Talk:Billy Preston/Archive 2

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)

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)

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 [1], 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)

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)

The COGIC Singers

Hi Billy Preston experts :-) I am not too familiar with all of Preston's work, but do have two things that you all may want to add to this article. I didn't see any mention of the COGIC (Church of God in Christ) singers in this article, but it was Billy's first group. Let me give a history, in case you are not familiar... In June, 1960, at the Southern California State Convocation, Andrae Crouch was asked to prepare for a rendition on the state program. Gloria Jones and Andrae's twin sister, Sandra were rehearsing for the program. During the rehearsal, three others drifted into the group: Frankie Kahrl (who died just 2 weeks ago), BILLY PRESTON, and Jeanie Greenly. The rendition that night was so well received that the group decided to stay together.

Anyways, thus was formed the COGIC singers, and they recorded and released an album in 1964, called It's A Blessing. Gloria Jones went solo and recorded the original version of Tainted Love, and Billy plays organ on her single Heartbeat Pts 1 & 2. There is footage of Billy playing organ for that song on Gloria's youtube channel.

Also, in 1984, the COGIC singers reunited for a final album, which features Billy Preston on acoustic and electric piano, and clavinet. He also sings a duet with Gloria Jones on a song called What The Lord Did For Me.

I have scans of these album covers, which are hard to come by, as well as scans of a pamphlet (with pictures) on the COGIC singers, from 1962, if anyone is interested in adding this info to the article. I didn't want to do it myself, because you never know which articles are heavily 'guarded' :-)

Automaticshoes (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"latter be culled" ?

Under the section "Relationship with the Beatles", a line reads "...some of the material from which would latter be culled to make the film Let it Be and its companion album..." I don't know much about Billy Preston's history, but this phrase doesn't sound correct to me. Both "latter" and "culled" seem odd in the context. Perhaps it should read, "later be used (or applied, employed, etc.) The Original Wildbear (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why Beatles?

Just a title, that's not my question. My question is that, with all the session work that Preston had, as well as work as a sideman, along with a solo career that I'm not too young to have forgotten, why does the whole article seem to focus almost exclusively on Preston's relationship with the Beatles? The guy lived and performed all his life. I know it's easier for a passing editor too swamped to help to complain, but it is true, right? I'm guessing that at least a couple of books with good sections on Preston must exist. The Rolling Stones members have written quite a few; Eric Clapton has done interviews. That kind of thing. And, the OTHER reason I stopped through is that I'm looking for information on concerts for the Prince's Trust. Apparently there were several; I got some good photos and would like to ascertain when they were taken, since whomever wrote that article did not think that it was worth mentioning when these charity concerts took place and who attended. Thank you. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed

A strange summary of the man's life. 41.241.55.145 (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Overcame his problems in the early 1990s?

The article states:

• "he was treated for alcohol and cocaine addictions" (sometime during the 1980's)
• "Preston overcame his problems in the early 1990s"
• "He had voluntarily entered a drug rehabilitation clinic" (sometime before his death in 2006)

With all due respect for a great artist, entering rehab in (or around) 2006 indicates that he did not, in fact, overcome his problems in the early 1990s. Apparently he sobered up for a time in the early 1990s, then relapsed into substance abuse, although the article makes no mention of this relapse.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

== Looks like this post, these posts are a year old, etc. Just a comment in general, partially in relation to this comment, but intended generally.

The question in any article is what to emphasize. Preston's sexuality [previous post; pardon - similar issue] does raise questions, without doubt, considering his arrests. I daresay people close to him would know something about this. One problem seems to be that information is quite thin. 2 arrests with sexual elements, later in his life. My observation: I wondered about it, considering no mention, that I've seen, of any actual "sexual" relationships in his life. This is obviously unusual. No girlfriends, marriages, kids, etc. So - certain absences provide inferences, coupled with the arrests. But this is "evidence" by absence; not relevant [as it was not included in the article, appropriately]. Interesting that it never came up in any clear way, as did Little Richard's tendencies. The article as I recall it mentioned the legal problems, but no reference to homosexual incidents with minors. When evidence is doubtful, discretion should be the word. If it's public record - it's public. But in fairness to the law, and the individual - if no conviction, no real record. That's only fair, at the very least.

He clearly had substance abuse problems, without doubt [like many others had, as mentioned]. It is my impression, based on interviews and his work record post-prison, that he had vastly improved his "response" to these difficulties. Again, perhaps, it's a question of emphasis. The sentences in question are few, but the statement about "overcoming" these problems is probably overstated.

What should be emphasized, actually, [the real issue] is Preston's productivity in the midst of the kinds of problems that brought many others down. Eric Clapton, and others, would not have sought him out if he had not remained a consummate musical professional. THAT needs emphasis, not his legal/criminal problems, which, compared to some, are relatively minor.

The article overall seems fair. Mention of arrests and his lifestyle/personal problems are certainly biographically relevant, but have little bearing on his contribution to American music. What is not objective, exactly, but perhaps even more relevant than any of the objective "facts," is the inordinately high esteem in which Preston was held by his peers, peers of the highest caliber, as well as many many fans. The comments written about his performance at the Concert for Bangladesh, as well as many others, are ample testimony.

You have to know who you are talking about, and what. Preston was a major figure. Arguments about how to evaluate his "criminal" proclivities and and actual legal consequences are somewhat minor, compared to his accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Deller (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Unreleased material

I've fixed some spelling and grammar, and then moved the following data from the article to this talk page. Please re-insert it if it can be sourced:

"Preston also recorded as-yet-unreleased material for Maxi Music Productions in the early 80's. This material, the rights to which are owned by Lee Maxi, has been passed down to recording artist Kay'Don Calrissian. An album release date has not been established."

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Gay and abused

Billy was gay and abused as a child. Keith Richards' book Life mentions Billy's gayness. In this documentary by the BBC on 21^th December 2010, Billy's sister confirms both facts.[2] JenAW (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)