is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the article, not a build up of the article subject. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

finally some examples and constructive criticism. that can truly help shape up this article. the raspy shouted vocals should, upon brief reflection, be in the opening paragraph, although i should print the whole thing out to get a better perspective. this should be highlighted in the opening because it was the raspy shouted vocal style that influenced the vocal style of Elvis, Paul McCartney, John Fogerty, Bob Seger, and many other rock n roll hall of famers. the style of music as well because he started a kind of music that spawned a number of other sounds (funk - James Brown, rock - Jimi Hendrix, soul - Otis Redding, etc.). But give me some time to work on this. i will do so in concert with others. but it is of paramount importance to get the facts straight. this is an artist who had a unique and arguably unparralelled contribution to twentieth century music.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.211.70 (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2009

I agree that his influence on funk (in particular), rock etc. needs to be set out better, with references - but until it is, and until the article is amended so it is suitable for an encyclopedia and not a fan site, the tag should remain. There is a lot of work needed on this article, and it needs to be done by editors who can take a neutral point of view - not by avowed fans, if they can't take an unbiased perspective. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that it might be most important here to consider fleshing out, expanding, etc. the main body of the article. In order to write an adequate lead section, which should summarize the article itself, the content has to already be present. Otherwise, it's new content in the lead. WP:LEAD makes the very salient point of "While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." In other words, if it ain't in the article, it ain't in the lead. In my experience (which was a case in point this past weekend when I finished work on the good article assessment for the Scarlett Johansson article, which passed), the lead writes itself once the rest is finished. That's the best piece of article writing for here that I can give.

i like this (the above).--142.165.211.70 (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)smoovedogg--142.165.211.70 (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, 142.165.211.70, if you will look at the row of buttons above the open edit window, the 10th button - next to the one with the big red circle with a line through it - can be clicked to sign your talk page posts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

thanks for the tip. i'll get the handle of the wiki system yet!--142.165.211.70 (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)smoovedogg--142.165.211.70 (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

another helpful tip: it's good to consistently log into your Smoovedogg account to edit, so that it's clear who's who. and "signing your talk-page posts" means putting four tildes at the end of them - ~~~~ - which automatically adds your user name, the date and the time. another way to accomplish the same thing is (as Wildhartlivie pointed out) to click the 10th button in the row of buttons above the "edit window". Sssoul (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

back to proposals for improving the "Influence" section

as Ghmyrtle said above, expanding this section into something informative about Little Richard's influence would be excellent. the Bob Dylan "legacy" section looks to me like a pretty good example to follow: it reads well; it cites numerous reliable sources that aren't all "promotional" in tone; more than one viewpoint is presented; and it describes the nature of the artist's impact instead of just reciting "X says he's great, and Y says he's great, and Z says he's great". can we work on taking Little Richard's "Influence" section in that direction? Sssoul (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that we will loose explaining the true impact that this artist had on the genre, as well as closely related genres or offsprings of the genre (rap, rock, etc.) if we begin to take out key quotes from the major artists. The assertions from the artists themselves are stunning to the uniformed individual, and capture the musical revolution Little Richard started and the amazing legacy. Again, this goes to the heart of what many believe - that Little Richard does not the credit the deserves. Little Richard was the major explosion that hit in America, England, Australia, etc. and Elvis took that kind of rock n roll music (listen to the vocals on "Jailhouse Rock") to a much larger white audience.--Smoovedogg (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) thanks for responding on the talk page. i really hope you'll find time to read WP:Advocacy - it seems very relevant.
my view is a] that the section as it now stands does not meet Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and b] that the string of testimonials is presented in an extremely monotonous style, making the section too dull to read - which is (obviously) not a good way to impress readers.
i also hope you'll find time to read consensus, and that other interested editors will state their views about this. thanks Sssoul (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the comment, sssoul. i was looking at the NPOV info (as well as Advocacy) and find the follwoing NPOV quote worth highlighting - "in co-writing with someone who believes differently, it's often important to have some evidence at hand. This includes not only evidence for your view but evidence for how many others hold it and who they are. Information like this enables writers and participants in discussion to come to practical decisions. These include whether one view deserves to go first, whether two deserve equal billing, whether views belong in different articles and, if so, what titles the articles should have." as this applies to this and the rock n roll article, i believe that ample evidence exists, strengthened buy who are making the assertions, to argue the case for the inclusion of the material. To remove it would be denying the public of what they have a right to know. If the influence section seems extremely monotonous in tone, I would gladly welcome suggestions from clever writers as to how this could be made more of an entertaining as well as informative read. To those who know who the artists quoted are and how they impacted the music world, the info is mind-blowing and far from boring. A list of individuals impacted and there statements about Little Richard would be amazing and far from boring, except to those who have no interest in twentieth century music.--Smoovedogg (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) yes, evidence from reliable sources is essential; so is maintaining an encyclopedic, non-promotional tone and a balanced viewpoint. as a number of other editors have already pointed out, this article has problems on all these scores, and needs to be improved.
one suggestion that's already been made by more than one editor is to shorten the list of "testimonials", since it's excessively monotonous, says nothing about the reasons Little Richard is highly regarded by other musicians, and doesn't explain or illustrate the nature of his influence. it also includes some dubious assertions like "Fellow AC/DC band members Bon Scott and Brian Johnson used Little Richard as the model for their vocals", citing this site as a source - could you please point out where on that page it says that? ("I remember Bon playing me Little Richard" is the only mention of him i see there.)
again, it would be great if other editors would add their views on this.
and Smoovedogg: could you please state whether or not you agree to the proposed mediation to help sort out these problems? thanks Sssoul (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The citation explains when Bon was comparing Brian's vocals to Richard's and was pointing this out to Angus. Angus recalled that, after Bon had passed away, and they hired Brian following audition. You can clearly hear the flat out screaming effort that they put into singing like Richard (especially when listening to AC/DC perform Richard's music live.) Others tried to sing like Richard - i.e. Fogerty, McCartney, Seger. Their efforts mixed with their own voices resulted in what was on record. This moves to the heart of your other point - and I totally agree that this section would improve if we could indicate why Richard was so highly regarded and if we explained or illustrated the nature of his influence. Cool!

On the topic of the mediation, I am open to it but am not familiar at all with it. I don't know if I have time or if it would be truly helpful. I think we can work out our differences but feel free to explain more if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoovedogg (talk • contribs) 09:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC) --Smoovedogg (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

that source doesn't state that "Bon was comparing Brian's vocals to Richard's and was pointing this out to Angus"; and on Wikipedia it's not okay to "reinterpret" sources that way. you need to either find a source that does state that, or remove that assertion from the article - thanks.

i hope the mediator[s] will clarify how the mediation process works and how it can help. Sssoul (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

what was stated was what occured, but i can see that if one did not know this, they could pull a leeser meaning from it. so, the info in the article was reworked, pulling it closer to the quote.--Smoovedogg (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for "reworking" the AC/DC bit to match the source, but the statement on that site simply isn't relevant to this article; quoting it adds nothing of value, nor does it read well, so please remove it - thanks. meanwhile, the new paragraphs you've added include unattributed value judgements and WP:peacock terms - that's not okay. it would be excellent if you would discuss proposed changes/additions here on the talk page to establish consensus before you implement them. Sssoul (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

i'm agreeing to pull back on the additioal ac/dc info, although it is to a degree relevant, I agree that there is too much being said by too many in that paragraph. I have peace removing that block of info. Please indicate which sentences you feel are hurting and not helping this section. To use blanket terms (you have hhighlighted two basic concerns) is one thing - to indicate which are the precise problems could help us get to the heart of the matter and would allow us to look more closely at this and perhaps reach some consensus. Thanks, kindly, for your time and consideration.--Smoovedogg (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you for removing the AC/DC stuff. another editor has already tagged some of the POV/peacock statements; i pointed out the relevant policies so that you can recognize for yourself that unattributed statements like "The impact that Little Richard made on twentieth century music and culture was vast" are not appropriate on Wikipedia. other examples are "Little Richard looked, moved and sounded like something out of this world in the early years of rock and roll" and "Little Richard also transformed race relations at his concerts (etc)".

again: please get more familiar with Wikipedia policies and aims, including WP:Advocacy, and please discuss proposed changes/additions here on the talk page to establish consensus before you implement them - thanks Sssoul (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Influence sections are very tricky as they are magnets for editors to try and puff up their favourite artists. These editors tend to ignore core Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:AWW and they certainly ignore WP:RS and WP:V. That appears to be the case here where the section has been bloated and now oozes fan praising with personal opinion and cruft woven in between the few well written portions that the section has. The section even begins with a peacock statement that is subject and has no reference. The section should be cut down by half. If editors want a fansite to praise their heroes they can create their own webpage someplace else. Wikipedia is not the place for it. Wether B (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going to comment that removing half the section would not be easy since, at first glance, there appeared to be a lot of supporting cites. Further reading revealed that the content was not supported and so cleanup was rather easy. No need to feather around thing here. WP:PEACOCK = unencyclopedic crap. Little Richard is a rock and roll legend (his legend claim being promoted by Little Richard himself... as much as anyone else) and it is OK to have a few nice quotes and a few accolades. But that is where is ends. Shock and awe content lowers the reliability of the page and erases its use as a reliable resource for information. This same sledgehammer approach now needs to be done on the rest of the page. Who knows?... an FA could come of it. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

what's an FA?--Smoovedogg (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the page pending more discussion about User:Smoovedog's disruptive edits. I believe what Wiki libs is referring to is a Featured Article. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The reversion occured following discussion and correcting the precise pages from White's autobiography, etc.. This inlcuded listing Bowie, Redding, and others and indicating that Little Richard was first to inspire them musically. also, there was some agreement that it was important to explain the nature of his influence and what is what that made him so remarkable.--Smoovedogg (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I made a change (NOT a reversion) in the last edit, as suggested, which was moving the "Rolling Stone" honor out of the Influence section, as it appears along with the Mojo Magazine honor in the "Awards and Honors" section of the article. If one or the other belongs in the influence section, it would be the MOJO material, as it speaks to his 1955 hit Tutti Frutti as the most influencial and inspirational recording ever (as selected by a panel of superstars recording artists).--Smoovedogg (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am proposing that, if the quotes from James Brown and Elvis Presley are not allowed to be inserted in the Influence section, they should be mentioned as having been influenced in the opening, as follows: "This new music, which included an original injection of funk into the rock and roll beat,[1] went on to influence James Brown, Elvis Presley, and generations of other rhythm & blues, rock and soul music artists.[4]" They are too important and significant to leave out of the article. In addition, I am proposing to restoring the original sentence and request that other editors propose before making changes to this, as this was there before it was suddenly removed: In addition, Otis Redding, Bob Seger, John Fogerty,, Rod Stewart, and David Bowie, are among the artists who have stated that Little Richard was a first major rock 'n' roll influence.--Smoovedogg (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The article lead-in is already poorly written past the Hall of Fame quote. The 3rd paragraph rambles and the lead finishes off with an out-of-place statement about his 1957 activity. There is enough peacocking for any article lead-in just in the hall of fame quote. It can't be stressed enough, No more quotes, no more examples needed. Also note that DigitalDreamDoor is just a fansite and fails WP:RS. It should never be used as a reference for anything. Fair Deal (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I accept that the digitaldreamdoor is not acceptable. I did not know it was a fansite. Thanks for pointing that out. However, the influence LR was on Presley, Brown, Redding, and Bowie are very significant, as they in turn were huge in influencing countless others. As far as the opening is concered, I think the lead should include something about his dramatic conversion, although it did go on to explain a bit more in that paragraph before someone took it out. What do you propose for an opening (beyond the Hall of Fame quote)? It is refreshing to talk to somebody about proposed changes before they actually are 'dropped into' the article. You did that earlier today without proposing and I have done that, as well in the past.--Smoovedogg (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It would greatly help to read WP:LEAD for an explanation of what goes into a lead section of article, as I suggested a week ago. There is no point in working on the lead without improvements in the article. The lead should only reflect content in the rest of the article. Nothing more. I'd also like to know why you refuse to participate in mediation, so that each of these problems, which are being commented upon in scattered multiple sections, could be addressed individually and discussed to consensus. As it stands, all we are getting is more than one editor saying the same thing in different ways and you posting the same complaint from section to section. This is accomplishing nothing and only fostering frustration. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that three(?) editors have signed onto mediation. Is that correct? I don't find the value unless everyone (all contributing editors) have to proceed in the same manner. It is really frustrating to be working on some consensus with two or more editors and then have someone jump in and completely wipe out the effort of those editors. Some may feel that I have done that, I certainly feel that way about others. I don't think things are going to get any easier over time and am wondering if it would help if the article was locked so that it made it harder for intruders to break down progress.--Smoovedogg (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So the one person who is on the other side of the dispute refuses to participate unless everyone who made comments here agrees? The rest of us weren't named or invited to participate. There is no movement at this point toward consensus with you - presently there is consensus amongst all the other involved editors and you are the one who keeps coming back, reinserting content, and arguing one position. If you don't think things are going to improve regarding this, then please understand that requesting informal dispute resolution (dispute mediation) is the first step, and hopefully the only necessary one, in a long line of progressively more stressful and potentially restrictive steps that can occur with dispute and the simple fact is that no one wants it to get to that point. The mediator is an uninvolved and neutral party who may well be more able to look at your point of view. It also gives you the venue to more clearly delineate why you think your points are valid and give reasonings for why. That's not happening on this talk page, especially with multiple threads on the page covering the same things. Right now, you're mostly saying he's the most amazing performer and he influenced a lot of people but that's not coming through in any convincing way because you're basically repeating yourself. Mediation is a positive step and it demonstrates good faith that parties on both sides of a dispute are willing to essentially "set down at the table and talk it out." As for locking the article and your reasons for why you think this - there are no intruders on an article in a project that is open for anyone to edit. Locking the article is an extreme and final step when all else has failed. Currently, the only thing failing is progress. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wildhartlivie for the information. That is a detailed and helpful synopsis of the mediation process and I appreciate you taking time to do that. Just for clarification, I never said that Little Richard is "the most amazing performer", although I do believe that Little Richard did start a different kind of music in the early 1950s that inspired and influenced some of the past centuries most significant music artists (Brown, Presley, Redding, etc.). The new music that he started included using powerhouse vocals (electricity that none of the other R&B greats of the early 50s possessed), amazing vocal acrobatics (eg. the first to introduce the scream before instrumental sections), an original injection of funk (that inspired James Brown), soul that inspired Redding and soul music in general, etc. Some say this was the start of rock n roll. Smokey Robinson said (1985 or earlier) that "Little Richard is the beginning of rock n roll." Years later, (in 1997) at the American Music Awards, he clarified his stance by saying that "Little Richard was the start of that funky, drivin', never let up Rock n Roll." Chuck had a sound that was a mix of country (the cover/remake of the fiddle tune "Ida Red" in the guise of "Maybelline") and up tempo blues, with some innovative guitar work. Earlier the same year Bo Diddley introduced his own style of music that became referred to as rock 'n' roll. That same year Richard introduced a new funky, explosive sound that should be highlighted in the wiki article, along with the impact that this made on music and society in general. This does need to be properly sourced, etc. and written but with the skill lkevel of some of the writers/editors, I believe that this can and will be accomplished. Again, thank you for your outreach.--Smoovedogg (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm finished on this issue, folks. Take it to whatever boards are necessary. No actual discussion is occurring nor consensus is being reached here, this editor simply keeps repeating the same comments and assertions, is ignoring clear messages about article improvement ocurring before leads are written, returns content removed citing "per discussion" which hasn't occurred and seems to have no intention of engaging in dispute resolution. When that happens, it is perfectly acceptable to start reports to adminstrator/content boards you think necessary, such as WP:AN/I, WP:NPOVN, WP:BLP/N, WP:RS/N, WP:NOR/N, WP:COI/N, WP:CNB. This does not seem even close to being resolved and I've tried to explain issues to no avail. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In response, please be advised that I am currently seeking information that is important to me in relation to the mediation process. I am awaiting Phil's response and am very close to making a decision. And by "discussion", I meant discussion page. I did not see any recent opposition to some proposal information.--Smoovedogg (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that after there was a clear agreement not to add anymore quotes or examples - you went ahead and proposed additions anyway. Not hearing a another disagreement (having been previously disagreed to) you went ahead and added more examples even though there is already a clear consensus not to do so. Article improvement will never be frowned upon. But any more crufting of the page will simply be seen as disruptive and reverted. Unless there is a large agreement to add anything, don't. Wether B (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree to watch for and revert crufting or disruptive changes made to the article without agreement. I believe that the mediation process can and will be very helpful to achieve consensus on necessary alterations/changes.--Smoovedogg (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is already consensus right here on this talk page. No more examples and no more quotes. It can't be made any more simple than that. Wether B (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) i'm glad to hear Smoovedogg is ready to remove cruft, but it remains unclear whether s/he understands what Wether B means by it. another point that seems worth making is that there is already community-wide consensus for basic Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPA, etc. those policies don't need to be argued out on this page - they apply to every article. Sssoul (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

sources

can we go over some of the sources being cited, and the way they're being cited, please and thank you?
for starters i've asked the reliable sources noticeboard to comment on a couple of them, and it would be good to have some help going over some of the others as well, if other interested editors have the time and resources to check whether everything's being cited appropriately.
one rather striking one is that "White (2003) p 231" is now cited as the source for ten (10) statements. it would be great if someone who has access to that book could confirm or correct that. thanks Sssoul (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC) -

On the "White (2003) p 231" source - of the 10 citations to the page, 5 of them were not on the page number given and one of those (Paul McCartney) is not anywhere in the 3 page views I looked at. They might be in the book somewhere, but not on page 231. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks Wildhartlivie and The Real Libs. the reliable sources noticeboard has confirmed that the blog cited for the Wilson Pickett statement (currently ref 35) isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. (it doesn't actually quote Pickett anyway - it quotes someone at Pickett's funeral saying Pickett once said that.) Sssoul (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just reviewing notes and, yes, there are some problems with the page number from White's authorized biography. Copying and pasting the refernecesas well as working from a couple of the revisions of the text led to errors and that will be corrected. Thank you for pointing that out. Also, at the funeral, Wilson's brother Max that said Wilson called Little Richard the architect of rock n roll.--Smoovedogg (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

one more time: the site you're using as a reference for the Wilson Pickett quote is not acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. see the comment here and Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources. the most you could use that site for would be to state that the author of the blog entry (is a name even given?) asserted that Max Pickett stated that Wilson Pickett once said ... which would be extremely awkward at best, and not a good way to assert Little Richard's influence. i hope that's clearer now: it isn't acceptable to use sources like that on Wikipedia. Sssoul (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

this is the first time you have indicated that the site that provides a transcript of part of Wilson's funeral is not appropriate. this does need to be carefully considered.--Smoovedogg (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the paring down of the influences section has been a grand improvement. Comparing the current wording to the mess that was there last night, the latest shortened version is much better. The quote farm should not be re-introduced. Fair Deal (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote forum was reduced down to a half dozen or so key quotes. I don't think eliminating some of these is necessary of helpful. Also, it was suggested by another editor to explain what made Richard's impact so remarkable. Removing some of this information was not helpful either. The abbreviated Allmusic.com quote should be in there. And I don't know why the Mojo magazine was taken out, when the Rolling Stone one is being allowed to stay. Both are referenced in the Awards and honors sections. There are some, for one reason or another, who do not want the significance of his imapct and reasons why he had such a big impact highlighted.--Smoovedogg (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the quotes that remain are good enough at getting the point across. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. I think it was a good call to remove the Mojo Magazine text because it just duplicated a cited fact already located in the awards section. There is no need to include things more than once in the article. The section looks much better now. Fair Deal (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

the Rolling Stones info is also in the previous awards, etc. section of the article.--Smoovedogg (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Smoovedogg, the last comment you made is part and parcel of why dispute resolution is a necessary step. Nothing productive is accomplished by claiming that people are trying to subvert something of significance regarding this article subject. Add in that multiple editors have pointed out issues regarding policy and guidelines governing how articles should be written, sourced and emphasized, and whose edits which you have demonstrably reverted over and over, is why this step in necessary. You've been asked to read WP:ADVOCACY and that is so germane to how you are approaching this article. What is possibly accomplished by giving a list of 6 or 8 artists who all said that Little Richard was an influence in the absence of relevant context? Nothing. The quote farm was reduced down because guidelines are clear about just sticking in multiple quotes. The points of quotes, not the quotes themselves, are what should be used. "Little Richard was instrumental in introducing a wider audience to blah, blah, blah" and cite it. Don't just stick in quotes that ultimately, the passing reader will skip over. The entire section had become something to skim and not read. Please accept dispute mediation before it becomes more of a problem, leading to adminstration stepping in and possibly locking the article and potentially blocking because of disruption. There's nothing accomplished here by repeatedly reverting changes others make, and you've technically violated WP:3RR today alone. No progress is being made when this happens. Dispute mediation takes each point, a step at a time and allows for discussion regarding it, ultimately arriving at agreement or compromise on how things are included. It's a step forward and allows for avoiding more drastic steps. It's civilized, rather than accusing people of bias and subversion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been much discussion going on about this and some have just jumped in and made changes without even discussing them first. It was suggested that the influence section should expand to include the nature of his influecne. What was it about Little Richard that made him so remarkable. Why was he held in such high esteem? It is worth susing a number of quotes to highlight this. Another editor suggested a half dozen or so, if I remember correctly. Little Richard satrted a new kind of music - what was new about it? The allmusic quote did explain it but the part that explained what was different about him as compared to other early R&B greats was removed. What about the funk angle and his influence on Brown, who is considered one of the most influencial artists of the past century. Also, adding to the last sentence, Redding, Bowie, who were amoung those who indicated Richard was "a first" influence on them. The page numbers got mixed up originally in the references and were then corrected. These have been taken out without question, comment or discussion. Coorperation is the key.--Smoovedogg (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia 101 - what makes a good article and what makes a great article - Wikipedia policies being adhered to is a huge step. Partnered with the project's core policies is its manual of style. WP:MOS. And for music articles specifically WP:MUSTARD. These are not to be ignored. An encyclopedia article needs to convey information, not drive points and opinions down readers throats. WP:SOAPBOX Chopping the section down while still conveying the information properly and reliably is what has been done. Short, cited and straight. Encyclopedia articles that are nothing but EXAMPLEFARMs or QUOTEFARMs tend to be ignored and forgotten. And the subject of this article should not be ignored and forgotten on this project. Fair Deal (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why remove Redding and Bowie from the list of artists who indicated Richard was their inspiration? The citations were accurate and these are very influencial artists. I think they should be placed back into that sentence. And this section should, as suggested by Sssoul previously, explain the nature of his inlfuence. What made him different and distinctive? The funk element is mentioned earlier on. The Brown quote seems relevant. And the Presely quote is always removed from wherever it has appeared in the article. It seems when his uniqueness is mentioned, it is edited out very quickly. LR was a unique artist with an amaing impact. To not touch on this would be a diservice to those who are seeking information about the artist.--Smoovedogg (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"as suggested by Sssoul previously": my suggestion was to replace the monotonous string of quotes in the "Influence" section with something well-written, well-sourced, balanced and informative that would be in line with Wikipedia policies and standards. i still hope that the "Influence" section can be taken in that direction. but my suggestion was/is not an invitation for anyone to insert unattributed personal opinion, poorly-sourced assertions, peacock terms, etc. Sssoul (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources are being double-checked and any errors that we have noticed have been corrected, but please let me know if you see any.--Smoovedogg (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

a question for the mediator[s]

the following are excerpts from an earlier section, reproduced here for visibility:

Smoovedogg: could you please state whether or not you agree to the proposed mediation to help sort out these problems? thanks Sssoul (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

On the topic of the mediation, I am open to it but am not familiar at all with it. I don't know if I have time or if it would be truly helpful. I think we can work out our differences but feel free to explain more if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoovedogg (talk • contribs) 09:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

i hope the mediator[s] will clarify how the mediation process works and how it can help. Sssoul (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

one should not feel pressured into mediation--Smoovedogg (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've agreed to informally mediate this case. I suggest you have a look at the WP:MEDCAB page to get an idea of what informal mediation involves. Also, this page and the case page could also be useful. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Following close examination of the process, I am willing to sign on. I have not personally invited another editor to participate, so I am hoping the the process is balanced. As I believe that the mediator is fair and impartial and that the others have the best interest at heart in relation to the subject (who needs to be fully understood as far as his innovative artistic contributions are concerned), I look forward to further communication and getting started. Thank you all for your patience, as well as your appreciation for LR.--Smoovedogg (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Informal mediation

Could I request the parties to informal mediation outline what changes they want to the current version of the article? PhilKnight (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PhilKnight for the invitation. Reviewing - he was IDOLIZED by James Brown, Paul McCartney, and Mick Jagger (his first idol), was a FIRST rock n roll inspiration for Otis, Seger, Bowie, Angus Young (Angus’ guitar.com citation doesn’t stand up to policy, and the Bon Scott/Johnson references weren't clear enough to explain how they used LR as the model for their vocals), and he inspired Elvis and Fogerty. I understand that we need to avoid injecting redundant, irrelevant, or unnecessary information. Sometimes, what is necessary or relevant is debatable. I agree that things went overboard in the past with the quotes, especially in relation to articles of this nature, but things can go 'underboard', as well. I'm glad to see that some of the key quotes, as well as a select few of those he inspired, did survive. I don't have a huge problem with the number of quotes in there right now. At least one other editors have suggested as many as half dozen or so. It may be fine to leave it where it is, but I think it is extremely significant that Paul McCartney called Richard "my idol at school" and that Long Tall Sally was the first song he sang solo in public when he was 14,(page 114 from Charles White's The Life and Times of Little Richard bio - 2003 revision), and that Mick Jagger said "Little Richard is the originator and my first idol," (page 119 from same source - the previous reference was from another source not was not acceptable to Wiki) and Otis said "I entered the music business because of Little Richard - he is my inspiration." (from page 231). The inspiration that LR was on Paul and Mick does not seem irrelevant or unnecessary. And Otis, as the personification of soul, speaks volumes as well. I agree that Bowie is a bit later and somewhat lower on the 'totem' and therefore may not be worth mentioning (he too was inspired to go into the music business by Richard), but am pleased to see Seger's and Fogerty's names survived the chopping block, (in Seger’s own words “LR was the first one that got to me” - along with Elvis, but he liked Richard the most), as it is so apparent, after reading what they said and listening to them “rock out” on their records, who inspired Seger and Fogerty. That vocal ‘style’ is Little Richard's. Quincy Jones said LR had a "unique voice that no one else has matched, even to this day" (page 102 of Whites 2003 text)) and allmusic.com states that "although numerous other R&B greats were moving in the same direction, NONE matched the sheer electricity of Richard's vocals." I know that I have made similar statements before, but I feel the need to keep hammering my point home that the article also needs to include, which at least one other editor pointed out, what makes his influence so remarkable. What was different about him and his music? His voice, his swagger, his original injection of funk in the rock beat (which is highlighted, thankfully). But that is, perhaps, another topic best left for another section of the article, rather than under influence? (not sure – maybe some would have suggestions). As far as who should be listed, it is my opinion that it is vitally important to mention that the subject’s music inspired Elvis, James Brown, and Otis. I am glad wiki allows the youtube video of Ray Charles introducing the subject as “the man that started a kind of music that set the pace for a lot of what’s happening today,” and at least one experienced Wiki editor seems to think that the citation for Max Pickett remembering how his brother Wilson called Little Richard "the Architect of Rock n Roll” is acceptable). In addition, the info on Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix is striking to the uninformed reader, as well as, of course, the reference to Michael Jackson. Summary: 1. What made LR unique/innovative/groundbreaking needs to stay in and, perhaps, be enhanced in the main body. 2. As far as listing big names and/or quotes being mentioned, it is almost complete, with the exception of Redding, McCartney and Jagger. 3. I think it would be important to indicate that he is sometimes or often referred to as The King and The Architect of Rock n Roll. I can't think of anything else at this point.--142.165.92.94 (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Trouble getting the system to accept my signature on last comment.--142.165.92.94 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Signing manually Smoovedogg (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.92.94 (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out several times already... there is no need to balloon the page with quotes and examples. Avoid wp:peacock and wp:soapbox... aim for "encyclopedia"... six examples and maybe 2-3 boxed quotes is more than enough here. Others may think that is too much. The current lead-in and influences section is adequate and just needs copyediting. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I am back from vacation, my apologies for the delay. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 20:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(The below is Copied from "Eyes Needed" on The Real Libs talk page. The purpose for this copy is that I thought it was only the mediator and those who are involved in the mediation process that are invited to comment in this section of this page, or are any parties welcome in the process? I don't want to appear to sound rude, but am interested if this is open for anyone to 'jump into'.)

... some ongoing problems on this page are now leaking onto this one - the user seems immune, and although a novice mediator has offered to intervene, i have doubts that that's what's needed here. i'm getting a little desperate, so ... any ideas? (please reply here, not on my page, okay?) thanks Sssoul (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I was only on for a few brief minutes this morn. WHen I return to work tomorrow I will be sure to monitor and comment closely when required. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC) thank you kindly for that Sssoul (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

and are The Real Libs comments on behalf Sssoul or ???--Smoovedogg (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can comment here. Your question regarding Wiki libs should have been placed on the user's talk page and not here. I will make a safe wager that Wiki libs does not comment on behalf of anyone but himself. He is a veteran editor of Wikipedia especially music related articles. Being a neutral editor and an extreme stickler for policy, calling out for his opinion on music related articles is very common. He stepped in and did a decent job cleaning out an article that has seen repeated disruptive edits and crufting. I agree with the cleanup done by him and all the other editors involved in this recent issue. It is very hard to make a neutral section for any artist that conveys influence without coming across as an advertisement or self-paid promotion. Right now this article has an influences section that is adequate. It could be cleaned out more. But for now it is alright. Fair Deal (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Fair Deal for clarifying. I thought, apparently mistakenly, that this section was devoted to the mediation process and its participants. With respect to pasting the clip of Sssoul and Real Libs conv. on this page, I do not know the people involved or their experience but thought it odd an wanted to make sure things were transparent, as far as the mediation process was concerned. I respect Sssoul and Real Libs for their contribs to Wiki articles in general. As far as the influence section being "cleaned out more", I think that it has been chopped down substantially already, sometimes swiftly and without warning (some suggested 6 or so quotes, so I tightened up the citations, as I had page errors with repsect to White's text, and then it suddenly disappeared). I think the total at that point was 6 or 7 (including Jagger's, from an older, unusable site - I have since found the proper page from White's bio). I am, again, thankful that the current version has retained a few of the most important quotes and apologize for pummelling the article with a whole lot of them at the start. It is easy to overlook that article needs to be encyclopedic in its prentation of materials. But what I first saw the article, coupled with my understanding the unique contribution of Little Richard to twentieth century music, it was falling far short of capturing the essence of the artist and his impact. People will always argue over who was the greatest, etc., so it is important to be neutral. However, if there are some things about someone unique and innovative, it should not be wrong to describe that. I am glad that the article (lead and influence) has progressed to this point. I believe it will continue to progress and develop, as I am impressed with the talent that is repesented by many of the contributing writers and editors. I refer editors back to my comment above and look forward to more constructive criticism and opinions (what about mentioning two bands whose lead singers idolized him in their youth opening for him in the 60s section?), as well the result of the mediation process. I hope everyone has/had a blessed and enegizing sleep!--Smoovedogg (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) (and edit conflict) it's not due to any kind of conspiracy that a number of editors have similar views about the problematic edits – it's due to those editors' awareness of Wikipedia's aims, policies and standards. right: on august 15th i asked an experienced music editor to have a look at recent edits to this article and to Rock and roll, and he proceeded to make edits and comments that he saw fitting in light of Wikipedia policies.
i had also put "more eyes needed" notices on the BLP noticeboard, the music noticeboard and the NPOV noticeboard asking other uninvolved editors to take a look. if their edits and comments are similar, that's because Wikipedia policies are quite clear on issues like neutrality, verifiability and proper citing of reliable sources.
meanwhile, to reply to PhilKnight's question: changes i consider necessary include:

• the appropriate use of reliable sources: the sources need to meet WP:RS and WP:EL; material that's quoted needs to be properly attributed; material that's rephrased needs to represent the source accurately;
  
• a balanced, non-promotional POV - Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for WP:Advocacy (see the edit history of the Rock and roll article as well);
  
• the chronological sections about Little Richard's life and career need more properly sourced detail;
• trivia like a wrestler billed as "a Little Richard look-alike" and excess detail like Richard's appearance at a bandmember's mother's funeral need to be trimmed;
  
• at one point i did hope the "Influence" section might be revised into something more informative than a monotonous string of testimonials - my idea is described above, but that is not an expression of support for any solo editor to revamp that section without consensus;
  
• there have also been problems with repeated reinsertions of material against consensus, "ownership issues" and personal attacks and accusations.
  

i've made that a generalized list on purpose, partly because many of the specifics have already been pointed out (sometimes repeatedly, like that blog that's still being misused as a source), but also because it seems to me that the main problem is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's aims, policies and standards. Sssoul (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I am only concerned about the end result of the article being an accurate representation of the subject, including his unique contribution to twentieth century music. I admit that I am greener than many as a new editor to Wiki, in relation to some of the policies and procedures, and thank some of you for being patient with the "new kid on the block", especially because I can be like a 'bull in a china shop' sometimes. I, once again, am thankful that the article is much closer to what it should be in content than when I first began. I am also committed to working within policy (with the assistance of others) to ensure that we capture the truth of the subject so that the public can be accurately and fully informed.--Smoovedogg (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the tags at the start of the influence section should be removed, as the section was tagged some time ago when there were far more quotes and names appearing. The current version has been majorly reduced and to me appears misleading right now.--Smoovedogg (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The section, as it is right now, does convey an accurate representation of the subject and his contribution to twentieth century pop/rock music. It needs no more peacocking... its tail is spread out enough. As for the tags, I think the problems addressed by those tags has been taken care of for the most part and they can be removed... IF another "aim-for-encyclopedic-neutrality" editor will agree with me. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

just for clarity, The Real Libs: does that mean you're okay with the use of this blog to support the assertion that "Wilson Pickett said, 'Little Richard is the architect of Rock 'n' Roll'"? what the source actually says is ... well, you can see for yourself. thanks Sssoul (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Blogs should never be used as a reference. That one could be replaced with Joe Strummer's quote from the Time-Life documentary called "History of Rock n Roll-Episode One" where Strummer states "I Love Little Richard, his music is the best... he is the best" or someone else as musically important as Strummer. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the Joe Strummer quote, I return to arguably greater figures, such as: OTIS REDDING - "I entered the music business because of Richard - he is my inspiration. I used to sing like Little Richard, his Rock 'n' Roll stuff, you know. Richard has soul, too. My present music has a lot of him in it." - 1966 from Charles White's The Life and Times of LR (2003) - p. 229; PAUL McCARTNEY - "I never thought I'd ever meet Little Richard. He was my idol at school. The first song I ever sang in public was 'Long Tall Sally,' at a Butlins holiday camp talent competition! I love his voice and I always wanted to sing like him." - from Charles White's 2003 revision p.114-115); and, MICK JAGGER - "Little Richard is the originator and my first idol." Mick Jagger from White's 2003 revision - pages 119-120) By the way, Jagger also said, "Little Richard is King." (as the quote appears on the cover of the original 1985 release of White's book). If ELVIS PRESLEY ("Your music has inspired me - you are the greatest" - 1969 from page 225 of White's 2003 revision) and JAMES BROWN ("Little Richard is my idol" from page 229 of the same 2003 book) were not referred to as being inspired in the lead of the article, I would say those individuals and/or quotes would be monumental to highlight in the influence section. In addition, SMOKEY ROBINSON's pre-1986 quote from the same book (page 226) "Little Richard is the beginning of Rock n Roll" that he refined in 1997 to "Little Richard is the beginning of that funky, drivin, never-let-up rock 'n' roll" at the American Music Awards is an explanation of the style of music that Richard originated. (Unfortunately, the youtube video of Smokey saying the latter is not up right now.) QUINCY JONES from White's text also makes the subject's contribution more clear -"Little Richard was not only a giant but a pioneer of the so-called Rock 'n' Roll music industry. He had such a unique voice and style that no one else has matched it... Rock 'n' Soul is here to stay!" (page 103 from White's 2003 revision). And BO DIDDLEY (an originator in his own right) spoke volumes when he said "Little Richard was a one-of-a-kind show business genius. He influenced so many people in the business." from page 226 of the White 2003 revision. There are, as I have indicated in the past a staggering number of amazing quotes, some of which I have tranferred to Wikiquote, as suggested by one editor (yes, I will remove Wilson's quote if policies disallow the quote, Harrison - I can't find the youtube video the the rock hall had up - and Green's - from Wikiquote unless I find the newspaper article again). Perhaps the mediator/s can help guide, as far as which other quotes and/or landmark artists (should they be referred to as LR's contemporaries?) should OR should not be highlighted. --Smoovedogg (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

a current request to the mediators (resolved now, i hope)

since the people involved in the mediation have agreed not to edit the articles in question, would the mediators please have a look at this diff and this one? i agreee that the article should include a properly sourced statement about Little Richard being referred to as "the architect of rock and roll", but this looks like weasel-wording that doesn't accurately represent the source cited (ie Little Richard himself). thanks Sssoul (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, restoring the previous Rock Hall quote, which would be to add "He claims to be the "achitect of rock and roll" and history would seem to bear out his boast. (More than...)" That not only makes reference to him calling himself that (which he has) but also adds credibility to the title (which the Rock Hall provides). It is still possible that Wilson referred to him as such prior to Richard calling himself that. I'm trying to find out. Also, if that citation does stand up, someone might be able to find one pertaining to the event and statement that would be acceptable. Some editors have seemed to support the citation though to this point - is it wrongly categorized at the site?--Smoovedogg (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you call the Macon-Bibb County Convention and Visitors Bureau after hours at (478) 743-1960, you'll hear a tape of Richard calling himself "The Architect of Rock n Roll." You may find find this reference in David Kirby's new book "Little Richard: The Birth of Rock 'n' Roll" (2009) Continuum Books -Page 45.--Smoovedogg (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

is that the same still-unpublished book you referred to on the Rock and roll talk page? apparently it's due out in 2010, so it's difficult to consult it until then.

in any case, the problem i was asking the mediators to help with has already been removed (thank you). the statement attributed to Wilson Pickett in the "Influence" section is a different issue. and it would probably be good to let the mediators guide this discussion. Sssoul (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

advanced copies of the book have been published and released and may be used at this point for citation by permission of the author.--Smoovedogg (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note on The Source of Wiki Power's talk page to let him know about the informal mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I found this reference: Gulla, Bob (2008), Icons of R&B and Soul: An Encyclopedia of the Artists who Revolutionized Rhythm, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 28, ISBN 0313340455, which could possibly be useful. PhilKnight (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is Bob Gulla... besides the guy who wrote a book called 25 Guitar Gods and it includes a chapter on Kurt Cobain??? but no mention of Richie Blackmore or John McLaughlin or Al DiMeola? Is he a reliable source?? He is an indpendent writer with no Wiki article so I am unfamiliar with him (and me.. a librarian to boot?) The Real Libs-speak politely 00:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I like his info. I think it should be used if Gulla is a Wiki-acceptable source.--Smoovedogg (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as this whole "architect of rock and roll" title that Little Richard claims for himself... the news wire is abundant with articles such as this. If is were a singular title that is used for just one person... IE Neil Young is the "Godfather of Grunge"... it would hold more weight. Even the Rock and Roll hall of Fame (which has been used as a source for some of this articles peacocking) labels Mr. Les Paul as "Architect of Rock and Roll" So are there two? Do we use weasel words and put "Some people claim" that Little Richard "was one of.." or do we aim for credible source and just leave it out? The Real Libs-speak politely 15:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Using the same arguement, would one then leave "The King" out of Elvis' article because LR is often referred to as such? Perhaps, others may have been referred to as the King of Rock 'n' Roll but it seems to me that the longstanding debate has been whether it was Elvis or LR. I think they both were "kings", although LR the first king of RnR. As far as the use of The "Architect od Rock 'n' Roll" is concerned, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame indicating that history would seem to bear out LR's 'boast' is a confirmation of his claim and adds even more validity to the term. (And it will be interesting to find out from Max Pickett when Wilson called him the Architect of Rock and Roll - that it may have been before LR began referring to himself as such. If not, it may not really matter.)--Smoovedogg (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if you questioned 1000 people anywhere in a random poll and asked them "who is the King of Rock and Roll" 90% or better would answer Elvis Presley. The label is like a brand name that is etched into modern pop culture language. That is a common term for Elvis even in non-English speaking countries. The first line in his Rock and Roll Hall of Fame entry is "Elvis Presley is the undisputed King of Rock and Roll" And you have to go a very long way through many pages of a Google search for the term before your get a link related to anything other than Elvis Presley. You cannot compare the usage of the two phrases when trying to support the phrase "architect of rock and roll" applying to only Little Richard as has been pointed out in the earlier posted references. Little Richard may claim to be the 'king', but in overwhelming application of the words "King of Rock and Roll" it can only apply to one person and that is Elvis Presley. My own personal opinion, speaking as a guitar player, is that Chuck Berry is the king of rock and roll. But that is my own personal opinions and has no reliable reference to support it that outweighs the term being used almost exclusively for Elvis Presley. Wether B (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The previous editor is correct. 90% of the respondents would answer Elvis, and the other 10% would answer Chuck Berry; LR would get nary a mention. Even though LR's gospel/blues/boogie-woogie fusion probably resulted in the "invention" of rock & roll, it was Berry who thrust R&R into the 50s consciousness. His unrelenting stream of hits were heard everywhere, and were as much the soundtrack of the American 50s as the Beach Boys were of the early 60s. Poor LR, on the other hand, was confined at the beginning to the category of "race music" ("they" wouldn't play LR at dances, and you had to go to record stores in black neighborhoods to buy his stuff in the early days). Berry's slick pompadour, duck walk, catchy riffs, and songs about girls and cruising and jukeboxes locked in big time with the karma of 50s high schoolers. LR was too weird, too black, too scary, and too polysexual for all but the most rebellious teens. Surely he deserved better, but to call him the King or Architect of anything is simply wrong. He benefits better from a retrospective approach than from any sense of how he was viewed when it was actually happening. And, today he is the Greatest Living American, beloved by all. Maybe that belongs in the Infobox. Seduisant (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that the vast majority of people would say that Elvis is King, I think it would be interesting to learn what the actual persentage would be if one was to conduct a scientific poll. LR was "too Black" and so was his funky, explosive style of music. If one was to survey the Black community, the results might be 90% LR and 10% Elvis. Little Richard was referred to as "The King" by Mohammed Ali (Ali's 50th birthday celebration where he called Richard that was recently removed from Youtube - terms of use violation) and is constantly being referred to as "The King" and "The Architect" within that community. Outside of that community, he sometimes gets his 'props' - see: the PR piece for the King Ralph movie in association with Polygram Records http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ6h0kyqSRk --Smoovedogg (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel that would be correct. I don't think it matter which "community" would be polled the answer would still be the same. If I were to poll the Maori/Samoan/Australian Aboriginal people living in this region the answer would likely be Elvis. And if I travel to Sorth Asia the answer would still be Elvis. In many of those areas he is one of the only American rock and roll artists that anyone knows of. Little Richard is a very important person in the history of rock and roll. But as far as this article reads right now that importance is expressed well enough. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

An classic example of the misunderstanding of the Black community and the recording artist known as Little Richard. I'll brace myself now for another whoopin'--Smoovedogg (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) back to the "architect" question, if i may: how does that Bob Gulla quote continue, please and thank you? what i can see of it in the link PhilKnight provided (thank you) wouldn't pass WP:weasel, but if there's some elucidation about *why* the "many experts" he's alluding to have called Little Richard the "architect of rock & roll" - or better yet, who exactly these "many experts" are - maybe it would be useable in the "Influence" section. (the fact that it's turning out to be so difficult to come up with a solid source for the use of this honorific seems like good evidence that it doesn't belong in the lead section of the article.)
meanwhile (as i've already noted a couple of times), citing this blog report on Wilson Pickett's funeral as a source for the assertion that "Wilson Pickett said, 'Little Richard is the architect of Rock 'n' Roll'" is not okay. even if the blog were a reliable source (which it isn't), it's being misrepresented: the most it supports is that at Wilson Pickett's funeral his brother Max reportedly stated that Wilson once said Little Richard was the architect of rock & roll. if i understand one of Smoovedogg's earlier comments correctly, he/she wants to interpret Max's reported statement as an assertion that Wilson Pickett was the first person to apply this honorific to Little Richard. please see WP:V and WP:NOR for relevant Wikipedia policies. thanks Sssoul (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I merely suggested that it is possible that Wilson may have called Richard that before anyone else. Who knows? Maybe it started with Wilson. Maybe he simply supported the claim. If Max remembers when Wilson said it, and if Richard recalls how it surfaced AND if there reliable sources to supoort all this... this could be cleared up. Until then, it is a bit of a mystery. Pushing forward, I would like to see the Gulla reference used, that PhilKnight provided, if possible.--Smoovedogg (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There are already 2 rock solid reliable sources posted right here in this discussion that label Les Paul as the Architect of Rock and Roll. There can't be 2, so there can't be any. And therein ends the debate... no need to keep beating this poor horse... its already dead. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that Richard was referred to as The Architect of Rock and Roll before Les Paul, and, perhaps, he was not. Even the Rockabilly Hall of Fame refers to him as such. Scan through the following link, as it is mentioned a few times: [1] The various elements Richard brought together were different, unique, and his music was certainly not guitar-based. The Rock Hall President & CEO, Terry Stewart, stated, "Without Les Paul, we would not have rock and roll as we know it.... His inventions created the infrastructure for the music and his playing style will ripple through generations. He was truly an architect of rock and roll." This would lead to one to the conslusion that if Paul was AN architect, there could be another. I suspect that if Richard and/or others hadn't been referred to as such in the past, the article might have read "THE" instead of "AN." Searching this out, leads to a problem that complicates my stance. Being completely transparent, I just found that the Rock Hall has an exibit dedicated to "The Architects of Rock n Roll." [2] There it names three people - Les Paul, Sam Phillips, and Alan Freed. Oddly, the RnR Hall makes references to Little Richard claiming to be the architect, and then states that "history would seem to bear out Little Richard's boast," which substantiates the claim. [3] But then, they do not list him in the special section dedicated to Architects? Strange. When Richard passes on the heaven (I hope and pray that the good LORD gives him health and strength for many more years, in JESUS name, amen), I am sure that we will see all kinds of articles and references to cite. Right now, one has to search for them.--Smoovedogg (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think his impact and influence is emphasised quite well with the Hall of Fame quote in the article lead-in. There doesn't even need to be an influences section as that opening quote says all that needs to be said. If you wish to create your own website dedicated to worshipping Little Richard you are more than welcome to do so. But you shouldn't try to use Wikipedia for that purpose. Wether B (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I take offence to that. I ONLY worship my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, only begotten Son of God, who came to this world, died on the cross and rose from the dead for my sins - praise to His name! I simply appreciate and fully understand the enormous talent that is Little Richard and the influence that he has had all the way down to the contemporary Christian music that exists today. From R&B to Soul to Rock to Funk to Rap - his legacy is unique and incredible.--Smoovedogg (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in God myself and the last time I talked to him he said to make sure no starry eyed fanboys tried to cruft up the Wiki pages of any of his creations. And the page already has more than enough cruft. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What is irrelevant and unnecessary (cruft) to mention from a guitarist's perspective, who may happen to be a "starry-eyed fanboy - or fangirl" of another artist, and what is relevant and necessary from the perspective of a percussionist/rhythmist are two different things. As the mediator suggested (below), following the above conv., we should keep this on topic. And I am glad to see the article continuing to 'take shape'.--Smoovedogg (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

proposal

Let's try and keep the discussion away from religion and personal beliefs, and focused on the task at hand, okay? Smoovedogg, perhaps you should examine what Wether B has to say. The quote in the lead does mention that Little Richard "laid the foundation for rock n' roll". Maybe the Influences section is not entirely necessary, as it seems to read like an amalgamation of quotes by different artists claiming that Little Richard influenced them. Maybe we could add a sentence to the lead like "Artists such as Bob Dylan, Ray Charles, Jimi Hendrix and Michael Jackson all said that Little Richard influenced them in their musical career." What would everyone's opinion on a compromise like that be? Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 03:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) the barriers i see to adding that to the lead are: 1] apart from Michael Jackson, that's not what the quotes from those artists actually assert; and 2] if you're proposing that a sentence like that be added to the lead instead of the "Influence" section, that doesn't seem to be in line with WP:LEAD. (a third barrier would be that multiple editors have stated that the lead already includes enough acclaim, but they can say for themselves whether or not they'd find a compromise like that acceptable if artists who have actually said that were listed.) The point is that Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for a tribute page. Sssoul (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As another party to the mediation process, I agree with Sssoul in that: 1] apart from Michael Jackson, that's not what the quotes from those artists actually assert; 2] if you're proposing that a sentence like that be added to the lead instead of the "Influence" section, that doesn't seem to be in line with WP:LEAD; and, 3] multiple editors have stated that the lead already includes enough acclaim. I would prefer to leave the article as it stands than to alter it in the suggested manner. And personally, I would sort of prefer Seger, Fogerty and Stewart being left in the influence section, as they are classic examples of the raw, raspy 'holler' that is characteristic of Little Richard. Maybe Paul and Mick idolized LR as teens, but as much as Paul aspired to sing his rockers like Little Richard and his ballads like Elvis (according to what John Fogerty said Paul told him), and as much as Mick's first idol was Little Richard, their voices are not near as close as the other three to sounding like Richard. I am willing to back off on this and agree with the other editors opinion at this point.--Smoovedogg (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering what Sssoul and the other contrinuting editors think of mentioning in the 60s section, where it mentions The Beatles and The Stones touring with him before they became famous, at least something about the two lead singers having idolized him as teenagers (with citations).--Smoovedogg (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

the 1960s section is supposed to present facts about Little Richard's activities in the 1960s, and any quotes added there need to pertain to that, not to who had idolized him as teenagers. but if there's an appropriate quote from a reliable source then please propose it here on the talk page so that we can discuss specifics. Sssoul (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. What I was referring to was McCartney saying: "I never thought I'd ever meet Little Richard. He was my idol at school. The first song I ever sang in public was 'Long Tall Sally,' at a Butlins holiday camp talent competition! I love his voice and I always wanted to sing like him." from White's "The Life and Times of LR" (2003 revision) p.114-115 and Jagger saying, "I had heard so much about the audience reaction that I thought there must be some exaggeration. But it was all true. He drove the whole house into a complete frenzy. There's no single phrase to describe his hold on the audience. I couldn't believe the power of Little Richard on stage. He was amazing. Chuck Berry is my favorite, along with Bo (Diddley), but nobody could beat Little Richard's stage act. Little Richard is the originator and my first idol." That came from the same book p.119-120. I not saying insert the quotes (that seems to alwasy get shot down in flames), but I simply meant to say something like (plus citations):

"In 1962 on a tour of parts of Europe, Little Richard backslid from the ministry. Two key bands little known bands toured with him that and the following year, whose leads singers had both idolized him as teens. His opening act in 1962 was The Beatles. In 1963, toured with Rolling Stones in Great Britain along with Bo Diddley and The Everly Brothers."

Another proposal: On the architect topic, if Wilson Pickett calling him the architect of rock n roll in the influence section can't be used because it comes from a blog (still searching to see if it was published in a Wiki approved manner), what about inserting Bo Diddley's quote, as follows, in it's place: "Little Richard was a one-of-a-kind show business genius. He influenced so many people in the business." from page 226 of the White 2003 revision.--Smoovedogg (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

no, i wouldn't consider the proposed change to the 1960s section acceptable ("Two key bands little known bands ... whose leads singers had both idolized him as teens", i mean) - it's too promotional/unencyclopedic in tone, and the article doesn't need more of that.

sorry, i meant "Two little known bands toured with him..."--Smoovedogg (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

regarding the Pickett quote: as i've pointed out repeatedly, it's not only the fact that it's from a blog that's problematic - it's also misrepresented: what that source says is that Max Pickett said Wilson once called Little Richard that. that doesn't support the assertion now in the article.

as for the Bo quote: maybe that's more promising - is that the complete statement reported in White? Sssoul (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That was as it was telecast at the American Music Awards in 1997. In White's bio, it ends with a third sentence - "...I was afraid to follow him onstage."--Smoovedogg (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So, I would suggest using the first two lines of the quote, as Dick Clark did: "Little Richard was a one-of-a-kind show business genius. He influenced so many people in the business." from page 226 of the White 2003 revision.--Smoovedogg (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) sorry, but i forgot to sign in, so the recent edits show my ip address. i resumed editing based on recent activity that we are trying to proceed outside of the mediation process. i am in agreement with the recent edits by others, and i added a reference to the addition of Bowie in the influence section, as well as citations for Redding and Jagger. There have been no additional quotes added, and as that a number of the quotes were removed a long time ago, the quote farm notation was removed. I also think the other notice should be removed from the top of the influence section.--Smoovedogg (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Tutii Frutti Lyric

Charles White's "Life and Times of Little Richard: The Authorized Biography" indicates the following in relation to part of the lyrics for "Tutti Fruitti":

"Awop-Bop-a-Loo-Mop Alop-Bam-Boom

Tutti Fruitti, Aw-Rootie (5 times)..."

I find it interesting that lyrics on the net and in this LR article indicate that the one line is "tutti frutti all rootie." Further, this article now explains what "all" rootie meant at the time. Perhaps, "all" is pronounced "aw" and that's why the lyrics are printed that way in White's authorized biography. as it stands in the article, the spelling does not seem to be correct.--Smoovedogg (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Rev.(?) Richard Penniman

I noticed that at times the LR wiki article has opened with "Rev" in the past. Little Richard attended a Seventh Day Adventist college after his born again conversion, however, he has spoken/preached/performed in churches of other denominations over the years, and the following article indicates that he has not been ordained as a Seventh Day Adventist but may have been in one of the other denomiations with which he has remained close:

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/09/08/little_richard_rock_and_roll_star_adventist_minister

He also wedded 20 couples a couple years back in Vinton, Louisiana, after the couples won a prize that included being married by the rock n roll minister. The following ET report indicates that he has been an ordained minister for decades.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2926027556984856414&ei=wsfTSpbuG5jqqwLHqqnKCg&q=little+richard+&hl=en#

He also wedded Bruce Springsteen, Bruce Willis and Demi Moore, Cindy Lauper, John Branca (Michael Jackson's executor and former lawyer/friend - Michael was John's best man). So, it appears that he is ordained. An appropriate citation verifying same is being sought, although it appears that the ET report from the internet source listed above may be sufficient.--Smoovedogg (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

no one (i hope!) is questioning the fact that he's ordained; the question is whether it's Wikipedia policy to include the honorific prefix in the text, particularly in the first sentence. see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes. Sssoul (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Sssoul, for pointing that out. You have a great handle on the wiki policies. At some point in the article, it seems to me to make sense that was ordained. Perhaps, it would make most sense to find out when the ordination occured and insert it in the appropriate place.--Smoovedogg (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Peacock Label

I have removed the peacock label from the influence section of the article. The tag was put there when there were many more quotes in the section. Although the sources were double checked and corrected for accuracy, some felt that there were too many quotes. One multiple user (see below section on "Sockpuppetry" on Little Richard Discussion Page) suggested aiming for encyclopedic, using a few box quotes and a half dozen examples. Another user suggested using a half dozen quotes. The bulk of the quotes that were listed have long since been removed. The few remaining quotes and examples are such that, if one was to examine the sources, they would not find justification for re-inserting the peacock tag. If anyone disagrees, please provide clear examples below for further discussion.--Smoovedogg (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"This is not to say one of the very recent (Oct. 21/22) editors is part of the sockpuppetry": in that case i suggest you delete your references to sockpuppetry. they're irrelevant to the recent reinstatement of the "peacock" tag, and the suggestion to limit the section to half a dozen quotes was made on 7 August 2009 by Seduisant. Sssoul (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Sssoul, for that clarification. Be assured that I have no sockpuppets, nor am I the sockpuppet of anyone else. I don't have the time nor the inclination to create/maintain sockpuppets; nor really, either, to continue to devote any more energy to this page, as this entire matter should have been resolved back in August.

I have had the LR page on my watchlist probably for years; I don't remember. Looking at it now, I see an article that has devolved into a jumbled mess of "citation needed"s, "unreliable source?"s, and similar insertions that look maddening and serve only to slow the reader down. Now he must ask himself: Is this true? Was the previous sentence true? Spare me. Were I not a loyal editor here, I would simply have laughed and moved on - say, over to Allmusic or something similar. The fact that somebody said that somebody else said at somebody else's funeral that LR was the "architect of R&R" illustrates beyond argument how far from a GA this article has become.

As I have said before, the "Influence" section, mercifully briefer than it was at the outset, contains information of interest only to the most devout acolyte of Little Richard. The casual reader simply wants to know whether LR really was the guy responsible for The Beatles' "OOOOOOs", not what Sam Cooke thinks of him. And who the Awards and Honors subsection could possibly interest (besides its author(s)) is beyond me.

Once, I considered suggesting that the Influence section be moved out of the article and into an "Influences on Little Richard" article, where the horse could finally be beaten to death, out of the mainstream. But I didn't.

I'll continue to monitor this article for vandalism, but I simply don't have the time nor the resolve to discuss the same thing over and over and over and over again. I am sorry. Seduisant (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just to clarify, it was Seduisant that indicated the quotes should be limited to half a dozen quotes (it has fewer than that now). However, I was NOT referring to Seduisant as the one who has been involved in sockpuppetry (see section below). I was referring to Fair Deal/Aissie Ausborn/Wiki Libs/etc., etc. who has been blocked (and many users deleted) due to sockpuppetry. That person suggested above to "aim for "encyclopedia"... six examples and maybe 2-3 boxed quotes." That is who and what I referred to in the opening paragraph of this section. Accordingly, I have agreed to remove some of the wording in the first paragraph and move some of the content into a new section on sockpuppetry to avoid confusion.

With respect to the lead and the influence section of the article, it is more accurate now than it was previously. To say that these sections have devolved is not appropriate. I see that the rest of the article needs to catch up but I have been dedicated at this time to focusing on helping to ensure that accuracy and important information is included in the lead and expanded as appropriate in the body of the article.

Perhaps there are some who are not interested in the impact that this artist had on a variety of musical genres. To someone only interested in British Invasion stars, you need not go further than highlighting the Beatles and Stones or, at least, McCartney and Jagger. However, for individuals with an interest in the bigger picture and how this artist impacted on twentieth century music as a whole, it is very relevant to highlight the artists impact on Redding, Cooke and the development of the genre of soul music, as well as expanding on the leads reference to the artists original injection of funk in the rock and roll beat.

When you study the impact that the other important artists had on twentieth century music (there are many articles to review - Michael Jackson, James Brown, etc.), it is particularly relevant to educate the curious or uninformed individuals of this artists contributions and how and why his impact was so significant. If you look at the artists who sold the most records or had the biggest impact on the development on a number of musical genres (R&B, Rock n Roll, Soul) in the last 50 years, it is amazing to see how many stated they were influenced primarily by Little Richard. The lead and expanded influence section of this article simply touches the tip of the iceberg, with the most important information highlighted.--Smoovedogg (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the previous suggestion that you thought might be appropriate, Sssoul, to replace the poorly sourced (Wikipedia standard) Pickett information with the Bo Diddley quote: "Little Richard was a one-of-a-kind show business genius. He influenced so many people in the business." That is a quote that Dick Clark Productions used in 1997 on the Amercian Music Award of Merit presentation and clearly appears in White's Life and Times of LR. There is a third sentence: "I was afraid to follow him onstage." But Clark's production company didn't include that line.--Smoovedogg (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

i agree that the "Influence" section reads better now than it has at some points in the past; but i also agree with Seduisant that the statement about what someone said at Wilson Pickett's funeral should be removed - it sounds absurd, in addition to being improperly sourced. the Ray Charles quote is another candidate for removal: it's an extremely vague statement being made in a situation where no one says anything but superlatives and high praise; and using youtube as a source is thin ice: please see WP:YT. is that for sure not a copyright violation?

The Ray Charles info is a significant opening statement and, following examination of same, it is unlike any of the other introductions made by the artists themselves about the other artists at the Legends of Rock n Roll concert in Rome. It is also a video where Ray can be watched and heard at the very beginning of the clip and has the approval of the copyright owners to be displayed on the internet (the company has published it).--Smoovedogg (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

as for the Bo Diddley quote, if i recall it was you who thought it was appropriate. does it add anything of substance? as people have been trying to convey since at least august: piling up laudatory remarks is not the way to improve a Wikipedia article. please get better acquainted with WP:NPOV and WP:Advocacy and understand that those policies apply to a legend of Little Richard's stature just like they apply to every other subject.

Just to refresh, I did suggest it and your reponse was: "as for the Bo quote: maybe that's more promising - is that the complete statement reported in White? Sssoul (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)". This is relation to it as a replacement for the Wilson Pickett information. As far as substance is concerned, the Bo Diddley information highlights the uniqueness of Little Richard as an artist (by another unique pioneer) and the fact that he influnced large numbers of people, with examples following.--Smoovedogg (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

meanwhile, as Seduisant (among others) has noted, the main body of the article is in dire need of improvement. it would be great if some energy could be applied to bringing the biography sections closer to something resembling an informative encyclopedia article - thanks. Sssoul (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I again agree that the main body needs improvement, and we will continue to see improvement over time if we can find time to work on it.--Smoovedogg (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)smile: saying "maybe [the Bo Diddley quote] sounds more promising" than a blog-based claim about what someone said someone else said is not a vote for adding it, and i'm sorry you've now added it without consensus. as people have been very patiently telling you since august, piling up laudatory remarks is not a way to impress readers, and not in line with Wikipedia policy. i'm glad the youtube clip of Ray Charles's introduction is not a copyright violation, but it's a very vague and uninformative statement; and the Bo Diddley quote says practically the same thing. please remove one or the other - Bo's statement is less bound to a particular timeframe (what does "today" mean in Charles's statement?) so that one's probably "better". thanks Sssoul (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I jumped the gun a bit on this. The quote farm that previously existed has is long gone and I thought that we had been discussing a potential replacement for the Wilson Pickett info. I also thought we had progressed to the point where Bo's quote might be okay to put in as a replacement for Wilson's at this time. Ray's quote is simple in that he states that Richard started a kind of music in the 1950s that set the pace for a lot of the music that was happening in 1989, which speaks volumes as not a lot has changed musically since then. Please allow me to think about this for a few days.--Smoovedogg (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

May I add that I really appreciate your skill as an editor of encyclopedic articles and could use your help in shaping some of the content in the main body. I have been working to correct the order of the information as it appears in each decade and correct information where needed. Some of it seems so - this happened in 1992 and this happened in 1993, where it might be better to summarize. But at least to get the information accurate, sourced, and in chronological order is a start.--Smoovedogg (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in Relation to Little Richard Article

The outlandish conduct of one user (Wiki Libs, The Real Libs, Aussie Ausborn, Fair Deal, Wether B, numerous IP addresses, etc.) who used multiple user names to try to build consensus on this discussion page, sometimes using one user name to try to support one of his or her other user names, and often editing and reverting some justified information without responding to discussion or commenting to justify same, has been detected by many and dealt with. The master of sockpuppetry (Wiki Libs) has been blocked for one month and any future sockpuppetry will result in an indefinite block. The associated users and IPs detected have, apparently, been deleted (see [4]). I sensed that something was very wrong with the process and made reference to foul play in the past.--Smoovedogg (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm... very good of you to see it coming. Is there anything else you think needs acting on here, or were you just posting for the sake of summarization? Master of Puppets 07:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's called "Grave dancing". And for the record, the IPs were thrown out. --King Öomie 12:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) article talk pages are for discussions about the article, not about other editors. please move this discussion to your user talk page(s) - thanks Sssoul (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The main reason why this heading was placed here in the articles talk page was because the ONE user (Wiki Libs, The Real Libs, Aussie Ausborn, Fair Deal, Wether B), a self-admitted Chuck Berry fan and guitar player, made a concerted effort to influence this article with a biased and unfair approach. It is important for this to be noted here for the record.--Smoovedogg (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) again: this is not an appropriate place to discuss another editor; put it on your own talk page. the article's edit history is already on record, and anyone interested can see whose have been problematic in what ways. if an additional statement were necessary for any reason, it would be appropriate for an uninvolved editor to make it ... and meanwhile being a "self-admitted Chuck Berry fan and guitar player" is not against Wikipedia policy. Sssoul (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

changes to the biographical sections

improvements to the chronological sections are way overdue, of course, but again: maintaining an encyclopedic tone is essential. i've cleaned up some of the over-promotional stuff about White's book, and am not convinced there's any reason the book's publication should be mentioned at all in this article (it belongs in White's article, not here). also please note that Wikipedia doesn't use euphemisms for death: "she died" is the preferred form. Sssoul (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and appreciate the editing the you are doing. Sometimes I think it is a bit overedited but I am trying my best to keep an open mind and see things from a encyclopedic perspective. Often more is less. You have more experience and knowledge than I as far as writing encyclopedic articles. But as long as the most important basic information is captured.--Smoovedogg (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the White autobiography, if one looks back at the amazing critical acclaim it received from leading newspapers and international magazines, along with when this occured, it is easy to see how this book was at the forefront of a series of events that launched his show business comeback (i will search for a source or remove the comeback comment). That and the events that followed in the next two year period: the serious auto accident in front of a television studio in LA resulting in wide media coverage; the Rock Hall induction while he recovered; the hit record; the motion picture in which he appeared and won critical acclaim, etc. He was suddenly in great demand as an actor, celebrity, rock n roll pioneer, recording artist, etc.--Smoovedogg (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

the acclaim for the book belongs in White's article, and it needs to be reported in a nonpromotional, encyclopedic manner. Sssoul (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Little Richard and the Ministry

What wording do you, Sssoul, think would be more appropriate for the opening of the paragraph, other than: "In recent years, Reverend Richard Penniman's spiritual fervor and calling to the ministry have been obvious" as it is now worded in the 2000s section? I notice that you put the tag back after it was changed from "have been more obvious" to "have been obvious". Your feedback/suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.--Smoovedogg (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

i'm suggesting that the assertion needs to be supported by a reliable source just like everything else; if there's no reliable source that asserts this, the statement should be removed. the parts about his appearance at a bandmember's mother's funeral and a visit to some local house of worship need to be removed as well - it's not noteworthy, except to the people directly involved. Sssoul (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I had removed his attending the house of worship statement that someone had inserted and agree to the removal of the attendance at bandmember's mother's funeral.--Smoovedogg (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)