Talk:Keith Richards

Useful reference for future: 1 (species of Trilobite named after Richards)

Vocals

Vocals should absolutely be listed as one of Keith's instruments - he sings lead at every Rolling Stones concert and usually once or twice on most of their albums. He's a vocalist.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Keith Richards/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 22:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, TheSandDoctor. I will be reviewing this article today.

• I think the lead section is rather short considering all of the content in the body of the article and how well known he is. Compare it to the Mick Jagger intro section. That mentions a bit about his life before the Rolling Stones, his induction into the Rock and Roll and UK Music halls of fame, how well his songs have performed on the charts, some of his acting, his side projects, and a short blurb about his personal life
• Speaking of the lead section, there are four songs mentioned as his notable guitar riffs. However, a fifth song definitely needs to be mentioned: (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction. The riff for that song is not only one of his most notable, but among the most notable throughout all of rock

Definitely.  Done --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• One of the biggest problems I have with this article is that there are a number of places without citations. There's even one place with a [citation needed] tag. I'm not sure if you really need citations for his Guest appearances or Lead vocals on Rolling Stones tracks, but there's definitely places that lack sources and need them
• I think the article should include more details about the times he's escaped death. Here are some examples

@12george1: Where would you recommend including this in the article? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I found a better source for such an addition Rolling Stone --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Now, for the part about his drug use (top of Public image and private life section). WatchMojo.com, which has one of the largest channels on YouTube, listed Richards as number 1 on their "Top 10 Musicians Who Surprisingly Didn't Die From Drugs" video. I think that's worthy of a mention. They cite his trials, falling out of a tree, and snorting his father's ashes. You've already mentioned all of that in later parts of the article, so you don't have to twice

@12george1: I don't know how comfortable I am with citing a YouTube channel as a non-primary source. As a side note, I didn't realize that WatchMojo was Canadian. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• I have a question about the Musical equipment section. Did you write that in your owns words? According to this, much of that section is suspected of copyvio. It could just be a mirror site, so I don't want to outright accuse you of plagiarism

@12george1: I am not sure what exactly "fandalism.com" is, and it could be a mirror site. I appreciate you not instantly failing that as I did not write that section. I checked the revision just before I ever touched the article and, sure enough, it was still there. Turns out that, while I didn't write it, I hadn't found my first edit to the article. I am not really sure where it was added, but it was after I first edited the page. Most of my work with the article was improving references. I will address the other concerns first while I try to figure out who is copying who exactly. It could also have been copied from a mirror copying us, but that is just a guess at this point as I have yet to dig into it. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC); corrected 00:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@12george1: That is strange, when I visit the link it is just a page with a blank box - not any content which Earwig pulls up. I checked the HTML and it is also lacks it. I am not sure where Earwig is pulling that from.... (take a look here) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• From this point forward, I'm going to quote this ref in case the numbering changes after you add more references.
• "CBC Music". Archived from the original on 1 March 2016" - The publication may be called "CBC Music", but that's not the title and you need the publication date and an accessdate

 Done All added. It turns out that I was also able to bring the link "back to life" as they had just changed their URL format. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• For "Chuck Berry, Keith Richards (1986). Hail! Hail! Rock 'n' Roll (DVD released 2006). Universal City Studios Inc.", you need to reformat the names so then you have last name and then first name to match the other references

 Done --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• "The Recording Academy. 2004 Best Reggae Album. Grammy.com. Web. 2004. <"Archived copy". Archived from the original on 20 December 2016. Retrieved 3 December 2016.>. Retrieved 2016-12-03." - Why the extra brackets and why is it title "Archived copy"? Also, get rid of the "Web."

 Done I'm not sure, that was added long before I was an editor. The link didn't take you to a page that could verify anything either, so I have replaced the reference with the correct link. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• "musicpilgrimages.com". musicpilgrimages.com. 11 October 2009. Archived from the original on 14 July 2011. Retrieved 15 October 2010." - The title should be "Mick goes to jail"

 Done --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• "musicpilgrimages.com". musicpilgrimages.com. 14 October 2009. Archived from the original on 14 July 2011. Retrieved 15 October 2010 - This one should be titled "Keith goes to jail"

 Done --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Thorpe, Vanessa (25 October 2015). "I owe it all to my mum's impeccable taste in music says rocker Keith Richards". theguardian.com. Archived from the original on 25 October 2015. Retrieved 25 October 2015." - The publication should be called "The Guardian", not "theguardian.com"

 Done --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• "8 pop stars and their strange food obsessions",BBC Music,12/1/2017" - (1. more spacing (2. Reformat the date for consistency purposes. By the way, it has been changed to 12 January 2017 - My bad. I read the original date as 2007 for some reason, but you should still reformat it (3. Add McAlpine, Fraser as the author (4. Add accessdate
• ""Keith Richards: Rap Is for 'Tone-Deaf People'". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 24 March 2018." - Needs the publication date (3 September 2015) and name of the author (Blistein, Jon)

 Done --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• ""Keith Richards blasts heavy metal, rap in interview". Archived from the original on 25 December 2015." - Ditto with the publication date (3 September 2016) and the name of the author (Farber, Jim). The title has also changed ("Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards calls Metallica and Black Sabbath 'great jokes,' says rap is for 'tone-deaf people' in free-wheeling interview")

 Done Updated ref, added. Thanks for pointing that out. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Mundinteractivos. "El retrato de Keith Richards que inspiró a Johnny Depp, expuesto en una galería de Londres – elmundo.es". Archived from the original on 16 August 2016" - Needs a publication date (31 October 2006). Add the parameter "language=es". "elmundo.es" should not be part of the title, though it is the publication

 Done --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Depp, Richards Light Up Spike TV's 'Scream 2009". Associated Press. 18 October 2009. Archived from the original on 15 January 2009." - USA Today and the author (Cohen, Sandy) also need to be credited

 Done --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Toots and the Maytals: Reggae Got Soul". BBC Four (documentary). Directed by George Scott. UK. 2011. 59 min. Retrieved 15 December 2016. <"Archived copy". Archived from the original on 20 May 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2017.>" - Again with the brackets. No need to mention the UK or that it's 59 minutes long. Shouldn't the title be "Toots and the Maytals: Reggae Got Soul", not "Archived copy"?

 Done I am not sure why someone kept adding those. Removed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Tootsandthemaytals. "Toots & The Maytals – Reggae Got Soul – Documentary Trailer." YouTube. YouTube, 15 August 2013. Web. 15 December 2016. <"Archived copy". Archived from the original on 11 May 2017. Retrieved 2 May 2017.>" - Ditto with the brackets and the "Archived copy" thing. No need to mention YouTube twice or "Web."

 Done --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• " [1] – IrelandOn-Line Archived 12 November 2013 at the Wayback Machine." - There's no title, no publication date, and no accessdate. Also, why did you wait this long to mention the Wayback Machine?

 Done @12george1: I have added to it. The link is dead, but the archive indicates that an author was never named. I am happy to also remove this reference entirely as Rolling Stone is more reputable anyways. It is worth noting though that the "Wayback Machine" being at the end is per Template:Webarchive and not the style choice of whoever added it (not me). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Holden, Stephen. "The Pop Life". New York Times. Archived from the original on 15 January 2009. Retrieved 28 June 2014." - Publication date needed (12 October 1988)

 Done --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Epiphone News: Rolling Stones at 50". Epiphone.com. Archived from the original on 5 March 2012." - Ditto (3 February 2012)

 Done --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Leonard, Michael. "Satisfaction Guaranteed: Keith Richards' Favorite Gibsons". Gibson.com. Archived from the original on 13 December 2016. Retrieved 18 September 2017." - Again (12 July 2012)

 Done --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Drozdowski, Ted (18 September 2017). "Exile Week: Exile on Main Street and the Gibson Les Paul Standard Dynasty of Keith Richards and Mick Taylor". Gibson.com. Archived from the original on 31 January 2013." - Add accessdate

 Done It appears that the "date" was actually intended to be the access date (was 7 years later than the piece's listed 2010 pub date), so I swapped them. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Through The Years, Clearly: Dan Armstrong Series". Archived from the original on 26 March 2012. Retrieved 23 March 2012." - Missing publisher

 Done --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• ""Keith Richards' Guitar Tech Reveals Keef's Studio Rig". 29 October 2015. Archived from the original on 8 December 2015" - Ditto. Also, add the author's name

 Done --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• "(Spoilers): Did anyone notice this easter egg during the flashback scene? • r/piratesofthecaribbean". reddit." - Can you find a source better than Reddit, especially since this seems to just be a random user (correct me if I'm wrong)

 Done Replaced with one from the British Film Institute, which should suffice. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff here, but most of the points listed above are minor. So I will not outright fail this nomination, but I would like to see progress during the next week or too.--12george1 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@12george1: I feel like I left this article in better shape when I actually nominated it almost a year ago. Truth betold, I had forgotten about this nomination. I shall work on the above and see what I can get done this week. When I nominated it I had a lot more time and this review started right at the end of my Christmas holidays (obviously not your fault, just not the most optimal timing ). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• @TheSandDoctor and 12george1: How is this review progressing. AIRcorn (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @TheSandDoctor and Aircorn: I think the only issue I have with passing this article is that a few places still need citations. For example: "During the late 1970s, Richards re-established the s in his surname."; "Before they became romantically linked, ..."; "For the weekend of 23 September 2016, Richards, together with director Julien Temple... ". I understand that some unsourced statements are actually mentioned other places in the article and cited there, but these aren't. Sorry for the delay, --12george1 (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the response 12george1. I have added references to the three you mentioned and will look for more. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• 12george1, TheSandDoctor, it's been another three weeks; where does the nomination stand now? The three examples have been cited, but if they was just three of many, then perhaps citation needed tags will help get the rest covered so this can pass. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@12george1: What are your thoughts on the above 12george1? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I am going to pass this article now. Sorry for the long delays.--12george1 (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• ​​​​Something I was surprised didn't come up here is the first-level "21st century" section. It doesn't fit with the topics of the other sections and other than the fact that the events within occurred in the 21st century, they have nothing in common. Some are personal life/image items, some are career activities and some are honours/legacy. Even the "Tributes for other artists" subsection deals mostly with other topics. I'm mentioning this here because a) I can't think of another title for the section that would encompass its contents* and b) I didn't want to rip apart a big GA section without input from others. *(I thought of "Later career" but that doesn't quite fit either.) Any input would be appreciated. —  AjaxSmack  03:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  @AjaxSmack: I haven't really touched this one significantly in a number of years but we can certainly spin off a sandbox or subpage or something and trial out ideas. Happy to take part. Getting it up to WP:FA is a longer term goal of mine. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Keith as a Writer

There are no sources of note or prestige which say, and they are to be required to maintain the case, that Keith is incidental, minor, dilettante memoirist held in low regard to give weight to excluding his literary excursions from the lead. The exact opposite is shown as follows.

There are, AFAIK, no sources saying Life is not primarily Keith’s creation. It was a best seller and very well received. He also wrote a childhood memoir well received. He is called a writer by the NYTs. Mr. Richards, now 66, writes with uncommon candor and immediacy. He's decided that he's going to tell it as he remembers it, and helped along with notebooks, letters and a diary he once kept, he remembers almost everything.

From elsewhere: The audiobook Life won two prestigious Audie Awards for 2010—Audiobook of the Year and Best Biography/Memoir. Additionally, the audiobook Life was voted Amazon's No. 1 Audiobook of the Year for 2010. Life received the 2011 Norman Mailer Prize for biography. The latter for Distinguished Biography.

Perhaps most prestigious and compelling case for Keith as a memoirist belonging in the the lead comes from the scholarly and highly selective NYRB review in which Keith is praised as a “marvelous sentence-maker…in a book that feels entirely dictated” The NYRB also says “unlikely heir to two great memoirs of thrift and common sense, Walden and Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography”

Neither the New Yorker, the NYRB, the LA Times, or The Guardian, James Fox. One exception, nometheless supportimg my point is the NYT which says “James Fox, Keith’s co-­author, deserves a lot of credit for editing, organizing and elegantly stepping out of the way of Keith's remembrances”. James Fox did not, and never has, as has nobody else, written any sentences like this wonderful and insightful one on songwriting:

“Well, I’ve got to tame this beast one way or another. But how to tame it? Gently, or give it a beating? . . . I’ll take you twice the speed I wrote you! You have this sort of relationship with the songs. . . . You ain’t finished till you’re finished, O.K.? . . . No, you weren’t supposed to go there. Or sometimes you’re apologizing: I’m sorry about that. No, that was certainly not the way to go. Ah, they’re funny things. They’re babies.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_(Richards_book)#Production Numerous sources offer accounts of the book's production, all (that I've seen) chime with the Production section of the Wikipedia article. None of those suggest anything that could be construed as in the realm of "Keith is incidental, minor, dilettante memoirist held in low regard" -- and an apparent fondness for exercising the straw man fallacy thwarts any discussion. Methinks this thread has exhausted itself. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m genuinely lost. I intended no disparaging characterization of previous replies. I hope no offense was taken. None was intended. Beyond that, I was arguing for lead significance and nothing else, which I’ve supported. If the perceived “strawmans” were specified, I could addressed them much better and, of course, only in good faith. 5ive9teen (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

You've done it at least twice: "This is a not an Art of the Deal fabrication with minimal distant involvement from the principle" and "Keith is incidental, minor, dilettante memoirist held in low regard", as though those claims had been made somewhere, and both after I had already agreed that co-author was legitimate. I don't see that there's anything to engage on here, although I do feel that the book deserves a bit more than cryptic passing mention in the KR article (miscategorized under Tributes for other artists). Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I still hope no offense taken where none intended. The issue is are Keith’s two memoirs lead significant? James Fox involvement was a key reason in opposition.

This left an impression: Keith was, more the totally involved editor of Fox's text. There is no source for one editor’s supposition which I know of, and a source is needed make it rise above mere opinion. The text is treated by all that can be cited as Keith’s. Of course I welcome cites that establish this as disputed.

Grant’s memoirs were much more assisted by Mark Twain; to a much greater degree than Keith’s Fox’s collaboration. Indeed Twain is credited commonly with 1/3 of the book. Obviously, by all accounts, more than Fox might have done.

The Grant article’s lead excludes Twain, and no concern apparent that this is an omission in need of repair 5ive9teen (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Fox's participation in no way precludes mentioning the book in the lead. Careful wording, very easy to craft, would avoid giving the false impression that Keith is the sole author (something like "assisted by..."; any number of ways to express it). More important is better organized brief text regarding Life in the body of the article. (Any infelicitous representation of Twain's participation in Grant's volumes is relevant to that article, not Keith Richards. If you choose to work on that, take care not to fall victim to Badeau's machinations.) Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The oblique caution about Badeaus’s machinations, which are very obscure to most, I suspect, but I don’t profess any related erudition, is lost on me, though it is presumably relevant, I wouldn’t know if I’ve engaged them, or how they can be avoided. The Grant annalogy, as closely illustrative, and appropriate as it is, is tangential and can be left roadside. Glad that Keith as an author (he has 2 books) is agreed to as lead significant. Will see what might work given that apparent consensus. 5ive9teen (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The production of the text of Grant's memoirs may or may not be what you seem to expect. If you want to research it, here's a place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Memoirs_of_U._S._Grant#Adam_Badeau The research needed requires time and effort, and not everything can be found on the internet. -- I don't know that consensus has been reached here on whether to mention Life in the lead. I see no objection, as long as it's accurate. Definitely read at least this before doing anything: https://www.thedailybeast.com/keith-richards-memoir-writer-james-fox-speaks Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

For good and not-to-be-shaded reasons, of course it can be interesting to others. And if it is to helpful to us, I welcome it being brought up again, hopefully less obliquely and more specifically.5ive9teen (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

A case for lead inclusion of Keith’s literary endeavors based on authorship, distinguished acclaim and sales

A very brief summary of the case for lead appropriateness more lengthily made in a previous section

Kieth is regarded and rewarded in sales and awards as a distinguished memoirist unironically compared in the NYRB (not a PR professional’s stenographer in any one’s mind) to Franklin and Walden. What is the case for Kieth’s literary endeavors to not be in the lead? So far, I haven’t seen any such attempt except for a mistaken elevation of Fox’s to primary author. 5ive9teen (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

"a mistaken elevation of Fox’s to primary author" With that stacked upon your other misrepresentations, and no indication that you even skimmed, much less understood. the interview with Fox, I give up. Bonne chance. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

In all fairness, and for the sake of comity, alleged misrepresentations should be specified. I hope it’s realized that this is not a disingenuous request, but rather an expression of a sincere desire to clear to the air, and, naturally make proper acknowledgement and admission where needed. They could then be spoken to without the guesswork of what they may or may not be. Keith was called more the totally involved editor of Fox's text. A clear elevation of Fox by erroneous diminishment, if not disparagement, of Keith’s authorship. The passenger, not the driver, if you will. Only one editor has acted as if that assertion were true. Let’s see if we can these two points before moving on. Finally, accusations such as “your misrepresentations”, whether well-founded or not, could personalize the dialogue, already a little too energetic, and prevent collegiality. It seems inexplicably becoming more and more contentious. 5ive9teen (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)