Talk:Little Richard/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Influence on Society

The following paragraph had been inserted, and it seemed relevant because Marc Mero became a world famous wrestling star with action figures in stores, etc. by emulating Little Richard's appearance and showmanship. It seemed worth including:

Penniman's showmanship and colorful image was emulated in other segments of society over the years. In 1990, a professional wrestler from the World Wrestling Federation by the name of Marc Mero became a famous World Championship Wrestling star when he was repackaged under the ring name Johnny B. Badd using the gimmick of a flamboyant Little Richard look-alike.

How is it determined what is trivial and what is significant enough to include? Should one editor be able to removed the well-sourced material because s/he thinks it is trivial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.244.9 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 March 2013‎

My opinion... Those sources are not reliable, and in any case don't support the claims made. And the claims themselves are trivial. Someone dressed up to look like Little Richard. So what? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable sources? The first one even quotes Mero himself. It seemed that a wrestler who became a superstar using Little Richard's image and stage flair, resulting in action figures in stores around the world and numerous young fans, was worth mentioning in the article. In the grand scheme of things it isn't the first man stepping onto the moon or anything, but it seemed more than mere trivia. I appreciate your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.244.9 (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The Sun is most assuredly not a reliable source, for anything. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Plus Marc Mero? He's not even that important in the history of wrestling. Hell that Honky Tonk dude took his cues from Elvis but you don't see his name branded around in Elvis' legacy section of his page. Impersonators doesn't always merit a notion on anyone's page. And using The Sun is definitely not going to fly. Sadly, some people are still taking liberties into Little Richard's page. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The subject is not notable to this article, it adds nothing to knowledge of the subject.--SabreBD (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Introduction issues

As stated in many previous posts on this Talk Page the intro is too long. I suggest a complete removal of the awards listed in the intro which are completely detailed at the end of the article anyway. Introductions need to be "tight" and "concise" in their summary so as to encourage readers to proceed reading the whole article. Awards are fine but normally all articles reserve the closing area of the main body for such details. Its very tempting to think that cramming the introduction with awards will bring the artist to the attention of readers but it is normally not the case. Its like having a newspaper headline that gives you enough details so that you don't feel as though you have to know the whole story or read any further.

Nice to see Ghmyrtle is involved since my respect for him as an editor on this site has gone from "get out of my way" to "maybe he is ok" especially after he has decided to leave me alone to follow my heart on such matters as replacing the term "black" with "african-american" (see Broonzy Talk Page, my talk page and Ghmyrtle talk page) regardless of Wikipedia's rather confused ethnocentric caucasian-majority bull policy on such matters. As a coloured man I now declare that I am making Ghmyrtle an honorary member of the "coloured dudes club" (probationary period of one year starting from the date I changed the first term of "black" to "african-american" on the Jazz article which this time he didn't revert). I do not do this lightly and I hope he lives up to all expectations associated with this title which involves these very honourable aims:

• progressive introduction of correct technical terms to describe race and culture of said people

• and anything else coloured editors may decide may be beneficial to Wikipedia (I think that covers it just about. lol)

He is now entitled to attend sound systems (dubstep and grime is big at the moment), eat spicy food (the real stuff not the watered down stuff they serve to caucasians in restaurants), improvise on musical instruments to the detriment of the development of a coherent system of harmony that could support symphonic forms and most importantly if he carries on doing the "coloured" thing he can meet my family as well as all my coloured friends be they West Indian or Indian.

Seriously its a good idea to get rid of the awards in the intro. Since last time I did an article that others kept an eye on World War Three nearly broke out I leave it to the caucasian editors here to decide the best course for this article about an African-American (you have no idea how much that pains me to say those words). lol

Sluffs (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be good to take out but be aware of the anonymous IPs that may put the information back in. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Little Richard's songs and artists' quotes

I think we may need to move the information about the quotes people used for other songs, like when David Bowie, Keith Richards and John Lennon mention his songs. I feel they may have become something of a hindrance to the "influence" section of the page. In fact, the influence page could have a makeover. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Think it's time for the anonymous editors to reveal who they are?

Because something fishy is going on with those IP's, please reveal yourself. Because I think I have a hunch who is really behind the IPs... BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Charles White

I'm starting to have an issue with Charles White and his supposed "knowledge" of Little Richard and the people who worked with him. It's unclear about Jimi Hendrix's role was in the group. We know he performed with him and he recorded guitar on "I Don't Know What You've Got (But It's Got Me)" but it's still unsure how much recording he actually did with Richard. So I don't get why it's added as if it's a fact. Some of Charles White's information wasn't really much about Richard but more about his live performances, his sex life and all of his admirers and the timeline is questionable. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 01:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There are many knowledgeable 'people in the know' that contributed to White's book. People connected with Hendrix and his family (Blackwell) and people from the South where Hendrix emerged before becoming famous are quoted. There is also a section of the book that deals with LR's recording sessions and who participated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.244.9 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

And BBC's White (Dr. Rock), an expert in Rock n Roll, would probably find it quite interesting to read that the opening paragraph under his name on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.244.9 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

People in the know? And how much of an expert is he? From what I heard, the book didn't really delve into Richard but the events surrounding him. And the dates are said to be wrong so how is he the expert? That doesn't make for a good Wikipedia article if we're just gonna go by his word? Plus when are you gonna stop being anonymous? BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 15:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, as a Brit, I've never even heard of him. I doubt if he has any more "expertise" than any some of us! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There you have it. If he's supposedly this known writer, then how come he's only known to some classic fifties rock purists? He just comes off as a fan (like David Kirby). Neither guy has really given an unbiased view of Little Richard like Peter Guralnick did with Elvis, Otis Redding and Sam Cooke but we're supposed to buy that he knew certain dates. Like in many Hendrix biographies, for example, he started working with Richard in September of 1964, not March. That March, he was with the Isley Brothers. White had it in March, which is a really serious error on his part. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked another editor - an expert on pop music who lives within 50 miles of White - and he doesn't know of him either. I think the answer is that, where there are more reliable sources on matters like the Hendrix connection, they should be used instead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 13:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Some info on Charles White (Dr. Rock) from Wikipedia: Charles "Chas" White, known as Dr Rock is an Irish-born BBC Radio and TV presenter and book author. Born in Dublin in 1942, White studied medicine in London in the 1960s to become a chiropodist, but chose instead to follow a DJ career. He lives in Scarborough. A self-described "lifelong Rock and Roll enthusiast", he ran a college course on the development of Rock and Roll, which led to his nickname "Dr Rock" by the press. White's television work includes Dr Rock's Guide to Hollywood, which won an Outstanding Achievement Award at the 1996 New York Festivals® International Television & Film Awards. White hosted the Dr Rock Show which ran on both Yorkshire and Tyne Tees Television. He has also appeared on the ground-breaking 1980s' series, The Tube. He authored biographies of Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard. White has written articles for The Observer and The Independent newspapers, and for Tatler and Rolling Stone magazines. His BBC Radio York show goes on the air every Sunday between 6pm and 7pm, GMT, but can be also be heard in many countries across the globe. In December 2011, BBC Radio announced that some 40 hours of local broadcasting a week would be axed in order to meet the budgeted 20 per cent cut in expenses, with Dr Rock's programme among those scheduled to go. The announcement was met with protest letters by fans. Books: The Life and Times of Little Richard: The Authorised Biography. Omnibus Press. 2003. ISBN 978-0-7119-9761-5. Killer! The Life and Times of Jerry Lee Lewis. Arrow Books Ltd. 1996. ISBN 978-0-09-930385-5. http://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/letters/dr-rock-s-programmes-are-essential-listening-1-4078170 http://www.bbc.co.uk/northyorkshire/content/image_galleries/doctor_rock_stars_2_gallery.shtml?16 http://www.bbc.co.uk/northyorkshire/content/articles/2007/01/15/dr_rock_world_map_feature.shtml 208.69.244.9 (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

So... he seems to be locally known in North Yorkshire, and someone has written a Wikipedia article about him. Neither of those things make him a reliable source. He may be quite knowledgeable and a good person, but where there are more authoritative sources we should use them instead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your feedback. He seems to have been broadcast abroad in many countries over many years. What did you mean "known locally in North Yorkshire"? Also, how would one come to determine which source is more authoritative than the other. Sometimes, this would be quite simple. Other times, it could be quite complicated. One additional note is that the contributors to White's biography on Penniman is amazing. From Art Rupe to Johnny Otis and Robert Blackwell to Quincy Jones and and many, other music industry 'heavyweights' it really does seem to be filled with people in the know. Another comment, the book does dig deep into Penniman and has all sorts of helpful information (discography, sessionography, chart rankings, etc.) The info on Hendrix and how he came into Penniman's band, based on info from Blackwell from his time in Seattle to others that we involved early on, is quite interesting. Thanks again for your time and attention.208.69.244.9 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Still doesn't make him the authority on rock and roll or on Little Richard. He wrote some great anecdotes and he got some great information from those who knew Richard (like Blackwell) but he doesn't provide the final word on Little Richard. And he's not accurate when it comes to dates. The only reasons he may be known outside the UK is because he wrote a biography on Little Richard but that's about it. Then again, he's not known that much in the UK either. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Influence

While I can understand the need to add certain other artists and say they were either inspired or influenced by someone, you have to read between the lines. There's obviously a difference in listening to that person and being inspired/influenced by that person. Like it's clear how someone like Angus Young would say he was influenced by Richard but anyone can listen to a certain artist. Rob Halford's style doesn't really take much from Little Richard in my honest opinion, the same with Elvis. He said he listened to them growing up but I don't think he was particularly influenced by them. Joe Strummer also said he simply listened to Richard. Marty Balin said he just listened to them. It's clear Richard influenced people but you have to give more clues to that supposed influence. If it's not listed as being influential to that artist, then it's not a guaranteed entry. Just my opinion. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that tens of thousands, if not millions, of people have been influenced by Little Richard. Does it help readers' understanding of the man that Rob Halford said he was "exciting"? No, it doesn't. Not at all. It should not be included. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I know. Like I said, judging from his music, I hear no Little Richard. And as far as inspiration goes, Rob Halford had never mentioned Richard as one. So his inclusion was not warranted whatsoever. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 23:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I posed the question of influence in relation to the music of Judas Priest and AC/DC to Richard's guitarist on many of his recordings in the 1970s and 1980s and musical director from 1984 to 1995 during his 'comeback years' (although the Rock and Roll Hall of Fames states that "he has launched successful comebacks in every decade since" the fifties), and he wrote back: "A lot of Richards early records had the guitar playing the same lines as the horns - that's what I was doing on this Lucille Youtube (video) you texted me. If you're a musician, any of Little Richards records will make you want to pick up your guitar and jam or try to imitate his screams..." Halford was posed this question by Jesse Thorn: So you were born in 1951, which means that when you were finishing high school and you were in your late teens it was just as heavy rock music was emerging FROM early rock and psychedelic rock. WHAT WAS THE MUSIC THAT YOU HEARD THAT MADE YOU THINK, I LIKE ROCK, AND I WANT IT TO BE LOUD AND HARD? Halford responded: "Well actually Jesse, it was even before that because I can remember my Aunt Pat giving me an old record player ...and I lifted the lid and there was a bunch of 45s, singles, in the deck. It was Little Richard, Bill Haley and the Comets, and Elvis Presley. I played them all back to back. Even at that age, at that moment it was like, My God, this is me, this is electric, this is contacting me in such a strong personal way. Something’s going on here. Why is it making me feel this way? I just felt alive and genuinely excited. So even from that point before - - as I grew slightly beyond my teenage years IT WAS ALREADY IN MY SYSTEM. Obviously Hendrix, The Yardbirds, Cream, King Crimson, early Led Zeppelin, early Deep Purple, The Who. All of these people were the ones that I was listening to." Maybe it is too far of a stretch to say that he was influenced by these artists. I don't think SO. But when listening to recordings such as "You Got Another Thing Coming", especially in light of one of Penniman's main guitarist's response, you can hear how the powerful rhythm guitars are playing similar arrangements to the horns and guitars were playing in Richard's music from the mid-50s. You can also hear Little Richard, far more, in Halford's screaming, raspy vocals than you can in Elvis or Bill Haley. As far as AC/DC is concerned, the message comes through loud and clear in their music AND from what Bon Scott and Angus Young had to say. Scott idolized Penniman and aspired to sing like him. Young stated that he was inspired to begin playing guitar after listening to Little Richard music. That should be re-inserted because that and Hendrix's quote are ample evidence of Little Richard's musical influence on great guitarists. Young also stated that Bon Scott's big idol was Little Richard and that Scott liked Brian Johnson because he was a rock and roll singer in the style of Little Richard. And did Joe Strummer say that he listened to Little Richard? I can only find the reference that was found from the BBC, where Will Gilgrass states: "Early rock and roll which influenced him like Little Richard, The Beach Boys and Woody Guthrie." I like the influence section the way it is, and leave out Halford and Joe Strummer if they are not worth mentioning. I think Halford/Judas Priest is because they were key in de-emphasized blues in heavy metal. And there is a link to Penniman. Strummer and The Clash were revolutionary as far as punk rock development is concerned. Due to the fact that so many people and bands and artists from a variety of genres were impacted by Penniman's music, only the most significant of these should be highlighted, and the influence section does a pretty good job of that. Still, some minor adjustments could be helpful.208.69.244.9 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I still wouldn't include Joe and Rob in it. The influence section is fine as it is, me thinks. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 00:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In the big wide world, Rob Halford is a very minor figure, and we shouldn't be adding everyone who at some point claimed that Little Richard was an influence on them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ann Johnson and the Tic Toc

"In 1949, he began performing at a local Macon nightclub called the Tick Tock Club, owned by Ann Johnson. She soon took Penniman to live with her and her husband John after Penniman told her of his family troubles. Penniman soon joined his first musical band, Buster Brown's Orchestra, under Johnson's suggestion, after the band's lead singer, I.A. Harris, missed a performance at the Tick Tock Club"

I don't agree with that.

• As far as I know, the Tic Toc Club (not Tick Tock) was opened not before 1951.
• In newer articles the owner of the Tic Toc is called "Ann Howard". (I know, there are many books which speak of "Johnny and Ann Johnson") I have no idea, how this surname first came in and what is correct.
• Ann and Johnny Johnson are not mentioned in White's biography at all.
• The story of the sick I.A.Harris of B. Brown and His Orchestra took place in Ethel Wynnes' Winsetta Patio, Fitzgerald, Georgia, according to the referred source Charles White (p.22).

Can anyone check and correct this, if necessary. Thanks --Krächz (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to: "Penniman soon joined his first musical band, Buster Brown's Orchestra. While performing with the band, he began using the name Little Richard." --Krächz (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to accept your information because I myself was unsure about that part of his history. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there any photo available showing him as little?

I remember Little Richard standing at the piano, showing clearly his small size. Such photo would show, why he got this name. Isnt there such photo available? --Hans Eo (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Audrey Robinson

BrothaTimothy, you stated in an edit summary "I doubt Little Richard had a sexual relationship with Audrey in retrospect." Is this doubt based on the sources? I just want to make sure that changes are based on reliable sources and not personal opinions. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. In the article listed, there wasn't much sexual contact between Richard and Audrey. It seems most of the sexual activity was Audrey and other men while Richard watched. So yeah, it's not a personal opinion. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 14:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170228012901/http://nmaam.org/2015/08/05/2015-my-music-matters-a-celebration-of-legends-luncheon/ to http://nmaam.org/2015/08/05/2015-my-music-matters-a-celebration-of-legends-luncheon/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nmaam.org/events/celebration-of-legends/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nmaam.org/events/celebration-of-legends/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Personal life?

This article makes no mention of his personal life, other than his childhood. I'm sure some people reading it, such as myself, would also be interested if he's ever been married, had kids... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

He married once; the marriage lasted two years in the late 1950s/early 1960s. He never had children. In the article it discusses his homosexuality, which he personally disavowed in lieu of Christianity in the 1980s. Mike H. Fierce! 00:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait... one line in the article said his son helped save his life during a heart attack by turning up the air conditioner.  Was this a step- or adopted son, then? --64.233.155.246 (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)   

His memoirs include a great anecdote about his double teaming a groupie with Buddy Holly in Buddy's dressing room just before a show. So at the very least he appears to have enjoyed women despite being widely hailed and clearly accurately as a "Queen's Queen". Little Richard is God! 216.105.89.49 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Making another big edit to Richard's Wiki.

Whoever had the bright idea of naming every sentence in the beginning as "Little Richard" all throughout the article probably failed grammar in elementary school. It makes better sense to use his last name than his stage name. It would be like if in Tina Turner's article, I keep mentioning "Tina Turner went to school in St. Louis" and then in another sentence go, "Tina Turner and her sister Alline..." I mean we're not slow, we know who Little Richard is. We don't always gotta be reminded. Also, again, I re-read the article and people keep adding unnecessary information. Richard was only an important musical figure in the mid to late 1950s, enough to change music history, much like his peers but his influence afterwards became mainly fashion wise (check Prince for example). Unlike most of his peers, like James Brown, Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, and even Jerry Lee Lewis to some degree, Richard never extended his hit parade past 1959. Who knows what would've happened had he not decided to leave the first time in 1957 what his career could've been. He had another brief period of success in the early 1970s and since then, it's been up and down. So it's hard to extend an article on which its subject didn't musically contribute as much as he would like with all the recording difficulties he had after leaving Specialty Records. But overall, this article will definitely be shortened again. To how much, I don't know, but enough is enough. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 00:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No objection to removing overly detailed or unreferenced information, but to say that he "was only an important musical figure in the mid to late 1950s... much like his peers but his influence afterwards became mainly fashion wise" seems to me to greatly understate his role and importance. He was a hugely important figure in late C20 culture, not so much in terms of his relatively few hit singles, but more in terms of his overall influence on what became rock and soul/funk music (two of the most obvious examples are the Beatles and James Brown, and it's hard to think of more influential figures than them), and also in terms of what we now call gender politics. So, my advice would be one of caution in seeking to shorten what should be a comprehensive article on an important figure. But I agree with using "Penniman" when appropriate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I meant in terms of his heyday. I agree that he was a great influence on '60s acts. Just not with his own recordings during that time is what I meant. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I read your comment here before I'd read your changes to the article itself, which I'm not going to quibble over. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Years active date

Smoovedogg, I think the years active date should be 1947-2013, Penniman has stated that he was done from performing in 2013 with his last performance taking place earlier that year. And yeah, he has made appearances in 2015 and was also in an interview in 2017, however he did not perform any music in those appearances, which still makes him inactive and pretty much "retired" from making or performing any music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actorize (talk • contribs) 21:00, September 30, 2019 (UTC)

I agree, he's no longer an active musician so it should go back to 1947-2013. It's odd, but it seems Vera Lynn is still noticed as active on her page for the same reason - occasional interviews/messages. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020

Multiple sources indicate Little Richard has died from bone cancer 2600:1702:2740:24D0:F49F:E36E:3DCA:2365 (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Already done GoingBatty (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Tiny Tots Quartet

The 'Early life' section should mention that he created the 'Tiny Tots Quartet' at age 10. Details here:

• Joelle Goldstein; Alexia Fernandez (May 9, 2020). "Legendary Rock and Roll Musician Little Richard Dead at 86". PEOPLE.com. -- 107.15.157.44 (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Death section

@Gianluigi02: you reverted without comment my move of the 2 sentences of Richard's death back to a devoted section. I think this is unwarranted per WP:RECENTISM and MOS:PARA: short paragraphs should generally not have their own sub-section. Yes, everyone dies. Yes, it's in the news today. But we don't need to add sections just because so. An article should be timeless and avoid disproportionate emphasis on any aspect, not rush to reorganize every time something new happens, even major things. Recent death sections too often become clogged with tributes, tweets, and other relative fluff given far more detail than significant aspects of their careers. I'm curious, what do others think? --Animalparty! (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wading in, without looking at the edit in question, I think the current grouping of health problems and death is the best options. If tributes are notable, they can be part of Legacy. He's notable for his career, for which the dead is a sudden end, not for the manner in which he died; a separate section isn't justified. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2020

Near the end of the "Health Problems and Death" segment, there is a line that says "His last concert was on August 25, 2014, in Murfreesboro, Tennessee." This should be deleted. Little Richard did not perform in Murfreesboro on that date. His Cadillac was struck by another vehicle on that date in Murfreesboro. That's all.

Source: https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/rutherford/2014/08/28/little-richard-murfreesboro-accident/14738937/

In fact, his last performance was at the Orleans Hotel in Las Vegas, NV on March 30, 2013, as mentioned earlier in the same Wikipedia entry. The source for the inaccurate information in the Wikipedia article (about Murfressboro) is a very unreliable "Setlist" website. https://web.archive.org/web/20190712122614/https://www.setlist.fm/setlists/little-richard-4bd6af2e.html All the dates on that website that claim to be performances by Little Richard are merely public appearances or interviews.

Thanks. 76.230.225.22 (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done! GoingBatty (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Queer/bisexual/gay/omnisexual whitewashed

It certainly feels like Little Richard’s queer sexuality has been completely scrubbed or omitted, perhaps it’s time to align history with reality? Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Little Richard's sexuality has been covered in the Sexuality section. There isn't any whitewashing here, not is there a lack of aligning history with reality. Msiehta (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

In fairness I had missed the section although the rest of the article goes out of the way to dismiss his non-heterosexuality. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Place of death

Please change the place of death from Nashville to Tullahoma. This is where he died at his home in Tullahoma. We are proud of him and he was proud to be from Tullahoma. Deesartfx (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliably sourced, so  Done Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Years active

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/little-richard-80-birthday-neil-strauss-996672/

Should the years active ending date be changed to 2013? According to the sourced Rolling Stone article, it said that he was retiring from performing. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@MikaelaArsenault:  Not done - I agree with performances ending in 2013, but the article's "Later years" section goes on to discuss collecting awards and addressing audiences through 2019. Let's get consensus before determining how to change this one. GoingBatty (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

So should he be changed to 2019 then?

MikaelaArsenault (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Main image

Now that Little Richard is (sadly) deceased, perhaps it would make sense to change the main photo from the one dating from 2007, to a photo of him from his youth. Specifically the colour photo from 1957 that is already used on this article, and would arguably make for a better representation of Little Richard, given that it captures him at his height of fame - and arguably captures him as most people would remember him as. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t post my objection earlier because I’ve been trying to find a better usable picture of Richard in his prime over the last few days so I can propose that. I think that colour 1957 one is horrid, especially with those text graphics on it. The 2007 one looked much better IMO, and more like people imagine Little Richard. Humbledaisy (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I disagree entirely with your last point - particularly on how people remember Little Richard. As I said, Little Richard is mostly remembered for, and secured his legacy, with his work from 1955 until he became a born-again Christian in 1957. That's the Little Richard that most people would imagine - at his height of fame and influence, not as a much older legacy act from the 2000s. I personally don't see much issue at all with the 1957 photo, though one solution if the text graphic are an issue could be to crop the photo so that the text is cut out. Which would be possible given that the photo is public domain and all. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That looks better but I still think the original picture was stronger. His visual image didn’t change a great deal in the 50 years between his heyday and the original image. He’s in performance at a piano in it, mouth open as though he’s mid-holler. The 1957 image is poor quality - fuzzy with highly contrasted colour - and it doesn’t show him as a performer. It looks like what it is - a chewing gum card with a candid picture of Richard rather than a shot of Little Richard the rock and roll star. Is it not the etiquette to keep something as it was if you haven’t got a consensus?

I am still after a better usable shot from the 50s, should have one soon. Humbledaisy (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Humbledaisy. I disliked the gum card picture, but I dislike the cropped version even more - though changing the colour balance could improve it a little. Neither is ideal, but unless and until a better 1950s/60s picture is available, I think we should return to the 2007 picture. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Penniman?

It seems quite odd, jarring even, to refer to Little Richard as Penniman throughout his bio. As the vast majority of all sources and people *only* know him as Little Richard perhaps his article should reflect that? Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree that it's a bit odd. Wonder if some instances of "Penniman" could be changed to "he" to reduce the impact. GoingBatty (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think *all* instances of “Penniman” after the lead sentence should reflect Richard or “he”, just like reliable sourcing does. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed a couple of times in the past - see the sections above headed "Names used in the article" and "Making another big edit to Richard's Wiki". My view is that, if there are instances of where 'Penniman' could be changed to 'he', that should be done - but in my view it would be unencyclopedic either to refer to him as "Richard" all the way through, or to use both "Richard" and "Penniman" interchangeably. After all, this is an encyclopedia, where some elements of a more formal tone are to be expected, and not a news source or obituary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You know I was thinking the same thing? Why is it Penniman through the whole article? Example the John Wayne article does not use Morrison at all only Wayne. I though wikipedia had a policy called WP:COMMONNAME?81.153.37.76 (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles, not text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Madonna, and Lady Gaga do the same, I’m sure there are others.

It seems unlikely we’ll get a quick consensus, perhaps a RfC is the wisest way forward. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I would support using Little Richard.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

John Wayne is a slightly different case, since in the text after first mention we normally refer to people by surnames and Wayne is a surname. The more relevant comparison here is indeed with articles like Madonna and Lady Gaga where the subject has adopted a stage name that does not include a surname, leaving us with more uncertainty about how to refer to them in the text. It would be beneficial to discuss this along with editors of those articles, and others we can think of with the same pattern, so we can arrive at a consistent approach. Beorhtwulf (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is to be a wider discussion, the best place might be WT:MOSBIO. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

PS: I'll raise it there, to get some wider discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The subject of the article is not Richard Penniman. It's Little Richard. That should be reflected throughout the article. The constant references to "Penniman" aren't encyclopedic, they are misleading. Mikevanoost (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's true - or, at least, it overstates the case. The article is a biography of Richard Penniman, who performed and became widely known as Little Richard. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

For what it is worth our article about Prince does not refer to him as "Nelson".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is MOS:SURNAME: People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (e.g. Sting, Snoop Dogg, the Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used.—Bagumba (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

So, that suggests he should be referred to as "Little Richard" throughout. That would be cumbersome, so I'd suggest using "he" wherever that would not be unclear. Per these edits, I'm pinging BrothaTimothy for their views. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:SURNAME does not preclude using pronouns. We don't need every sentence to mention a person's name, regardless of whether it's a pseudonym or not.—Bagumba (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

In the case of Lady Gaga they shortened to just Gaga, I think if we switch out some of the names to just ‘he’, the rest could likely be ‘Richard’. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

When this topic was discussed, many had been using "Little Richard" a lot and I felt that was too much. I'd agree with "Richard" and "Penniman", as well as "he". I just don't want to have to read an article where every other sentence goes, "Little Richard this and Little Richard that." You can use the full stage name every now and then but not all throughout the article. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• It seems we may have a consensus. Perhaps we can undergo the changeover with: a preference to using he/his when appropriate; his birth name only until ‘Little Richard’ is appropriate; and then Richard or possibly Little Richard if needed. Does that sound amenable? Anyone want to start the process? Please post an update wherever you leave off. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Anyone mind if I start the changeover? Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Please do. But I don't think he is generally called "Richard".--Jack Upland (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth, the Los Angeles Times uses Richard as if it were a surname in his obituary. Rolling Stone uses it as a surname a few times in theirs, but mostly uses "Little Richard." Neither refer to him as Penniman. pburka (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
        • In that case, we should probably just call him Little.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I've gone and changed 6 remaining occurrences of Penniman to Richard. Ones interspersed in the text, not under early life. I suspect they were leftovers, since presumably as the upshot of the discussion above, most others had been changed to Richard already. The occasional seemingly random Penniman was at best jarring, at worst confusing for a reader (like me) who didn't retain his legal surname in working memory while reading the article. Feel free to revert if there was a reason for the way it was. Martinp (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)