Ringo Starr received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
This Apple Records/Apple Corps-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles articles
Other :Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here.
This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Does anyone remember a movie that Ringo played two roles in it? It was a prince and the pauper type of movie and it may have only beena tv movie. For some reason, Merv Griffen had a cameo in the movie.
Please tell me that I'm not crazy and this movie exists. It would have came out in the mid 1970's.
Should we include a section about Ringo's video on his website telling fans not to send him fanmail anymore? It's all over the news today (Oct.13th) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.238.46.93 (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote about it in the Recent Years - Other news items section. wdansey 09:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdd123 (talk • contribs)
Ah baloney. Just when I was about to send him my first fanmail, dated October 21, 2008. Anyways; yes, it should be included (as he's a celebrity). GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The overview box on the right says that Ringo Starr deceased on the 18th of December, but I was unable to fing any confirmation on any Website. This information might be false.
page move to Richard Starkey; name not legally changed
If his name was never legally changed, this should be page moved to his legal name. Please, no fanboy opines. Cite policy or forever hold your peace. Tks Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR)07:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under English law, a name can be changed "legally" by simply deciding to use a different name. Your legal name is whatever you choose to call yourself. What proof of name change are you looking for? Bluewave (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) No I dropped the page move idea a long time ago. The only change that ws necessary was a minor rewording of the first sentence. But Starkey himself goes by Richard with his friends, and I am stunned that English law truly recognizes "going by a different name" as a legal name change. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR)13:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I believe his friends call him "Richie"... but the argument for the current article name is that it is what the huge majority of readers will likely search under, his birth name would be a redirect for the few that wish to test the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe it is Richard Starkey but I don't believe he has ever called himself Sr (Sr and Jr are not particularly common usages in the UK). However, I don't have a source for either the name or the lack of the Sr. Bluewave (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely – I'm not sure how much more it could be improved. Besides, the opening sentence, "claims have been made that Starr, in fact, did not drum on many tracks for the group" is awfully weasely. I think there needs to be mention that McCartney played drums on some songs during the White Album sessions, but there's no need to categorise every song that Starr didn't drum on. Cycle~ (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was definitely on Happiness is a Warm Gun. In the Recording Sessions book by Lewisohn, there is a comment about Ringo saying between takes that he has trouble shifting into the different tempo changes. Radiopathy•talk•21:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I wrote this on my blog, and have been slowly picking away at this article since before then, but no-one seems to have taken me up on my offer yet. We could manually make this the collaboration of the month if you want, but that shouldn't make much of an impact (it seems I'm the only persont hat does anything to the COTMs). Maybe we should start a massive collaboration drive, the likes of which have never been seen by mortal eyes... DendodgeTalkContribs17:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I notice there've been requests Here, There and Everywhere for Help! to bring this article to GA standard. With a view to contributing to this, I've just read it for the first time, making notes as I went. In my judgement, the article is well written and and broad in its coverage, and now just needs the following actions prior to nominating for GA:
The prose just needs a minor tweak here and there, plus a new Lead; I'm happy to take this on;
There are specific missing citations. We need to bite the bullet and either add these or remove the statements. I propose to add [citation needed]tags in the dozen or so obvious places I noted. I do not have the citations to hand myself but hope others can respond and add a citation when possible till this is fixed.
In my judgement, once the above two actions are completed, the article will be good as a GA nominee. I will soon proceed as above unless there are objections to this. PL290 (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STOP PRESS In an exclusive interview today, Starr revealed his thoughts to Wikipedia contributor PL290 on being the only one of the Fab Four not at GA standard:[citation needed]
PL290: How do you feel... does it worry you to be alone?
Starr: No, I get by...
PL290: Do you need anybody?
Starr: What would you do if I lacked ci-ta-tions? Would you stand up and walk out on me?
Well people, we know what he means... and there arent't really that many left to do... so let's get to it, especially you lucky ones with good sources at your fingertips, for A Hard Day's Night, Eight Days a Week, and then, Tomorrow Never Knows, it will be Yeah, Yeah, Yeah! time for this soon to be GA Nominee. PL290 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Drumming ability and appreciation" seems to take the word appreciation to mean only positive comments. In fact, the way it reads currently, with nothing but admiration and praise, I can't help thinking that the laddie doth protest too much. NPOV requires that the article not only reflect how highly regarded Starkey is/was by his colleagues, but also how he is popularly considered not-especially-good (justified or not). - Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:NPOV doesn't require "that the article not only reflect how highly regarded Starkey is/was by his colleagues, but also how he is popularly considered not-especially-good (justified or not)." Balance is only required inasmuch that "neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, the core of the neutral point of view policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance". In other words, balance is ideal but we don't need to force the issue if it's not an issue. As Belasted states, if there are reliable sources, go for it. If not, we don't need to invent them, or trawl through blogs to find people who don't like his drumming. NPOV policy simply doesn't require it. freshacconci talktalk23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understand: I don't think Starkey is a bad drummer. But I've heard the viewpoint that he's "nothing special" so commonly and persistently that I'm amazed that it has been excluded from this article. There is no need to "invent" it. Why would Wired refer to the drummer of one of the most lauded bands of all time as "underrated"[1] if he were as well-respected as this article suggests? How would the (possibly apocryphal) quip by Lennon that "he's not even the best drummer in The Beatles" have gained such traction if it weren't a common POV? The defensiveness of this article (e.g. pointing out for no apparent reason that McCartney only redid a few of his drum tracks) indicates that some of its authors have been aware of his poor reputation... but the article seems to have been carefully edited not to actually acknowledge it. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, it is difficult to find well sourced quotes to say that Ringo is mediocre. This may be down to a couple of things, firstly it is still uncool to diss ex-Beatles and secondly there are very few polls conducted where the question is "who are the five most mediocre drummers ever" - there is rarely a poll for the worse of any category in good reference sources. There is also the point that those who do rate Ringo are drummers themselves, while those who might have said he "got lucky" are not (there are notable exceptions, but the comments have never been provided in a useable source). In the end, if someone who may be considered an expert notes Ringo as being "nuttin special" in a decent source it can be referenced. It is only a matter of finding it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure exactly what point you are making about it being drummers who rate Starr. Are you saying that drummers have some reason to give him higher marks than he deserves? I don't know why that would be true.
Drummers (like me) tend to notice things that non-drummers don't. For example, Starr's cymbal work is superb. How many non-drummers would notice that? Some non-drummer musicians might notice it, but the general public probably wouldn't. It seems to me that many non-drummers rate his drumming based on how he looked when playing the drums, not based on what he played, and that's a big mistake. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Jason A. Quest is trying to get at, and why the article may seem defensive (and without clearly indicating why it seems defensive), is this popular notion, by some, that Ringo got "lucky" and that his drumming was nothing special. I'm guessing if you look through the history of this article, there are instances where editors have attempted to place personal opinions about Starr, which have been reverted and other editors over time have perhaps over-compensated as a knee-jerk defence, by perhaps over-stating his ability. The thing is, there are plenty of reliable sources (from drummers and critics) who do rate him highly, whereas those that feel he's not very good tend to be unpublished. My guess it comes from the notion of rating drummers by not traditional skill (what I think John Cardinal is referring to in the ability that only another pro can spot) but instead by the "showmanship" you get from later drummers (such as Keith Moon, an excellent drummer, but who would have been out-of-place in The Beatles) and then of course the later prog-rock drummers. I remember having an argument with a Rush fan in the early 80s over the skill of Neil Peart versus Ringo. To someone who only sees skill in hitting every drum in a 30+-piece kit in every song, yeah, Starr seems too straightforward. But as a non-musician myself, I've always preferred Starr's approach and always suspected he was better than some gave him credit. I always loved the drums on "Ticket to Ride" and "Rain" but didn't know why or how to articulate it. In the end, we can only go by the reliable sources. Perhaps the section on his ability could be strengthened by discussing his reserved drumming style, his own dislike of solos and other flashiness and his style being suited to a band that emphasized song-craft and band-cohesion over virtuosity. I know Ian MacDonald discusses this quite a bit in Revolution in the Head. In the end, Harrison was never flashy as a guitarist either. Starr and Harrison de-emphasized solos and virtuosity. It's interesting that the more elaborate Beatle guitar solos are by other musicians (McCartney and Clapton). We can then mention, if there are good sources, that sometimes there's a popular notion that he was not a great drummer, but that he is in fact greatly admired by critics and other drummers. That way it acknowledges that there is some discussion on the matter without giving it too much undue weight. I think it could be comparable to the "Yoko broke up The Beatles" nonsense that continuously pops up in the Yoko Ono article. Yes, some feel that way, but the actual story is complex (that McCartney was the first to publically quit, that Lennon actually left the band earlier, that in fact, The Beatles with or without Ono's presence would have probably broken up when they did. Again, many writers do discuss that at length: the hatred of Yoko is more about sexism and racism than anything else). freshacconci talktalk16:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you answered your own question - I don't think drummers overstate Ringo's abilities, they recognise them in contrast to the (negative) critics who very often are not. My major point is, as Belasted notes, that it is difficult to find good sources for less than fully positive criticism, since being commented as "okay" or "alright" does not tend to find itself being quoted in publications that want to sell (who seriously can quote someone who says "Ringo was useless"? The fact it is said devalues the reliability of the source). Specialist publications will print opinions that do not lend themselves to hyperbole, which is why you will get a lot of drummers rating Ringo even if he was not of the very very best (the stuff that the mainstream are aware of). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity... I remember reading the quote by Lennon about how Ringo was "not the best drummer ever, not even the best in the Beatles!" When I read it, it wasn't from a reliable source, and I couldn't find one, and this was long before I was a Wikipedian. I sent an email to snopes.com to see if they had any answers, but I never got a response. This was a few years ago. Is this a real thing, was he kidding, where was it? Anyone know? Thanks. PS. This is not trivial forum discussion. It could be incorporated into the article if worthy. Belasted (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too think that this article paints him in a far too-positive light (the common viewpoint I've encountered is that he's just mediocre). However, as has been said, we gotta go by sources, and it looks like sources say he's great. On the Lennon quote, a google search "best+drummer+in+the"+lennon+ringo&btnG=Search&hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_en-USCA292CA303&sa=2 shows that it's probably a legit quote, but I can't find any legit sources in there. Who knows, maybe he actually was an amazing drummer. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With The Beatles, Starr was an orchestral percussionist, and beyond criticism. Although playing a right-handed drum kit, he started fills with his left hand, which is very hard to copy. Having said that, it should be stated that a comment about him being known by many as not very good should be in, just to show how dim people can be. I say this because I had to correct someone only last night about this silly misconception.--andreasegde (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Belasted above (THE POINT IS...), but also a second point: technical ability as drummer is one thing, and musical contribution as drummer is another. The article is currently weak on both. It needs more (sourced) statements for both (a) he is an adequate drummer and there are drummers who are technically more capable and he's the first to admit it, which needn't detract from (b) his musical contribution to The Beatles (which the Steve Smith quote sums up so well). That is in fact why I gave the Smith quote prominence in the Lead in an earlier version: it is a major fact about Starr. Yes it is Smith's "POV" but only in the way, say, a music critic's "POV" is quite acceptable to quote. But it seems at least one person didn't agree about that prominence in the Lead! :) PL290 (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There (to coin a phrase); how easy was that! Thoughts about some prominence in the Lead again now for the Smith quote, as was added a month ago by this edit but has since faded away? PL290 (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Starr is considered to have influenced various modern drumming techniques, such as the matched grip, placing the drums on high risers for visibility as part of the band, tuning the drums lower, and using muffling devices on tonal rings.[29]" The drummer in the article, Steve Smith, talks about his own POV.
1. The matched grip was used before Starr learned it. 2. Placing the drums on high risers was the set designer's job and not Starr's. 3. Tuning the drums lower is bullfaeces, as he was always asked to make his drum sound different for every recording, which he did. 4. Muffling devices (such as a towel on the snare) was because it was not as loud when rehearsing. It's gotta go... --andreasegde (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the same reference, [29], this should be used instead: "Starr is the first to admit that he is not a technician on his instrument. But his creative input, time feel, unorthodox fills, and emphasis on serving the music helped make The Beatles' music what it was." That will do. --andreasegde (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clayton says, "Paul, George and John managed a composite drum section for Back In The USSR. They were about to minister likewise for Dear Prudence when the prodigal returned".(p.184) So it seems Prudence had only come out to play in this list; she has now been removed from the list and sent to her room to meditate and take things more seriously. Turner says Starr too was involved in Birthday so it doesn't belong on this list of Starr-free tracks. I've removed the "2 solos" sentence as unsourced/POVcruft. PL290 (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think PL290 means "Clayson", not "Clayton", right?
Anyhoo, it's likely that Clayson is wrong. Lewisohn lays out the sessions in sequence with dates and Starr was clearly absent during the "Dear Prudence" recording sessions. Lewisohn mentions Starr's exit and return, and there are no "Dear Prudence" recording sessions except during Starr's absence. MacDonald supports Lewisohn. I have not read Clayson but I trust Lewisohn and MacDonald more. In addition, my own ears tell me that it's not Starr; in particular, the hi-hat/cymbal work is not up to snuff. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: to my (lay) ears the Dear Prudence drum track is rather reminiscent of McCartney's first solo album: very foursquare, without Ringo's characteristic syncopations. Solicitr (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I was about to comment along the same lines. Given the number of times it's been challenged, I was already coming to the conclusion Clayson (yes, he's who I meant) was probably wrong (or just so appallingly vague as to have left it unstated, thereby allowing the interpretation I placed on his words which, if you re-read them above, don't even actually say Starr drummed...). Also, the latest edit summary cited Ian McDonald's "Revolution in the Head", although unfortunately no specific citation was provided or added to the article. So yes, personally I would say Clayson should now be discounted on this point. I notice the sentence already has Lewisohn as a citation, so reverting your latest revert would do it. PL290 (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our ears tell us that McCartney came out to play on "Dear Prudence"—as we're told he did on more than one Beatles studio track, to supplement Starr's offerings—but Lewisohn tells us (more convincingly than Clayson implies the opposite) that Starr did not, as he had himself gone out to play. The dear lady has accordingly now been reinstated in the list of non-Starr tracks. PL290 (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jwy, if you're referring to my comment "our ears tell us", that part is not crucial. The cited source does verify the statement made in the article. Hope that clarifies. PL290 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I think some comments on this page are OR, but we've also discussed two very reliable sources, Lewisohn and MacDonald, and that's what makes any associated edit to the article verifiable. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've identified some possible other OR, any you care to tag, I'll try and fix, as I have a couple of books. PL290 (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put my fingers where my mouth was - or whatever. Lewisohn is pretty un-ambiguous about McCartney on drums for Prudence, a little less so on USSR (first take, Paul - two additions, unclear). LOVE that book. (John User:Jwytalk) 19:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"he couldn't do a roll to save his life" says George Martin, and Martin certainly said it. But it's a rather weird comment, since Ringo certainly could roll (the intro to All You Need is Love is just one of many examples). What's the procedure for balancing an otherwise aythoritative source who our ears tell us is dead wrong, without going OR? Solicitr (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel it merits further balance, the procedure is, as ever, to add material backed by a WP:RS. But I'd say the balance is now quite nicely there. It's been discussed for a while by numerous editors (see #Skill above) and the Martin quote is one of those added to a section about Starr's drumming being both criticised and praised, intended to give just the balance of which you speak. Not being able to do something to save your life can be (and clearly was in this case) a facetious way of saying "could be better at it"; note too Starr's remark in the same section, "I'm really left-handed playing a right-handed kit. I can't roll around the drums because of that". PL290 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the orchestra's percussionist to me. The snare's tuning is much higher, and it precedes the brass section. Ask John Cardinal, he also knows about this stuff.--andreasegde (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with andreasegde, I suspect that roll was done by the the orchestra's percussionist. That's OR, of course, but since I was asked...
I also agree with PL290. The point wasn't that Starr couldn't do a roll at all, the usual interpretation of Martin's comment is that he could be better at it. Starr's "roll around the drums" comment was probably meant to indicate that moving smoothly from higher-pitched drums to lower-pitched drums—which is from left-to-right when a kit is "right-handed"—is harder for someone whose left-hand is dominant. Moving the other way is easier because in that direction, the left hand can lead. You can lead with your left even when going from left-to-right, but it's definitely harder.
That doesn't help. If you disagree, be specific. Otherwise, we can only react to what appears to be your air of superiority, and that won't help the article. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this person? His own article has only one (yes, one) reference. This almost made me laugh out loud on Mr. Smith's page: "Many nights a walk past Steve's Harvard street home you could hear him practicing in a small shed in his back yard." Good grief...
Acclaimed or not, what are his comments doing in the lead? They're being touted as more important than Phil Collins' comments, or any one of a thousand (household name) drummers who have complimented Starr's drumming.
From the same PAS article Smith contributed to, I found this: "Jim Keltner, who recorded with Starr countless times (first on percussion on Ringo's "It Don't Come Easy" and then on many double-drum tracks on various Beatles solo projects), as well as touring on Ringo's first All Starr Tour, sums up Starr's contribution: 'When you think of Ringo, it's impossible to not think of The Beatles, and when you think of The Beatles, you remember those perfect songs with the perfect drum parts. When you hear the live BBC tapes, recorded with no more than two or three mics, and the way he's laying it down, you know Ringo is one of the greatest rock drummers of all time'." Smith is here, but not Keltner? Do me a lemon... (Yes, I know that Keltner's page has no references, but McCartney got through English and French customs without a passport, because they knew who he was.)--andreasegde (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Smith is the drummer from Journey. That's not a favorite band of mine, but he's pretty widely known for his technical chops. He's written instructional books (I know, who hasn't?), been interviewed many times in music and percussion mags, etc. I am not opposed to removing the information or re-ordering it to give weight to more widely known drummers.BUT, I thought it was incorrect to remove it because you didn't know who he was, or because his WP article is not well referenced. If we remove it because we don't think it's necessary, or because there is better content to replace it, or for some other article that's more directly related to improving the article, then that's OK with me.
Regarding Keltner, he's also widely respected but his comments could be viewed as biased given his many projects with the various ex-Beatles. I am not against including his comments, just mentioning the point. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me there are good grounds for things being as they are in the Lead, but that's not to say it can't possibly be done any other way. The Lead should summarise the article and must therefore show the balance of criticism and praise. Currently the article's longstanding Smith quote is part of the equilibrium we've reached to do that, but I have no personal preference for Smith over Keltner or anyone else for this purpose. Given John Cardinal's reply, perhaps there's no need to change anything, but if someone wants to propose a specific change I'm sure we can all be open-minded about it. PL290 (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of which said, I do note that that Smith quote serves the purpose particularly well in that it emphasizes the creative aspect of Starr's drumming and its effect on Beatles music, rather than saying "greatest drummer in the world" (implying technically greatest) which would set all the arguments off again. With this in mind we should choose any substitute with care. PL290 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the discussion comes back to the Keltner/Smith opinions, please note that Keltner played with almost everyone at some point (SOME exaggeration, but not much), so his praise of Ringo would probably be even more informed than Smith's. Not saying we need to change anything now. . . (John User:Jwytalk) 19:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Jwy when he said, "his praise of Ringo would probably be even more informed than Smith's." That's a very logical argument (which will be ignored) but I don't agree with the kind of tripe from other concerned editors, like, "I thought it was incorrect to remove it because you didn't know who he was". Does anybody know, apart from Journey fans? I even think the Buddy Rich quote (which is referenced, but is not in the article) said, "He's adequate, no more than that" is more telling, and balanced, as is Keltner's opinion, because he has played with practically everyone. As there seem to be some fans of Steve Smith (musician) here, I will back off from this, as this article needs a mountain of help to get it to a GA, and reviewers don't take kindly to warring.
BTW, the comments, "To me there are good grounds for things being as they are in the Lead" smacks of utter laziness, or a total POV bias, and "perhaps there's no need to change anything," which sounds like sitting on the fence with a cup of tea in one's hand, as well as "I'm sure we can all be open-minded about it", and "The article's longstanding Smith quote is part of the equilibrium we've reached", makes me want to throw up into a dirty bucket. It's the old trick of "Let's talk about this (as long as I get my way in the end)". I've been here long enough to know which end of a cow the manure product comes out of. I'm sure we can put on an apron and talk about "What a drama", but the wood can be seen through the politics.--andreasegde (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has anybody noticed that PL90 doesn't answer anything if it disagrees with his own point of view? In all his glory, he hopes it will wilt and fade, but it won't. Up yours, "Hello!" magazine editor--andreasegde (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
