Jump to content

Talk:Little Richard/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Identity

It is irrelevant that he is African-American!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.149.123 (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is he now, Seventh-day Adventist?

You know, I'm a little surprised that this article is labeled "Seventh-day Adventist", yet has barely any mention of how he is connected with the group. Isn't he a minister at the Ephesus church in LA? Also he attended Oakwood College, which is run bu Seventh-day Adventists. Shouldn't his upbringing, conversion, education, and current life be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.43.241 (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


It's Wikipedia. If you feel it belongs, write it in. If you have no references, include "references required" to point others to areas where they can contribute. As to whether he "is a minister" in terms of being paid by the respective conference, or is a lay leader who performs acts of ministry, is another matter. I think it can be documented that, while he has had interaction with a number of Christian denominations, if one had to be picked, he'd consider himself a Seventh-day Adventist. 208.72.4.1 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"The Upsetters"

According to a Youtube video info: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-nijNBAnGM) Part of Hendrix's flamboyant stage persona may have been inspired by rock pioneer Little Richard, with whom he toured as part of Richard's back-up band, "The Upsetters". Could I have more info about it or confirm this?

Tutti Frutti

I do believe that Tutti Frutti was originally called Loose Booty. The new name and lyrics were just to make the song releasable.

This sounds interesting... Do you know if the original song is available anywhere?

Tutti Frutti's lyrics were cleaned up but it was not called loose booty and there is no recording of the original lyrics.

"A WOP BOP A LOO BOP A GOOD GOD D***! TUTTI FRUTTI GOOD BOOTY, TUTTI FRUTTI GOOD BOOTY TUTTI FRUUUTI GOOD BOOTY, TUTTI FRUTTI GOOD BOOTY, TUTTI FRUTTI GOOD BOOTY. A WOP BOP A LOO BOP A GOOD GOD D**!

... from the spanish wiki: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Richard
"Tutti Frutti, good, booty / If it don't fit, don't force it / You can grease it, make it easy"

Little Richard performed this at his early live shows in the Atlanta area of Georgia in the very early 1950s.

That's the story according to a tv movie I saw, but I don't generally trust those to be accurate so much88.218.162.41 (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Discography

I don't trust that discography at all. Little Richard is not about albums. In fact, to list all his albums is to do him a disservice (one that he asked for), because many of his albums consist of nothing but remakes of his hits recorded with other musicians for other record companies. Plus, I just plain don't believe that his first album was released in 1956 and called Cast a long shadow. Ortolan88 04:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cast a Long Shadow is a live album released in 1971... it could have been recorded much earlier, but it certainly doesn't sound like it's from 1956 (1970, more like.) PJV 16:03, 1 Feb 2006 (CST)

Gay?

Little Richard was bisexual if you read the official biography of Little Richard you will find that out.

What's the reference that he is gay? Alison9 07:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will add http://www.glbtq.com/arts/little_richard.html to the article. Hyacinth 17:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

he aint gay thats all i know

uh, yes he is. He admitted it at one point, and then renounced it, which some say was due to pressure from his faith and the public's shock

Its not hard to beleive, i mean, look at his hair! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.126.34 (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

More references concerning LR's sexual orientation:

  • Little Richard was the most exciting and dynamic musical figure that the world had ever seen up to that point. Compared to most of the other records of the day, "Tutti-Frutti" was like an atomic bomb exploding. Over the course of the next three years Richard released several of the greatest rock and roll records ever made, and established himself as the most radical of all of the rock and roll superstars of the day. Most adults in those days thought that his music was absolutely barbaric, and to top it off, he regularly wore makeup on stage, had a wild hairdo, and led a fairly open bisexual lifestyle for those days. http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artists-bio/lrichard.html

And yeah, I'd say a rock musician's sexual orientation was pretty damn pertinent to his biography and to his art. Tutti-frutti!Kaicarver 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty strange no mention is made whatsoever of his sexuality in this article. I remember seeing a documentary on rock music where after his religous turn in the 50s posters promoting his shows actually said something like "From Homosexual to Man of God". WesleyDodds 03:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Dunno, not really viable information. Maybe we should all check his autobiography. Not only that, but this guy (Little Richard) believes it to be a choice, therefore, he wouldn't be "gay anymore". Even so, he has made songs about, well, women. IronCrow 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Then the history of his sexual orientation should have its own section, complete with all flip-flops. Same as any other rockstar who came out and then recanted, of which there are plenty. Perhaps a reference to the ex-gay movement is in order. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree.. and he was just featured on Logo (TV channel) for Black History Month, and about how he was thrown out of the family because he was gay, and later "denounced" it in the 60s. There's no reference at all in this article, which I found surprising. Tertiary7 21:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to note that Tutti Frutti (song) describes Little Richard as "openly gay" at the time the song was written. If this claim cannot be substantiated, please remove it. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I just removed that info per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The policy is to "remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material" about living people. There must be a reliable source before it can be readded.--Roswell native 20:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's face it, this article is an embarrassing example of Wikipedia at its worst. LR's struggles over his sexuality are a crucial part of his life story, and for them to go unmentioned in this fluff article is a showpiece example of how some Wikipedia editors would prefer to sidestep controversy rather than cover it. Anyone who knows the slightest thing about the man's life knows that the sexuality issue underlies much of what is already written here. I will be adding a complete and sourced "Sexuality" section within several days. Everyone who has already worked on this article should be ashamed of themselves. What a scared little "encyclopedia" this is sometimes. Why do we have so many people like "Roswell native" who would prefer to remove information rather than go find a source for it? 65.190.89.154 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, look. I've already re-added one source on his homosexuality that was removed from the article by the same sort of people who ostensibly want sources on this sort of thing. The source quotes LR's autobiography, where he discusses his masturbation habits and homosexual fantasies. I wonder why that was so easy to find: oh, yes, because LR's struggles with his sexuality are very well-documented, and anyone who was interested in creating an encyclopedia rather than whitewashing an encyclopedia could easily source any information on the subject. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to include the excerpt of the man's AUTObiography (did you see the "auto" there? hmmm?), which was already used as a source in this article before it was removed: My whole gay activities were really into masturbation. I used to do it six or seven times a day. In fact everybody used to tell me that I should get a trophy for it, I did it so much. I got to be a professional jack-offer. I would do it just to be doing something ... Felt bad after I did it though. I'd always be mad after I finished ... Most gay people fall in love with themselves. I suppose that "Roswell native" searched long and hard for information of this sort before removing information about LR's homosexuality from an article. He probably really busted his ass looking for some confirmation, but just couldn't find any. Oh, no, wait, he is one of those people who would prefer to remove pertinent information than spend ten seconds looking for a source. These people are a plague, and should be banned en masse. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I apologize. I'm getting a bit worked up. I just have no idea how Wikipedia could have a relatively well-developed article on one of the most crucial figures in the American national culture - and in the history of 20th-century art - and not mention a matter of the utmost importance in his life. Not even mention it. A matter that he goes into in his own autobiography. I'm sorry for singling out "Roswell native", but I don't see why one can't do a single Google search instead of removing information. This is censorship by laziness. Any decent editor should feel a certain compulsion of conscience here. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A little addendum: the source I added which shows how his autobiography chronicles his struggles with his sexuality was removed anonymously and without explanation. We've all seen how it sometimes happens in an article that is undergoing a whitewashing: first the sources are removed, then the newly "unsourced" statements are stripped away too - all this quietly and under cover of night. Some people are quite vested in keeping things out of articles at all costs. This is an ongoing problem in Wikipedia, and diligent amateur censors are in many ways a bigger threat than ordinary vandals. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
And we're back again. Yes, for yet another time, a note about his sexuality - a sourced note - was removed from this article without explanation. This is a case of whitewashing and censorship, and the community needs to be more on guard with this sort of thing. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't his sexuality mentioned? He talks about it quite a lot in his autobiography. --Timtak (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

LGBT project?

So now we all know about the fact that Little Richard WAS gay during his ealy years, I think it's appropiate we add the LBGT project section for him. Spokenwordsegment (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not personally involved with that project, but the ongoing anonymous censorship of this article is infuriating to me. Perhaps an entire section will be harder for the forces of censorship to remove than a single little sentence. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"However, he can't swim"

? 83.253.38.57 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Should anyone care whether or note he's gay or bi-sexual? He is an True American Idol and historic figure. He fits my definition of transvestite ( heavy make-up, wigs, etc.) Oh well, thank God our society has moved beyond racism, bigotry, and homophobia, so that we don't have wonder whether or not we should enjoy a talented and entertaining artist.

I think may people would disagree with yoru assessment of American society. That said, his sexuality, particularly his identity during the highly charged 60s, 70s and 80s, is relevant to the article. As to should anyone care, that's a question for philosophers. =) Elefuntboy 01:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should remove all information about Little Richard from this article, because society has moved beyond needing to know anything about anyone. Why do we need to know, for instance, that he was a rock 'n' roll singer? We have moved beyond such shallow and backward distinctions of genre! Why do we need to know that he was born in Georgia? Why such petty territorialism? I recommend that this article, and all biographical articles on Wikipedia, have all information removed from them immediately, as we have moved beyond needing to know facts about people. Why do we have to mention that such and such person is Polish, and another person is from Zimbabwe? That one person is a scientist, and another person an Olympic-quality archer? We are all one, all holy! Why distinguish one person from another, as we are all the children of our Lord? DELETE BIOGRAPHIES NOW. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image

wth is wrong with tht person? ^^^ dude chill. i need this stuff for my home work and anyway biographies are a way to remeber the great legends of our country, our sociaty. Everybody wants to be remembered and i think we should give such great influential people of this world credit and recognitions for all there work and contributions. and i luv rock music

Anecdote

Is it true, that after 1957 Little Richard walked door to door trying to buy his own records (that he now regarded as sinful) back from people? --128.214.205.4 09:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

The items in this section need to be incorporated into the body of the article. This isn't me "whining", it's a guideline in the Wikipedia Manual of Style - specifically Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Almost all of the items in this section are uncited as well, so if they can't be incorporated into the article, then the section just needs to be removed. --Roswell native 13:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've cut out parts of the trivia section - mostly ones that revealed, shock horror, that Little Richard sings. Pontificake 14:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Pontificake, since some editors keep removing the {{toomuchtrivia}} template without even the courtesy of talking about it on this talk page, I plan on removing the trivia section entirely unless someone objects here. In perusing it again just now, all of it seems non-noteworthy and non-encyclopedic in my opinion. I'll be happy to try and incorporate any trivia deemed otherwise, but the section needs to go per Wikipedia policy cited above. --Roswell native 07:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Ideally parts would be incorporated into the main article. I'd retain his having performed celeb marriages (subject to verifiability) and having a biopic made about him. Possibly keep appearing on Sesame Street and Celebrity Duets (but only if that was a major show in the USA). Pontificake 09:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving the Trivia section to the talk page while sources are verified

Trivia

As suggested in WP:TRIVIA, I'm moving the trivia section here to capture the info until sources can be verfied for incorporation back into the article.

  • Little Richard has used his status as a Minister of the Gospel to occasionally perform celebrity weddings, most notably those of Cyndi Lauper, Tom Petty, Bruce Willis and Demi Moore, and Bruce Springsteen.
  • In 1994, Little Richard provided the voice of a parody character of himself in Food Rocks, a now closed Epcot attraction at Disney World. Little Richard voiced a pineapple named Richard.
  • In the early to mid '90s, Little Richard performed several songs for children's PBS programs. He sang a rendition of "Rubber Ducky" on Sesame Street and also sang the theme song for The Magic School Bus.
  • Little Richard appeared twice on Sesame Street once in 1993, performing a new version of "Rubber Duckie", and again in 2002, singing with the monster Rosita.
  • In 2000, a made-for-tv biopic, Little Richard, was televised, starring Leon Robinson in the title role. Leon was nominated for an Emmy Award for his performance, as was David Sibley for Outstanding Music Direction.
  • In 2005, Little Richard appeared, along with Madonna, Iggy Pop, Bootsy Collins, and The Roots' ?uestlove in an American TV commercial for the Motorola ROKR phone.
  • In January 2006, Penniman gave the eulogy and preached briefly at the funeral of his longtime friend Wilson Pickett.
  • In August 2006, Little Richard was signed as one of three celebrity judges in British music mogul Simon Cowell's television show Celebrity Duets, which aired in September and October 2006 on the Fox network.
  • On tour the weekend of James Brown's funeral, Little Richard dedicated his 2006-07 New Year's Eve performance to his longtime friend's family.
  • Little Richard has tour dates booked through to May 2007.
  • A high school Bob Dylan gave his ambition as "to join Little Richard."
  • Little Richard used to masturabte six or seven times a day, involving homosexual fantasy. He writes in his autobiography, "My whole gay activities were really into masturbation. I used to do it six or seven times a day. In fact everybody used to tell me that I should get a trophy for it, I did it so much. I got to be a professional jack-offer. I would do it just to be doing something ... Felt bad after I did it though. I'd always be mad after I finished ... Most gay people fall in love with themselves. " [1]

I don't think Little Richard died

According to the first sentence Little Richard died today. I have searched and searched for anything about it, and so far nothing has been said in the media that I could find. Someone should check this out and correct it if he hasn't died. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.173.179.174 (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, I just saw him perform live on the capitol Mall in Washington D.C. so he's most definitely alive. The performance by the way was amazing. Drama Porch 05:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Gosh A'Mighty

I corrected a factual error, which said the song "Great God A'Mighty" had its title changed to "It's a Matter of Time". Not according to my copy of the single: the title was changed to "Great Gosh A'Mighty", but that's it. 23skidoo (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations & references

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Seventh-Day Adventist

Why is there no mention of his religion in this article? He says he attends the Seventh-Day Adventist church and is even a minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.127.252 (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Death

Not dead. provided link in article confirms he is not dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.27.35 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

John Lennon

Little Richard is a well known icon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.2.174 (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Little Richard's influence on John Lennon is not mentioned in the article. Didn't John call Little Richard "The King of rock and roll"?70.29.76.82 (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? Also,it is worth noting that numerous other twentieth century musical icons have referred to him as their primary influence. Jagger reffered to LR as "the originator" and his "first idol". The ones mentioned in the lead and expanded on in the influence section are the ones which were somewhat settled on. Many other quotes were inserted by myself but were edited out because I unknowingly formed a quotefarm, which we are to avoid because it is against Wiki policy and unencyclopedic. Hendrix is also mentioned in the main body of the article, although the Hendrix quote could always be re-inserted into the influence section. It was deleted from the influence section because it had already neem mentioned in the 60s section. It should only be in one or the other. Someone inserted Milsap recently, but I tagged it because there was no citation.--Smoovedogg (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

1957 evangelism and Joe Lutcher

I've started an article on Joe Lutcher, who reportedly influenced Little Richard's evangelistic activities around 1957, and toured with him. If any editor with access to offline sources can add any details to that article, I'd be grateful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Names used in the article

I think most of us know that Little Richard and Richard Wayne Penniman are one and the same person. But in the article, I see an inconsistent way of mentioning him by name. I'm sure it's complicated by his widely known stage name.

There are at least four names used: Little Richard, Penniman, Richard, and "Little Richard" Penniman.

My own feeling is that, unless it's included as a direct quotation or title of something, there should be one common name used, and that it should be Penniman - which is currently the most common name used in the article.

But before making changes.... Comments, anybody? thyrd (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree about the consistency and "Richard Wayne Penniman" the first time and then "Penniman" thereafter is probably the only way to do this, since he used the name for his ministry period. Obviously Little Richard will appear in quotations and titles.--SabreBD (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
How about "Little Richie"? I hear that being used to refer to him. In fact, a google search of "Little Richie" will direct toward Little Richard results. Zealot guy (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Little Richard's conversion experience

In a book on the history of rock and roll it said that Little Richard had a dream of the Apocalypse that shook him up, afterward he quit rock and roll for seven years.

It says, "A horrifying dream showed him the Apocalypse and the ugly stain of his own damnation. On an airline flight soon after (which may or may not have been threatened by a fire on board), Richard prayed to God to hold that plane in the air. Evidently, the Lord in His infinite wisdom obliged.When Richard reached safety he threw his jewelry into the harbor at Sydney, Australia and vowed to cease his evil ways." Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll. p.57 Natural (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Early life and early career: 1932-1951 - date of father's death

Little Richard didn't record for the RCA Camden label, he recorded for RCA Victor. The RCA Camden label didn't even exist in 1951, it appeared c.1955. His eight 1951 RCA recordings were originally issued on 45 and 78 RPM discs on the regular RCA Victor label, then reissued on Camden after Little Richard became successful in 1956. I'm adding this note about my edit of 2011-02-27 which effectively reverts BrothaTimothy's edit of 2010-11-28. The date of death of Little Richard's father, Charlie Penniman, was and still is supported by only one source: the Social Security Death Index. The SSDI source is easily verified from different web sites such as ancestry.com etc, and consistently shows his date of death as "February 1952". If anybody has better information than that which comes from a verifiable source, that would be great. But please provide a verifiable source for that change to replace the SSDI reference. In all cases, verified information should only be replaced by verified information. Otherwise, any change is likely to be reverted again. Thanks.Thyrd (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm appending this note on 2011-04-18 to encourage editors who change the date to also edit the source for their edits. The only source I've found for the date is the SSDI, and the SSDI is no more accurate than "February 1952". I believe that as long as it remains the cited source of the date, the date should be exactly that, so I have edited it today. Any other date will make the article less accurate unless it is supported by the cited source.
    If you don't have a verifiable source, then please let's discuss it here before going ahead with the edit.
    Thanks! Thyrd (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to BrothaTimothy, who's updated and improved the article with a more accurate source. I've removed the SSDI source (which I suspect was based upon the date of notification rather than the date of death anyway). Thyrd (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ex-gay?

Little Richard is not ex gay since this is a modern day term and he may be Christian but he is not against LGBT people like the ex gay people are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.189.36 (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Being ex-gay doesn't require being against LGBT people. Jim Michael (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Also, a quote in the same account states, "I gave up rock & roll for the Rock of Ages. If God can save me, an old homosexual, he can save anybody," he exhorted the crowd." Don't know if the article mentions that, but it is of note from several viewpoints, his homosexuality along with conversion. Perhaps a relevant point to include in the article. Rolling Stone, p 59Natural (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Natural

Richard has said a lot of things since then. His views on homosexuality have definitely been open-minded recently. As far back as 1995, he told Penthouse that he knew he was homosexual though I believe he may be bisexual - since he had affairs and orgies with women - and didn't really deny that he was gay or that he was, as Wikipedia had edited a while ago, "an ex-gay" because he never said he was "ex-anything". That saying "God can save an old homosexual" could very well meant he saved him from sinning which may not have nothing to do with his sexuality but more or less his SEX LIFE. I think he preached abstinence during that period that he said he was "cured" of his sexuality but I guess in late years he has totally recanted that he was "cured". BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Little Richard's early movie career

Is this Little Richard?

http://www.wimp.com/oldschool/

Chain emails are being passed around saying it is him.

I doubt that at this age with very religious parents that he would would have been allowed to be in Hollywood movies. Besides without the internet or American Idol, how would an African American preschooler from the segregated south get the attention of Hollywood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.191.181 (talk) 11:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It is NOT beyond the realm of possibility ... one would have to ASK Little Richard, a similar material would be a VERY young Billy Preston playing with Nat King Cole ... there is a video of that ... he was a little older than this kid.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.24.67 (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This clip is from the 1946 film No Leave, No Love starring Van Johnson. Little Richard was born in 1932, which would have made him about 14 at the time. This is actually Frank “Sugar Chile” Robinson who was eight when he appeared in the movie. He also played for Harry Truman at the White House that same year and performed with legends including Lionel Hampton and Count Basie. He left show business to pursue his education and earned a PhD :in psychology.RadioBroadcast (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Specialty lawsuit

I came here specifically to learn the details of his failed lawsuit against Specialty to regain control of his catalog. I think it's a serious omission.

Newspaper archive shows an AP article from 11.29.1984 that says Penniman would appeal the dismissal of the suit for $115 million, based on songwriting royalties, not performance rights. Suit was filed in June, 1984, against Specialty Records, ATV Music, Venice Music, and Specialty owner Arthur Rupe. 184.0.94.83 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Return to secular music...

Are the following lines vandalism? -

"In 1976, he re-recorded twenty of his biggest Specialty hits in Nashville for a K-Tel Records album.[107]

Penniman also continued his wild partying through the first half of the seventies[108] and, reportedly, by late 1971, developed a dependency on a variety of drugs and alcohol.[109] He and his brothers started their own management company, Bud Hole Incorporated.[110]"

I don't think K-Tel recoreded many, if any, albums. They put together compilations. And Bud Hole Incorporated? That has to be a lame joke. 216.36.132.66 (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Little Richard

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Little Richard's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "rs":

  • From U2: Gardner, Elysa (9 January 1992). "Review: Achtung Baby". Rolling Stone (621). Retrieved 26 April 2010.
  • From Hey Ya!: "Hey Ya!". Rolling Stone. December 9, 2004. Retrieved June 3, 2007. Archived August 28, 2007, at the Wayback Machine

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this article needs some sort of makeover...

Like all the stuff about his career after he returned to secular music in the 1960s and everything. And the religion and his later years need to be condensed. I feel it's too large. Plus most of the info is dated. Not to mention there's some dead links. And I think legacy needs to be add to influence. I changed it earlier tonight but someone reverted back to the original. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 07:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be right, but my opinion, for what it's worth, is that - in cases like this where obviously other editors have contributed a lot of material to the article - it may be best to get an outside opinion on how the article should be improved to, say, GA or FA standard, rather than making unilateral edits yourself, however well-founded they might be. Perhaps consider taking it to WP:GOCE as a first step? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I might do that. I see how that can be nerve wracking to people who edited this article to their liking. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 22:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Little Richard Influence

It's superficial to include "Elvis Presley" under those who are influenced by Little Richard, Remembering he himself never cited him as influence and came before him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicejayant (talk • contribs) 02:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to remove the name of Elvis under "Little richard" Followers or not then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicejayant (talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's weird seeing him there. Elvis was more influenced by people like Roy Hamilton, Roy Brown, Wynonie Harris and the like. But I'm guessing Elvis was an admirer of his music (from Tutti Frutti onwards) and seeing as he covered four of Richard's tunes in 1956 (which should've made Richard a multi-millionaire had he not signed that money-stealing deal with Art Rupe in late 1955), I think he was more of an admirer than a follower. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 19:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The introduction needs a makeover.

I'm not a fan of the introduction. I'm also not a fan of having his nicknames (or titles) as part of his "aliases". I thought there was a rule here that we shouldn't put nicknames or titles on the alias portion? That just reminds me, I need to take that out of Marvin's Gaye infobox as well. I think we need to use better sources too and not have everything look so lopsided, plus it is just too long in my honest opinion and I don't know why we can change every other section but not the introduction. I'll propose this intro that I have used twice before it was reverted back:

Richard Wayne Penniman (born December 5, 1932), better known by his stage name Little Richard, is an American pianist, singer and songwriter whose hits in the mid-1950s shaped the development of rock and roll. Penniman's songs such as "Tutti Frutti" (1955), "Long Tall Sally" (1956), "Keep A-Knockin'" (1957) and "Good Golly Miss Molly" (1958) combined childishly amusing lyrics with sexually suggestive undertones, helping to influence a number of performers of various genres. Overtime, Penniman earned the titles, "Quasar of Rock", "King of Rockin' & Rollin' Rhythm and Blues Soulin'", "The King (and Queen) of Rock and Roll" and, most notably, the "Architect of Rock and Roll".

Born to a religious family in a dirt-poor section of Macon, Georgia, Penniman first began singing in church and made his first public performance with Sister Rosetta Tharpe at the Macon City Auditorium at the age of twelve. Dropping out of high school in his early teens, he left home and joined various traveling vaudeville shows until being discovered by blues singer Billy Wright who helped Penniman land a deal with RCA's Camden R&B subsidiary in 1951. Penniman's early recordings with Camden and, later Don Robey's Peacock Records, consisted of usual blues and jump blues material, producing little success. After his Peacock contract was bought out by Specialty Records in 1955, Penniman worked with Robert "Bumps" Blackwell and recorded his breakthrough single, "Tutti Frutti" - a song he had devised in clubs a couple years prior - at Cosimo Matassa's J&M Studios in New Orleans. The song became a hit, selling over a million copies and reaching No. 2 on the Billboard Rhythm and Blues Chart. For a year and a half, Penniman would score seventeen additional hit singles and become a popular live performer, with several film appearances to his name. However, Penniman quit at the height of his career in October of 1957 to follow a life in the ministry, recording only gospel music between 1959 and 1961, to little success.

Penniman returned to secular music following a couple of European tours in the early 1960s and recorded for a various number of record labels finding little success. Penniman's successful live performances in the late 1960s led to several modestly successful hit singles in the early 1970s. However, after experiencing a period of wild living, including drug addictions, Penniman quit again in 1976 and rejoined the ministry and his evangelism, selling Bibles and only recording sporadically between 1979 and 1981. Penniman returned to the spotlight in 1984 after the release of Charles White's authorized biography, Quasar of Rock: The Life and Times of Little Richard. The press from the biography led to Penniman revitalizing his secular career, albeit with a stronger religious emphasis, stating his new music of that time period as "message music" or "messages in rhythm" and reconciling his dual roles as evangelist and rock musician.

Penniman has been listed as an influence on artists such as Elvis Presley, James Brown, Otis Redding, Bob Dylan, The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Michael Jackson and numerous other artists in various genres. Penniman and his 1950s road band, the Upsetters, were cited by Brown as among the first to include proto-funk rhythms and backbeats to popular music. Redding later cited Penniman as an early contributor to soul music.

Penniman was among the first group of musicians who were inducted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1986. Penniman has been featured in several Rolling Stone "Greatest of All Time" lists including being ranked number eight on its 100 Greatest Artists of All Time. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame listed three of Penniman's songs that, in their opinion, were among the 500 songs that shaped rock and roll including "Tutti Frutti", "Long Tall Sally" and "Good Golly Miss Molly". As of 2012, Penniman continues to perform live.

What you think? Let's discuss. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Dead links.

I think what also needs to be addressed before people can think it's right to put links is check if the link to information is either still there or not. Some of the links I deleted because they were reported as dead links. So before putting it back in, maybe it'll be best to check the link info before putting it in as a source. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI, you can still use dead links for sources - just use the Internet Wayback Machine to find the cached link. That is preferable instead of deleting a source that is useful. Here's the cached version of the link you deleted dealing with John Fogerty. John Fogerty Interview. Since I don't see Fogerty's name mentioned in the section, I didn't add the link or his name back to the article. Pinkadelica♣ 02:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I saw those types of links. I'll add it just to stop any tension coming from the deletion. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of the intro

I was the one who had originally edited the intro to include the words "transitioning from rhythm and blues to rock and roll" way back in 2009 and wanted it changed. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 00:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Also I think this article is still badly in need of an edit to meet Wikipedia standards. It's somewhat better, now that it includes information about Richard's sexuality (which is a confusing topic because he's declared himself to be anything, from gay to bi to straight to, in his own words "omnisexual"), religion and drug addiction. The personal life section, I think, is nearly perfect. Probably need fixing with the paragraphs on the early life and career sections. And the legacy section, to me, still is somewhat jarring. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is such a biased article...

I love Little Richard as much as the next guy but the way the article is, you think the man was Jesus Christ. Little Richard wasn't the only one who was such a "high voltage" performer in those days. Maybe he's the first whites saw that was that way, but I can argue that Elvis himself was a "high voltage performer", same with Jerry Lee Lewis and Chuck Berry. But it seems to go with the argument that Little Richard was "the first and only" when that's not actually a good source though it's excused by some of the editors as such. I'm not taking anything away from Richard's legacy as his is as rich and varied as his other fifties rock peers but the article tries so hard to make a positive Little Richard story that it almost reads like a fan page. And yet this is being defended for "accuracy". Not to also mention, badly written. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. It's not very well written, it's too long, and the introduction in particular is far too long (an article in its own right in fact). The tone of parts of the article clearly show that it's written by a fan rather than in a neutral encyclopedic voice. But, it's a well referenced article, and quite capable of being saved. I suggest a good copy-edit, maybe by involving experienced editors at WP:GOCE rather than any of the existing editors here, with a view to eventually putting it forward through the WP:GA and WP:FA processes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I've added this article to the category of articles that need attention. I know Smoovedogg means well but yeah, the way it's written is bad. It's got the references, but I hate the way it's written. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 22:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to get involved myself in editing this article. I think some involvement by "outside", neutral, editors would bring benefits all round. I don't think any of us who take an interest in Little Richard want to diminish his contribution in any way, but the article does need turning into a more balanced and neutral summary of his work and life, rather than it being overly promotional, as parts of it seem to be now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree, I'm surprised that little attention has been giving to this article. I'm tired of updating it myself because each attempt I've tried to bring it down to size, Smoovedogg would bring it back up and then accuse anyone of changing it as diminishing what Little Richard did for music, which is not really what anyone is trying to do. It's all about how he was "the first" and all that and adds too much information about the music as if it needs further explanation. That was the issue I had with Solomon Burke's article. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 01:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to endorse most of the above. It is well referenced (perhaps over-referenced in some places where one would do and seven have been cited). It is probably also worth pointing out that WP:SIZERULE suggests that about 40k is the norm and 100k is clearly too big for an article. This one is currently 109,640 bytes, so there is a pretty cast iron case for reduction, even without the tone issues.--SabreBD (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
So basically what can be agreed upon is that the article breaks the rules of Wikipedia's page size. I agree. Question is how do we get through that without interference from someone who thinks people are "deleting information"? BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not have a problem with the article being shortened to meet Wiki standards. I am concerned, however, with any changes that might alter the true meaning or diminish the artists contribution. Many do not truly understand Penniman's music or the man. I do not advertise who I am on this website, but I became involved with Encyclopedias and the information they presented in relation to key black artists such as Little Richard decades ago. As a result, major encyclopedias have changed inaccuarate information about the subject of rock and roll and have included articles about Little Richard under his name. I think the essence of Penniman needs to be captured, as well as how his music, style, etc. impacted on popular music. I appreciate the writing style of BroT and some other editors, and I will do what I can to cooperate to see the article through to become a feature article. Please be open minded in the process, as I am trying to be, because we are not dealing with a regular musician. GQ UK was bold in its claim in 2010 that Penniman "is, without a doubt, the boldest and most influencial of the founding fathers of rock and roll." There are reasons for this, but for one reason or another, many people do not want to accept this or consider why this statement was made. History will, however, reveal itself and the truth will continue to come to light. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I wrote the last comment and edit as Smoovedogg. I am sorry that I am not as familiar as I should be in regard to reporting things that I see going on that are problematic, such as when well sourced information is altered or removed. I didn't even know how to sign this post properly lol. However, I am very knowledgable about the topic and am doing the best I can along the way to make info on Wikipedia more accurate and informative. By the way, I added the sax info in 'early life and career section, as this is significant, since saxophones have almost always played a very key role in his music and how he was so interested in rhythm 'banging pots n pans and the steps and everything before he took up the instrument prior to playing in the marching band. It did add to the length of the article but I will try to edit along with others that are good writers and editors to make this article top notch. Thank you all again for your time and consideration. -Smoovedogg 05:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Smoove, as much as I understand why you felt the need to add all that, I feel it just may take away from the article as an encyclopedia source than reading as if it came off Charles White's book verbatim. As well referenced as it is, I feel some portions of the article read off like a fan page and people may stop reading halfway through. You could say most of the quotes that are posted on the article actually overshadow the article's main subject (Richard himself). Compared to Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley, mainly the only thing that stands out in Richard's article are the quotes. Even some of the information about his stage performances and his apolitical influence on the civil rights movement with his concerts sound like they fit more on the legacy section than in the music career sections. We can look at Elvis' article and see how we can put those sections in a section that cuts to the chase, rather than just enters in the middle of his heyday and his initial religious conversion. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 07:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to comment on Smoovedogg's contribution. "I am concerned, however, with any changes that might alter the true meaning or diminish the artists contribution. Many do not truly understand Penniman's music or the man..." - that implies a failure to understand WP:SOAPBOX - "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." "[W]e are not dealing with a regular musician..." Yes, we are - a culturally important and interesting musician, but still a regular musician, and we should not aim at anything promotional in this article, avoiding puffery - WP:PEACOCK. "I am very knowledgable about the topic" - actually, that is unimportant. What is important is that we (whether we think we know the subject or not) report what reliable sources say, and not what we believe to be true - "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." My comments may sound like I'm trying to minimise Richard's contributions to the world, and your (Smoovedogg's) contributions to the article. I'm not trying to do either of those things - but what is needed is a good well-balanced article that meets readers' requirements, and I share Brotha Timothy's concerns that in some respects this article doesn't really do the job very well. As I said above, it needs outside eyes - either from copy-editors, or by submitting it as a WP:GA, or both. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC) PS: I have to say that it's worrying if someone who is a regular editor here doesn't even understand how to sign posts. That suggests the possibility that they may not be clued up on other, more important, policies and guidelines on how editing here should be carried out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I remain committed to report what reliable sources say, and not what I believe to be true. I have stived to present only accurate, sourced information and will continue to do so. I have enjoyed working with BroT in the process of improving the article and appreciate his and Ghmyrtle input. I may not as familiar with some of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia but have always been willing to be steered along. Thanks kindly, fellow editors.Smoovedogg (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand - in a way, but it's like Ghmyrtle pointed out, if you're not too familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines, then you probably have to let others edit the information to how the article fits rather than just add on and add on. At this rate, the size of the article would make it hard for people to normally see an article if they want to know more about him. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 15:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree to a point. I am understanding for the first time that the length is an issue. I look at James Brown's and Michael Jackson's and so many other articles that are very long and the length element has never been pointed out to me. And I am a quick learner so, it something is pointed out from a policy or guideleine standpoint, I can accept and try to work with that. Thanks.Smoovedogg (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Little Richard and funk?

For the record, Little Richard did perform some blues music in his earlier career. He even called himself the King (and Queen) of the Blues (words from Johnny Otis, who worked with Richard in the early years) and I don't know of any of his post-1950s material having been funk. James Brown is funk's originator, not Little Richard. James does credit him for bringing proto-funk beats to popular music, but Little Richard didn't invent funk, his drummer, if anything, was always credited by Brown for doing what he did. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 06:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course there's no "proof" that he did - in musical terms it's very unlikely that any recording or musician can unambiguously claim to be the first to do anything; these things are a gradual process. But Little Richard and James Brown shared the same agent in the 1950s and the same drummer - Charles Connor - who Brown described as "the first to put the funk in the rhythm" - [2]. It's not something there should be much of an argument over - if sources say that that Little Richard invented funk (and I've seen many that do), or that his work was credited by Brown as helping to invent funk, we should say that here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Haha I think if anything, Richard and his band only indicated what became funk. James Brown's words made it sound like funk music was around in 1957 (when the Upsetters started recording with Richard in the studio after the success of the New Orleans studio band sessions). And besides, Mr. Brown did use the same musicians Richard had. Funk is more defined by James Brown but he obviously thought Charles "Chuck" Connors, who I included in this article on the Legacy section, helped in its development so there you have it.BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 12:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we disagree very much - it's just that I didn't think your statement that "There's no proof he did and I'm tired of seeing that" was a very good basis for editing! Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Well least I didn't put that in the edit summary. :) I'm just frustrated, that's all haha besides Brown said Richard was his idol but he said Charles Connors was the first to put funk in rock. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 19:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Penniman recorded 'funk'. Allmusic.com states that "he recorded an eclectic, wide-ranging album that touched on country, acoustic blues, hard-driving funk, soul, melodic pop, and rock & roll" in the early 1970s. As far as being credited for innovating funk, The Rocak and Roll Hall of Fame states that Penniman's "road band, the Upsetters, has been credited by James Brown and others with first putting the funk in the rock and roll beat." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.254.170.25 (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... well I guess the only music I heard that came close to actual funk music by Richard was from the album, The Rill Thing (something about "Freedom Blues" has funk elements in it) but you go to that page, it's described as a "swamp rock" album so maybe it had elements of funk, soul, rock and something else. It seems whoever quoted James Brown saying this (and he may have said it in his own book, Godfather of Soul) either found a substantiated quote or just came up with it from hot air. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 07:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Confusion on when he actually began performing professionally.

From the article, it suggests that Richard began his professional performing career when he was only 12 (seeing as he performed with Rosetta Tharpe in 1945 and he didn't turn 13 that year until December 5, it's suggested he might've still been 12 when he sang with her that night) but other articles point out that he might've started his professional career either in 1948 (when he would've been 15 or 16) or 1949 (16 or 17). Others even say 1950 (17). I'm guessing Richard didn't play piano in those days when he started until after Esquerita taught him to play piano around 1952 (Esquerita being around 17 and Richard being 19). So maybe we can correct that part of the biography. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 19:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Britannica states that when he left home )at 15) he began perorming rhytm and blues on the raod, gaing a reutation for high-voltage onstage antics. It doesnt matter that he may not have have played piano at that time as his first instrument was saxophona AND he was a frontman, as well. It seems that when he left home in 47 was the start of his career (when he began to perform for a living for money.198.254.170.25 (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Charles White's book fails to give it a year on when Richard first performed. But I can tell from Richard's birth month that it wasn't 1947. It had to have been 1948 because Richard was still relatively 14 in 1947 until December 5. Richard himself, it seems, couldn't come up with a timeline on when he actually left high school. I even saw one blog about the school and it stated Richard left in 1949 and he would've been 16 then. Either way, it was 1948 that he started to perform in those minstrel medicine shows. So the timeline's questionable. I don't question he started in the late 1940s but it's just the year in general that's confusing. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 07:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The infobox picture needs to change to something more historic.

I honestly don't like the picture being used for Richard's infobox. In fact, it wouldn't hurt having a few photos from his heyday since the only photos used come from his post heyday. Least any picture between 1956 and 1973 would do. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 02:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the best one we've got.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess lol but more photos can be added, I believe. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 01:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but as he is alive, the use of non-free content presents difficulties, and it's doubtful whether anyone who holds the copyright on photos of him taken, say, 50 years ago, would upload them here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
That's understandable. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 01:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Finally got the nerve to put the templates to help fix this article.

It was about time. And also, this page needs to be semi-protected since some wise crack edited the early life and career section with this ridiculous notion of Richard being born in Quiznos, New Mexico. Anyway, hope someone finally reads what's going on and fix this long-winded article. And if anyone edits, warn them not to make the article too long at least. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the request for assistance from an 'expert on rock music' as Pennimans contributions from a musical perpective extend far beyond the realm of 'rock'. Part of the problem with contributors is they are not well-rounded enough in their knowledge of other genres and do not understand Penniman enough musically. Perhaps experts (not one 'expert') that are more knowledgeable about popular music (NOT pop) and its various genres would help to improve the article. Or what may be more helpful is for more good writers (knowledgeable in how to write good good encyclopedia articles) to jump in to take the well sourced info and condense it - if it needs it. I personally do not think that the article is too long but maybe someone could shopw me a link to similar feature articles to give me a better idea about the ideal length -if there is one. I think BroT has some good writing skills and has contributed to shaping some important information in to a better read (i.e. the Legacy / Influence section is excellent in my opinion). I would encourage that editor and others to work together and not give up. It is coming along. Smoovedogg (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Well check out Elvis Presley's, check out Chuck Berry's, hell check out Bob Dylan's. Those leading sections didn't add all of the stuff that is covered in Little Richard's leading section. Little Richard's read like an Allmusic biography's than a Wikipedia bio. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 07:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, leading sections don't usually add in sentences that look more adapt for the paragraphs than a leading section/introduction. Plus the wording is really bad. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 07:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I will look up Presley, Berry and Dylan's intro. (At the same time wondering whether any of these were feature articles?) I went ahead to try to shorten the lead paragraph, leaving the detail to the Legacy/Influece section, whcih I think is very informative, particularly the Influence section. I did this prior to reading the suggested articles, as I just noticed this. Thanks BroTSmoovedogg (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I just skimmed through the three suggested articles and have the following commentary. I am most impressed with the Dylan article froma writer's perspective. All three seem longer in the body than Penniman's - that without looking at actual word counts. The intro of Penniman's is currently not too much longer than the others. I think the middle paragraph could be shorter but contains a relatively reasonable amount of information. Penniman's intro was beginning to look a lot like Berry's - I noticed this before - just switch the name of Berry with Penniman and you would almost have the same article. I like how Penniman's has developed to explain his influence on other genres besides rock and roll (i.e soul and funk), which is less known but important to highlight. I find the Influence section fascinating, and think most readers with an interest in music will as well. The quotes help demonstrate Penniman's influence, which was wider and more sweeping than many of his contemporaries. Some people, sadly and for whatever reason, are jealous or do not like this FACT and may labor to remove this info.Smoovedogg (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Longer? I don't see it that way. Chuck's not too far-winded. Elvis' isn't either. Dylan's lead section is great though. Richard's though seems to be out of order in my view. I think you need to do more than skim it. Of course if someone brings the intro down to Dylan's size, that means further information can't be added. Like maybe the influences should stay in the influence section. The mention of Tutti Frutti being the number-one song that shaped or changed the music world from Mojo stay in its own section and skim down the personal aspects in the leading section so it don't sound like a "Little Richard for Dummies" article. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 15:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Dylan's intro is great, although I have seen this evolve. I agree that the personal aspects section could be reduced in length. I was so itching to hint at the sax info in the intro, however, since the intro length was mentioned as a concern I recognize that details like that can be mentioned in the body. Penniman was interested in percussion/rhythm and music (sax and singing) and excelled at it in his youth, which is very important to mention in the body of the article, as the rhythm and sax have almost always been central to his music. I think the spiritual to secular bouncing back and forth is worth referring to in the intro, as that has been the central theme of his life.Smoovedogg (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been shaving down the intro, particularly the middle section as discussed.Smoovedogg (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And what about the following for a shortened lead paragraph:

Richard Wayne Penniman (born December 5, 1932), known by his stage name Little Richard, is an American pianist, singer and songwriter, whose innovative music, distinctive vocals and performance style of the mid-1950s played a defining role in the development of rock and roll music.(with citations) Penniman and his road band of that same period also sparked the musical transition from 1950s rock and roll to 1960s funk.(with citations) In addition, Penniman’s music and vocalizations contributed to the early development of soul music.(with citations) Penniman's vast musical influence has extended from the twentieth century into the new milenium, impacting on generations of performers in diverse genres from soul to funk and rock to rap. (with citations)

I like Elvis Presley's intro paragrah. While Dylan's impressed me from a writing-style perspective, I think it isn't short and to the point like an encyclopedia should be. Your feedback is welcome.Smoovedogg (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, the wording in your proposed lead paragraph sounds like a run-on sentence. I've shortened part of the lead section. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
What on earth!? Sorry to be so dramatic, but who decided that since the lead was too long it was OK to just move it down? I was going to copy edit this article and couldn't figure out why after doing the first section it suddenly jumped back to his early years for a second time (in the second section). An overly long lead would certainly be preferable to the way it is now. Whoever made this change should really follow through and incorporate the old lead material or delete it as appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know who did it myself. I know I didn't lol I don't like where it's put at myself. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 01:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I think some of it could be returned to the lead, but I see it as part of an ongoing process of improving and shortening the article. Can we please get rid of all the citations in the lead as well? They're unsightly, and all statements in the lead should only be summarising referenced statements in the main text anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
True... I have to say I love the edits! And the lead section is well organized now. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 02:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Little_Richard/Archive_1&oldid=1259677321"