Talk:Pebbles (musician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date of Birth[edit]

n the interest of full disclosure, I am working on a website about Perri "Pebbles" Reid. I see there has been quite a dispute on this page in the past and wish to avoid that by doing things the correct way. The date of birth should be a simple enough fact. Can we confirm August 29, 1964 using this and agree that the 1966 source does not back up November 6, 1966? This Jet Magazine source can also be used to source 1964. --Csmgacct (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, thanks for pointing that out. The source for August 29, 1965, however, does say so. Huon (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox currently offers these for "Born":
  • 1963/1964 (age 49–50) • http://books.google.com/books?id=fjkDAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&q=37%20-page&f=false Jet magazine Octboer 1995: article says the subject is 31 years old, confirming 1964.
  • 1964 (age 49–50) • Gregory, Hugh. Soul Music A - Z, p 235. Da Capo Press, 1995. [have not seen]
  • August 29, 1965 (age 48) • Warner, Jay. On This Day in Black Music History, p 243. Hal Leonard Corporation, 2006: includes August 29: Pebbles (Perri McKissack), 1965
  • November 6, 1966 (age 47) • AllMusic, "Pebbles" "Born Perri Arnette McKissack in Oakland, California, on August 29, 1964" [infobox says November 6, 1966 but ref says August 29, 1964]
The "On This Day" ref is very weak as it is just a compilation of dates with no focus on the subject—it is very possible that "1965" is just an editorial error.
Is there any objection to replacing all the above with just "August 29, 1964" with the AllMusic reference (the only one that I've seen that focuses on the subject)? Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have tidied up the infobox. Personally I wouldn't complain overmuch if we go with 1964, though a book of "on this day" events should get its dates right. Huon (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good, but that's not enough—is there any reason to think there is genuine controversy about the DoB? The "On This Day" ref is not any kind of scholarly book—it's just a bunch of dates and the only thing we can be sure about is that some of them will be wrong due to normal human frailties, and the other three refs say 1964. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have "tided up" by removing sourced dates. I'm reverting. If you believe some of the sources are not reliable, we can certainly discuss that and/or remove them. However, removing reliably sourced claims based on a wish for "tidiness" is not a good idea. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about my comments above? We now have three sources saying 1964 and one that may survive WP:RSN but which common sense tells us is not sufficient to override other sources. Is there a reason to believe there is a genuine controversy? Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SummerPhD: What sourced dates am I supposed to have removed? The only date I removed was November 6, 1966, which was not supported by the given source (as Johnuniq noted above). Reinstating that faked date certainly is not an improvement. All the sources are still there. We have two sources agreeing that Reid was born on August 29, with none in disagreement. We have three sources which, given the day and month, would make her year of birth 1964, with two of them doing so explicitly. We have one outlier which says August 29, 1965. Do you want to argue that the Jet article, which only gives her age on October 23, 1995, not her birthdate, should be used to support ... what? That she may have been born on some other day than August 29 and possibly in 1963? That's hardly plausible, and the source does not say so. I'll revert; re-adding unsourced dates of birth is a BLP violation. Huon (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your description, but would like to know whether you favor keeping the Born info currently in the infobox (born 1964 or 1965, both inexplicably sourced to AllMusic). Do you agree that the source for 1965 is not a scholarly publication where it can be assumed that great care on fact checking was employed? Isn't it just a best-effort list of dates with an entertainment focus, and no attention to the subject of this article in other than an in-passing mention? That source is not suitable to suggest doubt about the DoB: is there any reason to believe there is doubt? Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to remove all sources for the birthdate in the infobox and instead to cover it in prose. The remaining source technically is not for the date, but for the place of birth. We could move that from the infobox to the article body, too. I'd say it's within our editorial discretion to agree that the lone 1965 source got it wrong; in the absence of sources for any genuine controversy about the birthdate and given the multitude of other sources we can omit it. Huon (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I guess you will agree with my edit which removed mention of alternative dates of birth. I left a fairly long comment in the wikitext with the old references and a brief mention of what they say (permalink) as an explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source, she was born in 1964. This is a California births database.
http://www.familytreelegends.com/records/39461?c=search&first=perri&last=mckissack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.79.119 (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that is no help. Per our policy on biographies of living persons: " Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth..." - SummerPhD (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoB changed[edit]

Is there any reason for this confusion? As discussed above, the only reliable source says August 29, 1964 and there is no reason to take a couple of misprints in clearly not reliable sources to suggest there is some kind of controversy. Does anyone know if the familytreelegends.com link provided by 173.169.79.119 above is likely to be accurate? That link is not needed in the article, but it appears to confirm that there is no doubt. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

adding TLC info to this article[edit]

Pebbles is known for creating TLC (group). Yet there is no mention of them in the article. I added that to the intro and added a section on TLC. I updated her personal section. Another editor added sources but summerphd reverted. I am also going to add the lawsuit Pebbles filed agains Arista/Clive Davis. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The TLC section is supported by extremely poor sources: The Grammy website (where the link is broken; the correct link is http://www.grammy.com/nominees/search?artist=TLC&field_nominee_work_value=&year=All&genre=All) does not mention Perri Reid at all. The TLC interview itself is not an independent source on TLC's business partners, and the accompanying article does not cover Perri Reid in any detail. Neither does the NYT article, which isn't hosted at Newyorktimes.com and thus in all probability is a copyright violation (besides, I doubt the reliability of something claiming to be the NYT, but not hosted by the NYT). Finally, court documents are explicitly not to be used for biographies of living persons per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Even combined, I don't think those sources serve to support all of the added content, and if they did, quite a bit of that content is still utterly irrelevant to Reid. Huon (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will correct the grammy link with the one you gave here http://www.grammy.com/nominees/search?artist=TLC&field_nominee_work_value=&year=All&genre=All . The court docs arent to support her bio, they are to support her being sued. There are court doc in the Madonna (entertainer) article. The content is relevant as Perri was instruemental in TLC (group)'s fame. The source isnt NYT it is NYmag. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the Madonna article cites court documents, they should be removed. And are you saying that Henriques, Diana B. and Samuels, Anita M. (February 5, 1996). "Does Going 'Broke' Mean Artist Really Doesn't Have Any Money?". New York Times. is not the New York Times? The linked page says, "Copyright 1996 The New York Times Company". If that's wrong, I see no reason whatsoever to trust the rest of the content. Huon (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I was confused about which ref you were asking about. The diana b henriques ref link
(#20, url=http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us/cybereng/nyt/rapper01.htm |title=Does Going 'Broke' Mean Artist Really Doesn't Have Any Money? |author=Henriques, Diana B. and Samuels, Anita M. |date=February 5, 1996 |publisher=New York Times |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20041010081842/http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us/cybereng/nyt/rapper01.htm |archivedate = October 10, 2004}}</ref>)
is an article she wrote about TLC filing for bankruptcy;it is a web copy (webarchive) of the article that NYT originally published, is that copyright violation? I doubt I will be able to find the nyt article it's from 96 and reading it would require payment. You say it cant be used because it isnt independent, independent of who/whom ?

Would this link work ? http://www.meiea.org/Journal/html_ver/Vol01_No01/Vol_1_No_1_A6.html

Also you said the section pebbitone and tlc needs to be shorter. Should it be very very very concise and just say 'reid signed tlc. they sold millions. they filed for bankruptcy. they sued her' ? Thanks. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the NYT article, unless whoever hosts it has the NYT's permission to do so, which I see no evidence of, it's a copyright violation. Because the NYT wants to earn money by restricting access to its archives, I doubt they'd easily grant permission to provide access to the same content for free. We might cite the print edition of the NYT instead (which our readers can look up in a library archive), but I don't think there's that much content relevant to Reid in the first place; she's mentioned only in passing.
The source that isn't independent is the TLC interview, where TLC speaks about their relationship to Perri Reid. They don't really say much, but they certainly are not an independent source on how they met Reid.
THe MEIEA link may be a reliable source, but it does not mention Reid or Perritone even once. A source that does not mention Reid and has nothing to say about her is useless for the purposes of this article.
The current section on TLC and Perritone is even worse at a second look than I first noticed. It contains unsourced information about living persons that even outright contradicts what the sources, bad as they are, have to say. The content changes outside that paragraph are still worse. Since these additions amount to a WP:BLP violation I'll revert them. If we want to write something on Reid and TLC, we should find reliable sources that discuss this topic in some detail and summarize what those sources have to say about Reid. The current content is something between original research and libel, with "sources" that don't serve to verify key claims. Huon (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article must mention TLC. I will try to find better sources. The meiea link is for them filing for bankruptcy. How about delete the source and put a CN tag? 65.205.13.26 (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about you summarize what sources report about Reid instead of creating a synthesis in violation of several core policies? Huon (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 August 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. per discussion and WP:SINGERDAB. (non-admin closure) Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perri "Pebbles" Reid → Pebbles (musician) – The current title is a Wikipedia original research synthesis with multiple violations of WP:STAGENAME. The subject is almost exclusively notable for singing and production under the name "Pebbles" (with some minor non-charting output under the name of "Sister Perri") and the sources of the article alomst all refer to her as "Pebbles". I propose moving the article Pebbles (musician) per WP:SINGERDAB ("Use '[musician]' when the person is known for their work in other musical fields, like writing songs or producing music for other artists") or Pebbles (singer). —  AjaxSmack  00:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following her singing career, she was involved in music production, notably launching the career of TLC. The (musician) tag is best, per WP:SINGERDAB. 162 etc. (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make her a "musician" though. In her musical career she was a singer. A music producer is not a musician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SINGERDAB specifically says it does. Use "(musician)" when the person is known for their work in other musical fields, like writing songs or producing music for other artists. 162 etc. (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Writing songs I would agree with. But producing? No, that's misapplying the word. Most music producers are not musicians. All songwriters are, even if they don't actually perform in public. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pebbles (musician). I have absorbed the case put forward by Necrothesp and considered if it has merit. As she has written songs as well as being a record producer, I would feel that "singer" may sell her short somewhat. I do think musician is probably a better fit on the whole. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone please clarify what "mixed African-American parents" are?[edit]

Can someone please clarify what "mixed African-American parents" are? If both parents are African-American wouldn't that make them African-American? Or is the author attempting to say that Pebbles' parents are of mixed African, European, and possibly Native-American, ancestry? 2603:800C:3944:BC00:3122:D459:6A93:9FCD (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pebbles_(musician)&oldid=1209677705"