Jump to content

Talk:Chuck Berry

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimJim (talk | contribs) at 03:16, 20 March 2017 (→Survey: A). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleChuck Berry has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 6, 2010Good article nomineeListed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 18, 2017.

Template:Findnote


Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016

Please remove "Born in St. Louis, Missouri,[9] Berry was the fourth child in a family of six." and replace it with "Born in San Jose, California, Berry was the fourth child in a family of six. Shortly after his birth, the family moved to St. Louis, Missouri." because this is accurate per the references below:

References: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1044190/this-day-in-music http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-guitarists-of-all-time-19691231/chuck-berry-20101202 http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/rock-roll-icon-chuck-berry http://www.notablebiographies.com/Be-Br/Berry-Chuck.html https://books.google.com/books?id=PgGqNrqfrsoC&pg=PT330&lpg=PT330&dq=chuck+berry+born+in+san+jose&source=bl&ots=cJBh2jgdgH&sig=4oh8q1k_BQur41Tj-YArI-56vDg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5m53-4LnKAhUY8GMKHcMLAlAQ6AEITTAI#v=onepage&q=chuck%20berry%20born%20in%20san%20jose&f=false

12.218.209.105 (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This has been raised before. Although many sources do indeed say that he was born in San Jose, this seems to have stemmed from a fallacious 1950s press release - [1] - perhaps written to suggest a more glamorous background - and the most reliable sources agree that in fact he was born in St Louis - [2]], [3]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmyrtle is correct - the majority of sources (including the biographies on Berry and his own autobiography) state St. Louis. What an odd mistake, of all places, why San Jose? Tidewater 2014 (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should have read this before I edited. Reverted. Fantailfan (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy: No. 4 greatest songwriter

In 2015 Rolling Stone magazine published its Top 100 Greatest songwriters of All Time, with Berry occupying the No. 4 position, after Dylan, McCartney and Lennon. Is this not worth mentioning in the Legacy section? MackyBeth (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chuck Berry. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lede is too long

A lot of the information is trivial and should be removed. (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:8575:C121:FC54:41FD (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Chuck has sadly passed on

An editor with the necessary authorization needs to edit the article to reflect this. I came here to do so, but found it protected above my ability to perform the edits. May he Rest In Peace. 223.104.5.233 (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is semi-protected per the "living persons" policy. Well, he is no longer living, so shouldn't that be lifted? 47.137.191.83 (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ideally no. The protection should remain in place while the high volume editing is occurring and be reviewed after editing has settled down, so as not to add to the edit conflict difficulties. Edaham (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another casualty of the rock 'n' roll lifestyle.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He was 90, not quite so young. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BLP protections remain in place for the recently deceased. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but what are the outer limits of "recently deceased, and who gets to decide? 47.137.191.83 (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Which image should be used?

We have a number of excellent images of Berry from various periods of his life. Which should be used in the infobox? MB298 (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option A: 1957, currently in use
    Option A: 1957, currently in use
  • Option B: 1972
    Option B: 1972
  • Option C: 1973
    Option C: 1973
  • Option D: 1987
    Option D: 1987
  • Option E: 1997
    Option E: 1997
  • Option F: More recent image, 2007
    Option F: More recent image, 2007
  • Option G: Another recent of high quality, 2008
    Option G: Another recent of high quality, 2008

Survey

Controversies

Hi, I think we are going to need a section in the article about Chuck Berry's three arrests, prison, problems with substance abuse, etc. This person was a great musician, but he certainly was not an angel! IQ125 (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, these are all covered in the chronology of his life. – The Bounder (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are not mentioned in the article. It is good to summarize them separately, so readers can find them more easily as follows: IQ125 (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Berry had controversies in his life including three separate arrests. The first arrest resulted in a three-year prison sentence for armed robbery in 1942.[1] The second arrest lead to a prison sentence under the Mann Act for transporting of a 14-year-old girl across state lines for "immoral purposes” in 1960.[2]. The third arrest lead to Berry's and conviction of substance abuse in 1990.[3] In addition, Berry was sentenced to four-months in prison for tax evasion in 1979.[4]

In 1990, Berry faced a class action lawsuit from woman alleging that he had videotaped them, while undressing and using the washroom on his property.[5]

  1. ^ Encyclopedia.com: Chuck Berry
  2. ^ History Channel: Chuck Berry is arrested on Mann Act charges in St. Louis, Missouri
  3. ^ Rolling Stone: Chuck Berry Bio
  4. ^ Famous Daily: Chuck Berry Tax Evasion.
  5. ^ Chuck Berry: Videotape allegations
A, yes they are (read the article); B. No, that gives them undue weight. The information is aleady there, and I suggest you read through the article to see it. Edit warring to force it in is not good (see WP:BRD, so perhaps see if a consensus develops here? - The Bounder (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let a consensus build here and we should both adhere to it. Edit warring is not good. I appreciate Chuck Berry's music as I presume you do, but people should be aware that he had a criminal side to him, he was no saint! IQ125 (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article already makes it abundantly clear that he had brushes with the law. Perhaps you should have read it through first? – The Bounder (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many aspects of Berry's life that are interesting. That he was imprisoned during the height of his success, and on release his songs were now more famous as being done by white artists such as the Beach Boys, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, so he spent the rest of his life in their shadows, is, for me, a particularly fascinating one. Berry was famously very frustrated by that. When working on this article in 2010, I wanted to bring that out, but couldn't find enough reliable sources to give it the coverage to do it justice. I think I may look again in a few months, as there will be a series of commentaries on his life and career in the coming weeks, and some of them may focus on that.

As regards putting together a dedicated section on controversies, that wouldn't be appropriate under our guidelines. Berry is not notable for those events, he is notable for his music. Where those events impacted on his life or were widely reported we should, yes, discuss them in detail, but to put them all together in a "Controversies" section would not be allowed in this situation per WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:UNDUE. All the events mentioned above are in the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pulp Fiction

Shouldn't it be mentioned that "You Never Can Tell" was featured in the movie Pulp Fiction (used for the twist contest). One of my favorite scenes in a great movie Beaglemix (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article for that: Music from the Motion Picture Pulp Fiction. His music has been used in many films, but that in itself is not particularly notable or interesting as every major artist has had their music used in other media. In general, the best places to mention these things is in the relevant articles as that is where the information is more pertinent and useful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
a sentence which quickly glosses over the top three or four film appearances of his music would seem fairly natural. "His music has been featured in films such as....". For example Edaham (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Clapton

I think it would be proper to add Eric Clapton's name to your list of those influenced by Mr. Berry. While with the Yardbirds, Eric Clapton played lead guitar on their album "Five Live Yardbirds", which included No More Monkey Business, proving that Clapton, along with the other highly respected musicians you've listed, owes a debt of gratitude to Chuck Berry.68.11.148.235 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)James Rink[reply]

You are right. However in Berry's case there are so many artists who have played his songs and been influenced by him that to produce a list would be meaningless. What is significant is that while he was in prison, the Beach Boys, the Beatles, and The Rolling Stones all copied his style and used his songs. These are three very significant bands who had a huge influence on music. But, yes, what Clapton put into Monkey that nobody else did, and what made him a God, was the technique and feel of Blues players such as Otis Rush and B B King with the attack, drive, and chop of Berry, I think bringing in some mention of that both here and on the Clapton article would be useful, if we have the sources (other than this) that discuss it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chuck_Berry&oldid=771194983"