Talk:Billy Preston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Billy Preston article.
Article policies


Start
This article has
been rated as
Start-Class on the
assessment scale.
  This Apple Records/Apple Corps-related article is within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles, Apple Records, George Martin, Brian Epstein/NEMS, and related topics. You are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.

High
This article has
been rated as
High importance on the
importance scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Assessment Department for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment.
This article is also within the scope of WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians on Wikipedia.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!:
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
To-do list for Billy Preston: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] Fifth Beatle?

    Someone added a sentence today that he was definitely NOT considered "the fifth Beatle", and that George Martin was. I removed this sentence -- the article clearly explains that Preston was one of SEVERAL people who were sometimes called "the fifth Beatle". Of course it's a subjective thing, but if you feel the need to debate it, here's the place. Vandelay 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Gay?

    According to the latest issue of the Advocate, Preston was gay but didn't like to talk about his sexuality. Are there any more resources on this? It seems like the straight, white Beatles appropriated from two black, gay men: Little Richard and Billy Preston. Can Preston be listed under a "Gay Musicians" category?

    On August 18, 1991, singer and keyboardist Billy Preston was arrested in Malibu, California, after a 16-year-old boy reported that he was sexually attacked and shown obscene pictures. Preston was charged with exhibiting pornography, annoying a child and possessing cocaine. A year later, he entered no-contest pleas to the cocaine and assault charges. He was sentenced to nine months at a drug rehabilitation center and three months of house arrest.[1]--Kstern999 03:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    I don't know anything about Preston's orientation. However, according to press reports in the early 1990s, Preston picked up a hooker and discovered that the "girl" was a transvestite. He beat the prostitute and was caught and arrested.
    This is probably the same arrest referenced above.
    Since the victim of the beating was only 16 years old, the judge threw the book at Preston, and the charges were very harsh.
    In court, Preston claimed that he beat the hooker because he was outraged, feeling he was "fooled" by the transvestite. He claimed he assumed the prostitute was an adult female until he discovered otherwise.
    While on probation, Preston tested dirty on drug tests over a period of several months and went to jail.
    Some enterprising person should look this up on a resource like the Los Angeles Times archives, and document the facts in a focused way. I frankly don't know enough to link this properly. As it stands, it just looks like rumors. Obviously this stuff should stay on the talk page unless confirmed. Vpfritz 11:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] General chat

    I'm thinking this page is out of proportion -- I think that the discography should be cut way down, and his association with the Beatles should be emphasized more. --Arcadian 02:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    If he was one of TWO people credited on Beatles albums, and I'd always heard he was the ONLY one, WHO is the other????65.40.167.36 14:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) (The answer is Tony Sheridan, I believe) Vandelay 18:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

    Maybe I missed it, but there seems to be no mention of one of Billy Preston's biggest hits, "Will it go round in circles?". Mirlin 21:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

    Agreed, the article needs to discuss his career as a solo artist, including the hits Will It Go Round In Circles, Outta Space, Space Race, and Nothing From Nothing. SleepyheadKC, 12:02 16 May 2006 (UTC)

    Please sign using ~~~~, which will add your username and the date and time automatically. --kingboyk 12:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

    Well, it's been nine months, and no one has objected, so I'm going to pare the discography down. --Arcadian 01:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Billy had a nice hit with "God Planned it (that's the way). It was a gospel flavored tune that rocked, probably 1969. When he played at the "Tastefest" in Detroit, for free, that is the one song he omitted. Instead of an encore, he ducked behind the band and raced for his limo. Possibly he was pissed because some ignorant fan was throwing an album on stage for an autograph. That was a big disappointment.

    No mention of "Live at the Fillmore" by King Curtis? Surely some of his best work. I can understand the need to keep the discography short, but not to mention that album seems unfortuate.

    [edit] Photo

    Can't we find a better photo ? -- Beardo 04:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    Give the man a little more dignity than a still from SPLHCB! Sheesh!

    I agree, the photo has got to go.

    Then find a better one people! --kingboyk 20:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Bring back the Sgt. Pepper photo! The purpose of the photo should be recognition basis; I should be able to click on a name that sounds familiar, see a pic and say "Ohhhhh...THAT guy." I'd wager dollars to donuts (whatever that means) that more would recognize Preston as a smiling energetic performer than from the sombre album cover now shown... Wencer 03:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Um... it hasn't gone anywhere. It's right there underneath. The picture was changed so that you could actually see his face. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    And this photo with an "AFRO" just the chileans said yo his hair??? El Manu!!!

    [edit] Died?

    I didn't know. I can't say I'm suprised though, given recent reports of chronic ill-health. Rest in peace Billy, you had soul alright. --kingboyk 17:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    • 5th or 6th? Web news stories are dated the 6th, but the entry says the 5th (though the death section says the 6th. Can we get a source that we can use for a date? Rjhatl 17:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (NM, that's been fixed now)
    • Rest in Peace Billy. you will be missed. From Montreal to Tokyo, you were known world wide. Thanks for the great music.
    • 'Night Bill. Isn't it a pity?--Crestville 14:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Coma?

    I've just commented out the following line:

    He had been in a coma since November 21, 2005.

    From what I can tell, Billy Preston was up and around until the time of his death. According to his website, he had scheduled appearances before and after his death:

    Billy will be a guest performer on the season finale of American Idol. 8PM ET/PT. Billy will be taping "Later with Jools" while in London on June 7th.

    Any other related sources? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Hmm... maybe the line was true.... It seems that the website may be out of date, because Billy Preston appeared on the season finale of American Idol (Season 5), which was last year. A Reuters via AOL article seems to agree, as well. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Actually, you must have meant American Idol (Season 4), the one that ended in May 2005, so that would be consistent with the "coma since November" question. USA Today showed a photo of him there.[9] Vandelay 12:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

    Bizarre. I guess the media will eventually sort it out, but some sources are still reporting that he was in a coma. [10] In fact, a Fox News story from March talks about a court battle related to his coma. [11]. His own website reports that "As a result of a medical insult he'd been in a deep coma since last November 21st, but was still struggling to recover." [12]. The only thing I can think of is that the scheduled appearances were prearranged. Since the official press release of his death on his own site reports that he was in a coma, I'll restore it to the page. Rjhatl 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    If he was in a coma since last November, how could he have recorded the Red Hot Chili Peppers track? Whotookthatguy 22:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

    Yeah, that's part of what got me confused, as well. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    According to Rolling Stone magazine, the Peppers began working on "Stadium Arcadium" in September 2004.[13] So it's entirely within reason that Preston recorded his track before November 2005. Vandelay 12:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Bob Dylan?

    I don't understand the listing of Blood on the Tracks in Preston's session discography. There is absolutely no record on reputable Dylan fan sites of Preston ever participating in that album. Any objections if I delete the listing? Signinstranger 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    I had already deleted it once; I've just done it again. The problem is that Preston's official web site lists Blood on the Tracks in his discography [14], so it will probably keep coming back. Ccoll 15:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    Be forewarned: some newspaper obits today list Billy as being on Blood on the Tracks, so people will keep placing it here. But Paul Griffin plays the organ on BOTT, according to the album credits.
    RIP Billy. 64.204.152.169 15:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] http://www.billypreston.net/

    What can I say than more??? 81.246.208.65 21:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC) S.K.

    [edit] Beatles WikiProject

    After holding off for a long time, I've added a Beatles WikiProject tag to the talk page. Billy was a close friend and associate of The Beatles, and recorded for Apple Records. I think either of those is enough to have his article come within project scope, both is a cert. --kingboyk 09:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

    • And the discography??? The 80% of the Billy's albums has a Beatles song.

    El Manu!!! 09:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Abbey Road was the last album the Beatles recorded. Not Let it Be

    [edit] WP:BLP Tag

    I took off the BLP tag, since the subject died last June 2006. I assessed the article as well. Real96 22:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] The Beatles' miscellanea

    Check The Beatles' miscellanea to see if there is anything in it you can use. A lot of 'miscellanea' needs to be trimmed (as linked articles are improved) so please feel free to use anything before certain sections get zapped into the ether... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] confusing sentence

    In the Beatles section, it reads:


    'It would have made Preston officially "the fifth Beatle," a title he was not loath to exploit over the next three decades'

    Is that a typo, or am I misunderstanding? --Chfprd 06:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Billyp2.JPG

    Image:Billyp2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

    If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Billy Preston.jpg

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

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

    If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] American Criminal

    I think including Billy Preston in the American Criminal category is wrong under the definition of the category and think it's shameful to put him there. Repeatedly. Over the objections of at least three other editors. To make a WP:POINT. It's an especially unseemly part of the ongoing discussion about who is an American Criminal.David in DC (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

    He was convicted of one felony, sent to prison for 3 years on a probation violation, then convicted yet again on another felony. All of that is well sourced. What part of "conviction" do you not understand? John celona (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    What part of "discretion" do you not understand? There is no point to running around labeling people "criminal." Anyone who feels the need to run around and attack people in that way is clearly suffering from a case of low self worth. Further, the category (as it is now) does not warrant inclusion of an individual like Preston (as numerous editors have pointed out). Celona, you are acting unilaterally here. --Jkp212 (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    There are approximately 450 names in the category. I am responsible for about 15 of them. That leaves some 435 users who are doing the same thing-adding to the project while YOU are the one who is unilaterally removing the work of hundreds of people while the subject is under a RFC. John celona (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    Please find me another user who runs around labeling people "criminals" in the way you have. It's nonsense, pure and simple. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    There are 435 individual users who have utilized this category. You hold a minority view. Stop edit warring. John celona (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    Sure, users have utilized the category. Please find any users who run around and SEEK OUT subjects to label "criminals."? It takes a pretty low self worth person to do that. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    There are about 435 users who you have just slandered. You hold minority, pro-censorship views. Stop edit warring. Preston's multiple convictions are well-sourced. John celona (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    None of those users seek out subjects to label criminals. You hold a pro-nonsense view. --Jkp212 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • This edit-warring is unseemly and disruptive. I've fully protected the article until the RFC reaches a conclusion. Of, course, I may have protected the "wrong version". This is not a content decision, it just happened at the time when I ran out of patience. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


    According to the category definition [15], people should only be included in the category 'American Criminals' if they "can claim notability solely because of the crime". In full:

    For inclusion in this category, a person must have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial), can claim notability solely because of the crime, or else the person must have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed.

    So I guess he shouldn't be in that category. LHMike (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    That one is tricky. The definition contains three major clauses, the last two linked by "or". On that basis, I'd argue that the first part would apply , but it is very badly worded. Unfortunately, this definition seemed to have "just growed", and we have no idea of the intentions of its various authors. That, I suspect, is the main reason for the current confusion. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    I agree it's badly worded, and have just read the endless debate on the discussion page at the category. Nonetheless, as it currently stands, the definition seems to hinge on the essence of notability for the crime. A review of others in the catagory mainly reveals rapists, murderers and robbers - if 'minor' drug offences were included, the vast majority of rock musicians in America would have to be included. However, regardless of who is in the category now or what the definition used to say, what it seems to say now, however badly worded, is that notability for the crime is required. Until the category definition/title changes, I can't see any reason why this biography is in it. LHMike (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'm perfectly prepared to argue that WP:UNDUE applies to the use of this category especially in relation to WP:BLP; Jimbo Wales has set out a principle which should be of more general application. This might end up in the RFC. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    That's a viewpoint that would be welcome at the RfC on the talk page of the American Criminal category, Rodhullandemu. At least I'd welcome it :) David in DC (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    Roughly half of the articles in the category consist of musicians, actors, celebrities, politicians, Etc. who have well-sourced convictions. This has not been a problem for years until a couple of pro-censorship users recently began making scores of unilateral changes without consensus. This led me to ask for an RFC which is still pending. John celona (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    The fact that something has been around for years does not justify an argumentum ad antiquitem or prevent us trying to get things right for the future. This encyclopedia is by definition an organic, evolving entity and what seemed to be correct then is not necessarily correct for the future; that's the point of the RFC, but can in no way justify edit-warring, particularly subtle, cross-article edit warring- which hasn't gone unnoticed. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Birth date

    This page has been unclear about Preston's birth date for some time. An editor has recently chosen one of the two candi-dates. No reason given in the edit summary.

    Is the current version correct, or a best guess?David in DC (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

    Sourced to a Motion filed in California State Bankruptcy court, and therefore, presumably, reliable. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)