Talk:Richard O'Brien

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Musical Theatre Portal
Richard O'Brien is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start Class
WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks:


Contents

[edit] Scary Movie 5

It says here that he's going to reprise his role as Dr. Cosmo McKinley (Which would be great, since he was excellent in Shock Treatment) in Scary Movie 5... I haven't found any information on that; imdb doesn't have it listed, but I'm not counting on that since it's not very far in production (and might not be listed under his name. I don't know, don't ask my reasoning there). So, uh, in conclusion: Is he actually in this? Or is this some kind of weird formal spam? 71.219.231.151 (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality and Health

There is an LGBT banner on this discussion page but no mention on the main page of his homosexuality. Can anyone confirm? Also does anyone have any information on his current appearance, where he looks pretty gaunt and haggard (almost having the appearance of later stage HIV/AIDS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.34.194 (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


HIV? Hmmm, that's a bit of leap. (A slightly offensive one too). He's always looked pretty "gaunt," in fact I think this is a long-standing medical condition... I remember reading an interview where he talked about it - something to do with skeletal development, and it's responsible for his skinny physique. I don't remember the name of it, nor can I provide a link, so I'm not going to add an unverified statement to this article. Maybe someone else can dig it out. 80.42.208.73 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2 Richard O'Briens

What the hell is this? Don't include any of this personal opinion (I don't know what to describe it as but that's civil enough) in this WP article unless you have sources. If this happens again then WP:AGF goes out of the window and the page is going to be reverted and protected. Thanks. Deizio 01:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More

I've since read the site in question. Below is an exchange between myself and Moriori who is a top editor and like me has the best interests of this page at heart. Deizio 02:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard O'Brien

Hi, I'm having trouble figuring out what's going on with this page. A link to an unsolicited external page was recently put up and information from that page which is at best unproven personal opinion, certainly outwith the bounds of accepted history and frankly extremely puzzling was incorporated into the WP article. Can you clarify your position on this? Do you edit this page under a user name and an IP? Nice one. I wrote and formatted the bulk of the article prior to the above and intend to keep the content on the page verifiable per standard WP criteria. Deizio 01:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have made three edits to this article, all under my Moriori sig. Below you can also see in my summaries that (1) I support him being attributed with authorship of the show, (2) I removed from the photo caption the irrelevant mention of the 2nd O'Brien, (3) I generally edited the text to improve it. The summaries are below.
  • (cur) (last) 14:20, March 8, 2006 Deiz (Reverting to remove absurd edits. If you want to continue this bizarre "2 richard o'brien" nonsense then I'll see you on the talk page.)
  • (cur) (last) 12:34, March 8, 2006 Moriori m (remove caption ref to someone else - the article is about THIS guy, not someone else. Also remove meaninglesss sentences.)
  • (cur) (last) 12:08, March 8, 2006 Arniep (rv bad edit)
  • (cur) (last) 16:14, March 7, 2006 67.125.156.23 (→Selected Filmography)
  • (cur) (last) 16:12, March 7, 2006 67.125.156.23
  • (cur) (last) 16:08, March 7, 2006 Moriori m (→Personal Life - Remove unencyclopedic rant)
  • (cur) (last) 16:06, March 7, 2006 67.125.156.23 (→External links)
  • (cur) (last) 16:05, March 7, 2006 Moriori m (Revert. The number of sites that credit him with authorship totally overwhelm the site given in the previous edit summary)
There was an actor called Richard O'Brien who died aged 65 on March 29 1983, who is credited by some sites as having acted in the Rocky Horror Show. Whether that has resulted because someone has confused names, I don't know. What I do know is that the version of the article you have reverted to is inferior to my last edited version IMMHO. If you must insist that the 2nd O'Brien did not act in the show and doesn't get a mention here, then it's OK by me if you root it out. I would hope you would revert to my last edited version tho. Moriori 01:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, good man and sorry if in my confusion I came over a bit strong, this has all just been a bit of a shock. Below you can see a reply I was drafting before you posted this. >>There are fragments of unverifiable cruft and the anon editors opinions in all the recent edits by all editors and I found it necessary to revert back to before it all started, it's less work this way. If you made any major changes to the content of the article it might be better to cut and paste them, sorry if that's more work, I'll help if I can. The theory does not relate to another Richard O'Brien, rather it states that someone else (a "Jim Steinman" who is credited in many songs and other aspects of the RHS empire) actually wrote the show, played Riff Raff (using prosthetics to look loke RoB) etc etc but RoB took the credit in some elaborate cover up. Have you read the conspiracy site? [1] Any opinions? It's a head scratcher and no mistake. Deizio 02:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---


<------ this edit is inacurate per the above, and included for information only ----->

Hi again. My comments stem from the fact that there is only one Richard O'Brien. Any editor who has attempted to show that there are two Richard O'Briens - specifically that the same man (whose picture is on the page), born as Richard Timothy Smith and known as Richard O'Brien, did not write TRHS, TRHPS, star as Riff Raff in the movie, present the Crystal Maze, appear in D&D, Flash Gordon etc. - has made "absurd edits". It might not be denying the holocaust but it's certainly presenting a slanted and bizarre view of history far outwith what is universally accepted. If you made no such edits then I have not called your edits absurd. You say you made edits to "tone down" references to 2 RoB's which is why I'm having trouble seeing which side of the fence you're on here. There is no "toning down" to be done, only removal of unverifiable info. Hence I've reverted to before this little rash of edits began.
I've read the page which claims to show "the truth", that a "Jim Cypherd / Steinman" who the theorist claims many people know as Richard O'Brien was in fact responsible for much of what the real Richard O'Brien is credited with. Only on sites denying the moon landing have I seen such in-depth whistle blowing and I encourage others to look at it as it is interesting. Let's suspend disbelief and assume for a moment that a man known today as Anton Vig (the current drummer in Paul Schaffer's CBS Orchestra on the Late Show with David Letterman), previously known as Jim Steinman, did all this and it's a huge elaborate cover up. WP:NOR denies this information from being included in Wikipedia, and the incorrect but commonly accepted version of history must be reported.
This is interesting and I'm as open minded as they come. But this is also Wikipedia, and we need verifiability.Deizio 02:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

<----------> Hello, I am not looking at Wikipedia often, and just noticed the edits and your confusion, for which I apologize. The analogies to the moonlanding are interesting, but let me try to clarify for you, that it is not far-reaching as that. First, before I endeavor to explain, I would like to point out that I have joined Wikipedia for the exclusive purpose of dialoguing with you and getting this issue straight. And, as such, I have explained what my meaning is on the discussion page under my user name, "Lilysincere".

If either of you have ever been journalists, I would like to know so. If so, I would ask for the courtesy of Journalistic Principles.

I shall try to address your points as they are stated above. It seems to me, that the most recent comment is the most salient as you have noted some specific addresses to the website where my "case" is stated. As I can see the need to, I shall start from there, and move backwards to the first. First of all, "the truth" (as stated above in quotation marks) is not the recounting of Biblical Gospels, nor an attempt to rewrite any federal commission studies. It is only the difference between truth and lies. I just want to try to set a serious tone of discussion, and I do appreciate that you are willing to discuss it.

I have the dubious position of personal involvement hence your first reticense to take seriously the issues at hand; and it is personal involvment which forms the verifiability. I conduct this on the website in three ways: First, as you have noticed it is not a brief page which is saying x is x and y is y and you have to believe me because I am telling the truth. I know, that does not fly. I conduct three processes: 1) A Theatrical/Dramatic/Structure Analysis; 2)An Information Background; 3) A Photographic Analysis.

What these three elements provide are separate and each have their sums to support the premise, that my friend (the author) told the truth to me.

I chose to conduct a Structures analysis based upon certain backgrounds. In general terms it has come to my attention that when an authorship dispute arises, when often may be the case that one person writes a song and another person takes the credit for it, an analysis is performed of the underlying ideas, motivations, and previous works in consistency in order to form a basis for the argument. The questions are asked, and answers are expected: what caused the writing, what is said in the writing, and what else has the writer to show in terms of his abilities and probabilities to have made the work? I answer these questions. I show the previous works, and in the process discovered the prequel to the story of issue. Other works supplement, with dialogue in 1972 finding its way to a dialogue of 1973, with themes from 1968-1972 represented in 1973, and follows to the themes in continuing works, themes repeating. I show this in structures, from story itself, to the characters developments, to the dialogues, to the dance, to the content, to the atmosphere, to the actor himself. The character, in the character. It is quite extensive, and at each juncture, a consistency is unveiled. I focused on message, because the cult denies one exists. The man taking the role of the author, denies one exists. I show, not only a message to the film, but its representations in the work, and in previous and subsequent works.

I chose to conduct a background analysis because the factors which existed of subterfuge are all-encompassing, and my exposure to them have been unique.

I chose to conduct a photographic analysis because it becomes obvious that the man in the film is not the man in the photo of the page you show for Richard O'Brien.

And, my personal past, is the only reason why I know, and the source of the most indicating proof: a childhood photo of the man who wrote Rocky Horror. I compare it with the various photos, and I compare the other man to others. It becomes proven, and that work is yet continuing as my methods hope to improve. I would point out, that the man claiming the credit has made immense works to simulate appearance of the character Riff Raff in order to support his position and maintain acceptance. He does bear a frighteningly close resemblance to the author and I have not ruled out the credibility of the author's statement that they are feuding cousins but I have not made this my focus in the work.

I also show Anton Fig and Jim Steinman, for it is Jim Steinman whom is the focus and Anton Fig another character he created, who does the drumming on the Late Show. Then there is more personal information to sift through, probably more than you need. The fact that this is strange, is not lost on me, but it is less strange than many other things, such as the problem that made all this take place. One author, one name, two men.

Respectfully, I shall close this message now, and await your reply. --Lilysincere 06:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I have taken the time to review the policies you have made reference to. Most of all, I focused upon the WP:NOR policy, and have this to state of my understanding of it at present.

In your Wikipedia policy, WP:NOR, I state, that these changes of omitting "Rocky Horror Picture Show" from the filmography of Richard O'Brien (Richard Timothy Smith), is not "Original Research". Reliable sources are the compendium of all works which claim that he wrote it by flipping through books] or snipping one scene he liked to another scene he liked, and made a movie out of it. It wasn't a movie first, it was a stage musical of full production. It has a message, written by someone whom placed a great deal of thought into what was being written. The works which are verifiable to this are: The Dream Engine http://www.jimsteinman.com/comeinthenight.html This was performed at Amherst College in 1969. Neverland http://www.jimsteinman.com/neverlnd.htm This was performed at Kennedy Center For The Arts in 1977. Rhinegold http://www.jimsteinman.com/rhinegold.htm This was performed in 1972.

The scripts of Rocky Horror,at sites such as Intellectuallizing Rocky Horror, Cosmos Factory, and Godamongdirectors.com. The script posted at Godamongdirectors is discussed on the website. These support the complete film work known as "The Rocky Horror Picture Show", released by 20th Century Fox on August 14, 1975. This film sources photographs, as also does The Dream Engine, Neverland, and Rhinegold as their stage productions were photographed.

Also photographed and the photo used as a primary source, the author and myself, at the respective ages of eleven and eight years. This is compared in great detail, to that matured face as on the character Riff Raff, with conclusive results seeable by the reasonable eye, as matching the facial marks and features.

The published soundtracks themselves contain sound files containing the voice of the same singer singing on an album subsequently. Videos also support, in Real Media format which demonstrate the body forms during a dance, and body physical dimensions which differ between the author and the other. Photographic comparisons between the mens' physiques are represented.

The resemblance to the musical works done by Richard O'Brien are nill to the music of Rocky Horror. The level of superficiality and the position of the emphasis and its quality on sexuality is severe; Steinman focuses on sensuality and Rocky Horror does not display sexual acts. Smith's focus is the sex act to its maximum exhibitionism, sado-masochism, homosexuality, transvestitism, and rape. The kinds of personalities that go into such a work, are vastly different. To look at the works published and not see, which is the authentic information and which is not, is inconcievable. Richard Timothy Smith created his own "verifiability" by authoring books he claims are about his writing of Rocky Horror, and no website citing his material have been able to come up with anything more decisive than, he felt like it.

I have no experience with Wikipedia, but I grew up discerning facts from lies. I studied Journalism, Logic, English, Dramatic Structures, Dance, Film Production, and Social Sciences.

Perception is its own verifiability when faced with the evidence. This is not to say that a bias could influence a perception and thus be misplaced; it means that common sense of a reasonable person could interplay with the conflicting information.

This is not "novel narrative or historical interpretation". It is neither a point of view nor an opinion. It is a considered and evidenced revelation of physical reality.

Primary sources: Film, video, photographs, transcripts of produced, performed theatrical works,

There are no creations of primary sources: the above pre-exist publicly and privately.

"In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources."

"In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article's neutral point of view."

There is no introduction of theory. The equivelant is to say that I washed my laundry or my maid washed my laundry, if the maid says she did and I know she didn't. If the maid goes and tells people she did my laundry and she tells ten people, and they believe for ten years that she is doing my laundry because she wants a better employer who has a large laundry staff, but I know she didn't do my laundry, then ten years later I can say, no, she didn't do my laundry. I'm sorry, you thirty friends of hers, she didn't do my laundry; she does not have that experience. Am I making a theory, that I believe she didn't do my laundry, or am I stating a fact which has all along existed without contest? I am, in the case of Rocky Horror, stating a fact which existed all along without contest. Richard Timothy Smith whom is photographed on the existing page as Richard O'Brien and has some numerous film credits, did not have Rocky Horror as his start. He didn't have Rocky Horror, at all.

Truth is not an original idea.

No new term is being defined. One man wrote it or another man wrote it. That's all.

It does not provide new definitions of pre-existing terms.

It does not introduce an argument. It states the fact which is proven, which is the truth of the pre-existing fact, which has been true all along, and gone without contest.

It is not representing an alternate method of thought.

It does not build a particular case that is favored; it simply is the fact. The actual writing of it in Wikipedia is the result of the fact's existence. The fact that it took so long to come out, has no bearing upon its pointing in favor of one or another position; sometimes life brings delays.

"If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."

Students are turning to Wikipedia regularly in order to fulfill assignments about the social phenomenon that is the Rocky Horror cult, and they are finding information that is not true. In fact, the information available about Rocky Horror on the Wikipedia is as empty in substance as the claim that Richard Timothy Smith wrote the movie. More is written about him, than either the film or the stage musical, which each seem to have identical content. The current information on Wikipedia, about Rocky Horror, is a shell. The page contains drivel, an extension of the graffiti which the cult performs, that has no particular informational merit. The only reason why this is, is because they can't write anything: the author has not been in their fold. There is much that could be written about the productions, and some is written on the cult's sites, but not on Wikipedia. The reason is because they have no particular interest in the larger universe, being a cult. That which is written is largely misunderstood, and incorrect. Some areas are out and out lies. They don't care about the movie, its literary/dramatic value, the author, or the finer points. Their social phenomena is based upon costumes, shouting, dancing, and sexual perversions. They are a band of closeted and uncloseted sexual deviants who cannot function in the society at large without having a hundred people watching them.

I am not writing an article that takes a question and tries to answer it. I am writing in to Wikipedia to recognize a wrong, and to make it right.

When I do write an article, It would contain the conclusion, not the hypothesis, if truth is the hypothesis and the conclusion is that it is kumquats, not artichokes.

"We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic." The primary sources which are exhaustively used to demonstrate the facts, are showing my knowledge of them.

I could write in the third person, if necessary. Being as the website that is my own is my own format, it is not intended to spill over to Wikipedia; however as a reference for Rocky Horror, it is a relevant external source.

"this policy prohibits expert editors fromdrawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable"

Once the Analysis is seen, the history as it is considered at present, will appear itself to be unverifiable, as this is the crux of the matter. Lies, are exposed as lies. And the facts, stand.

The issue is non-political.

It corrects a previous malignment conducted against the authentic writer and actor.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" I would edit out this statement; because it is ridiculous: of course, truth if evidenced, must stand above verifiable lies. The purpose of the other-made analysis is that the lies are shown to be lies, no matter how many times that a publisher might put book-binder on it. How about if I wrote and published a book, called "Nixon was not a crook"?

"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" These comprise the body of Dramatic, musical works, photographs, and their representations in consistency with the work in issue, which relates to them. It consists of the photograph indicating distinguishing facial features and marks, which are comparable to those of the false face'd ones. The majority, is the role as fact.

"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" I would edit this out, the writer of this line, has chosen to create an atmosphere of priviledge to an unpopular view, or a view that is held by private individuals. As if, some very major person of importance would readily be available to involve themselves; and that just is not something that takes place without some form of collusion; it is not a Harvard Study; it is a fact of one man's life, being pit against another man's gain.

"If a viewpoint if held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not" Fact, is not viewpoint: the difference between social history and a man's history is that the man lived it; it is not opinion, it is not interpretation of facts. It is not saying, that x happened and therefore y. It is, x didn't happen. Richard Timothy Smith did not write in or star in Rocky Horror even though he has taken great lengths to imitate the one who did.

I would like to know if I have interpreted the policy correctly. Respectfully, --Lilysincere 10:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Including additional thoughts and corrections, Respectfully, --Lilysincere 12:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which states: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: 4. Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles. --Truver 05:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)



he also had his own cd called Absolute : http://www.rockymusic.org/lyricscat/absolute-obrien

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thought

Can't we find a more flattering picture of him? Not050 (talk)