Talk:Richard Hell

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

Untitled[edit]

Wow, man, if it's ranked Official Top Ten Best Punk Songs by the official punk rock experts in England, it must be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.165.28 (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left Heartbreakers in 1976[edit]

The article said he left in December 1975, but he's on the the January 23, 1976 Yonkers demos. So I altered that to "early 1976" not sure of the exact date ot even the month.

Lenbrazil (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


2002[edit]

(moved from main page) ... it's obvious from listening to their "Blank Generation" release that punk was still very much a project under inadvertent development. While the signature rebellious/aimless/angst-ridden lyrics and innuendos are all there, other elements (like the driving crude guitars) aren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RjLesch (talk • contribs) 19:54, January 11, 2002 (UTC)

Malcolm McClaren apparently saw Richard Hell in New York, and came back to London with great new fashion ideas for his protegees, the Sex Pistols. -- 165.121.112.xxx 15:51, February 25, 2002 (UTC)

2003[edit]

Moved some things from the main page: "he looked like he didn't care" (I can't find an attribution for this quote.) "Those creative and personal differences were Richard Lloyd's growing ego as fueled by Patti Smith." (I don't understand this reference... Did the original author "64.105.246.194" mean to say Tom Verlaine rather than Richard Lloyd?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.208.84 (talk) 01:20, May 14, 2003 (UTC)

I made corrections in the editing, putting in a link to the Johnny Thunders article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.244.18.133 (talk) 20:57, October 3, 2003 (UTC)

2005[edit]

"Their friends and associates Marky Ramone, Joey Ramone, Tom Verlaine and Patti Smith apparently didn't use heroin" WAS THIS Patti Smyth (his wife) or Patti Smith (AS WRITTEN) of the Patti Smith Group? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.159.137 (talk) 23:13, December 12 2005 (UTC)

2006[edit]

Hell has also been an actor. He starred in "Blank Generation," (around 1980) which includes some vintage live performances (for the movie) from CBGB's. He also had parts in "Smithereens" and "Desperately Seeking Susan."

Just thought I'd mention that in case someone wants to add it. He wasn't bad in Blank Generation, which I saw recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.237.242.92 (talk) 20:12, April 28 2006 (UTC)

User RH?[edit]

66.108.61.240 (talk · contribs) IS Richard Hell I have every reason to believe and as such should NOT be involved in this entry!! (check out the history page for edits of the main article and note the hagiographic and personal info included - very RH) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.236.12.53 (talk) 03:11, March 30 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue raised on the talk page of 66.108.61.240 regarding "dueling versions." I believe the present version (which has been "reverted" in versus edited and discussed) is too long and hagiographic. I say keep it factually informative and sourced and npov. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.236.15.75 (talk) 04:04, April 4 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Neither version of this that I see is terribly NPOV, and for the most part they're poorly references. References are badly needed for statements like him "originating" the punk look, or whatever that's saying. There was also a lot of editorializing in both versions ("shows his ornery side" vs. "excoriates the young interviewer's presumptions", for example, both are editorials.) I've tagged the article for cleanup and referencing attention, and will do some myself as well. I would also encourage both editors to be mindful of the three-revert rule. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the fuss?[edit]

I'm responsible for the latest edit, the one that's been repeatedly reverted. I'll explain. I'm writing about Richard Hell and have used his archives that are deposited at Fales Library at NYU for research. I would like to know what is here regarded as unsubstantiated or in need of citation. Virtually every punk history credits Hell with originating most of the elements of punk clothing style, as well as much of the attitude (via such songs as "Blank Generation" and "Love Comes in Spurts", each seminal both in musical style and in message and both originating in 1974--WAY before any other "punk" group. That year is also when Richard first appeared in his first group at CBGB and was repeatedly photographed with spiked hair and torn and stencilled clothes, also way before any other band member. This can be seen in innumerable punk histories. There is no disputing it.). I cited one of Malcolm McClaren's admissions that he used Hell's style in coming up with the look of the Sex Pistols. He's admitted it often and in many wordings. In fact the whole first section of the Wiki entry, citing the Rough Guide early British punk acknowledgements of Hell's musical influence as well, was beefed up in detail by me because I checked the Wikipedia article one day and saw that some irresponsible person had tagged nearly every sentence with a demand for a "citation". I didn't write the original descriptions of Hell's historical role in that section, I only added the detailed citations regarding the punk influence he'd been credited with by previous Wiki contributors in the section. I only did it to dispose of the malicious abuse of Wiki protocol exhibited by the person who'd tagged every other sentence with a demand for a "citation". Then some other person started changing the article in negative ways making untrue statements that couldn't cite reliable sources because they were untrue. So I reverted to my original article. My edit of the article is straightforward, and strictly and simply true. There's nothing controversial in it. I'm not really a Wiki regular and I don't have the time to enter into an involved procedure here, but all this does demonstrate to me why Wiki has been deemed unqualified as a source of citations by universities and serious researchers--too many people use these pages to deliberately misrepresent the facts. It's the same principle as spam and malicious viruses. There are a lot of vandals out there, and they have more time and energy to devote to such practices than the decent citizens have to spend counteracting them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.61.240 (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your edit has not been repeatedly reverted, you have been repeatedly reverting actual edits to the article, including those by "3rd opinioners". You must respect other editors and their input. It is valid to criticize parts of "your version" (as you have essentially drafted this listing and revert edits back to your version) as have been done. You should then respond to the criticism if you disagree, not simply revert. If a consensus is necessary that can be done in the talk page. If you feel that some edits are "untrue" then you need to flag a need for citation and give the editor/s a chance to defend their edit. Just b/c you didn't come across something in R.Hell's own archived notes or research you've done does not mean it is false or unsubstantiated. Also keep in mind NPOV. Even as a biograppher,, certainly on wiki, you must practice npov. Just b/c you like your version doesn't make it the definitive one; take other edits into account. Criticizing wiki for not being a resource cite is irresponsible; it is a public, group encyclopedia and thus lacks and will always lack ultimate verifiability. Work with its group premise and help it be a group listing. Refering to yourself as a decent citizen and those requesting cites, etc as irresponsible is not civil or helpful.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.108.61.250 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not true. I have not added substance, but simply given citations for data that earlier contributors have included. But someone who has some personal problem with Hell--you presumably--keeps reducing and revising the entry in ways that denigrate Hell or distort his story or simply treat him meanly. For instance how can you justify repeatedly removing half the seven or eight links to quite interesting further web material about him in the Links section? And I haven't been simply reverting. I have tried to resolve this weird situation by compromising even though I think what this person doing is unfair and unethical in the context of the encyclopedia. I've rewritten and removed solid data I'd added in an effort to satisfy this person who doesn't want to credit Hell with any achievements. But nothing satisfies this person. Most other biographical entries in the encyclopedia are positive. They're written by people who respect the person who is being described. I can only repeat what I say above about how everything in my edits is verifieable, and I have added verification when challenged, even though the challenges are unreasonable. Much of the material in Fales isn't BY Richard, but rather a lot of historical record concerning him that establishes fact, from newspaper articles and pictures fixing the dates that things happened to such things as the 1976 letter from the Heartbreakers' manager I cited proving that Hell quit rather than was fired from the Heartbreakers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.61.240 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You do add substance; the beginning section needs to be parsed down; as others have mentioned, it is weighted down with needless "name checks"; the PURPOSE of the entry is to provide concise, verifiable information. There is nothing in the revisions I've made that are "mean" to Hell; deleting excess references to his parents is in good cause; where is it cited that his mother is a teacher after her divorce and why is that necessary? Work w/the other citers, don't just revert your entry, discuss the issues, put them up for a vote. B/t/w the listing still doesn't have citations for most of the material. As to website linkages, wiki policy is for this not to be exhaustive. For ex, one listing to Hell's personal website is sufficient; you have listed multiple cites to his one website. You are the one who has personal involvement, god only knows why. But if you are doing a biography as you say, it would behoove you to be balanced (do interviews w/folks who worked w/him, etc) and not hagiographic. You also seem to be merging editors; I am not the only person who has made revisions to this site. I have mostly pruned, not "insulted" him. Taking out references to his acting like you've done is odd. This is a group encyl. entry meant to be accurate, concise, etc. It needn't be positive, fyi. It should be verifiable and concise. Stop reverting and put any contentious issues to a vote/discussion.
And your continuing to put in things 3rd party input has told you to take out will get you censured/admonished ("excoriating interviewee" etc.) Clean up the article or others will need to.
And where ARE the cites??? I don't see any, other than a rough trade book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.236.15.190 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of Wikipedia[edit]

It is wrong and a subversion of the spirit of Wikipedia for this editor to have gotten his particular version of the Hell article "protected" so that other editors may not contribute. I was going back and forth with this editor about how the Hell article should read, but I was compromising with the person--including material I thought irrelevant or misleading that the editor kept insisting on retaining--even when I thought it was unfair, just to reach a resolution. Now this person has managed to get his or her slanted version "protected" so that it can not be altered. It's misleading, for instance, to say Hell was a junkie for 20 years, "off and on" or not. Hell has always been forthcoming about his drug use. He had a drug problem 30 years ago (1977-1984 or so) and then relapse for a year or two around 1990, but has been completely clean since 1992, using no drug stronger than coffee--he doesn't even drink or smoke. It's ugly and unwarranted to call him a drug addict the way this editor does. Also why mention GEEK MAGGOT BINGO? Hell was in numerous obscure underground movies, some far more significant than GEEK. I think the GEEK reference is a giveaway that this editor is connected to "Nick Zedd," a person who's often attacked Hell and who directed that movie. Why remove half the links? I DID NOT add links--the abusive editor just wants Hell to seem less important and interesting than he is. The article is written in such a way as to make Hell look bad. Another instance is where the editor repeatedly writes that Richard "quit or was fired" from groups. Nearly all sources agree he departed the two groups in question by choice, but if you insist I can grant a neutral wording such as "Hell left" such groups. But no, this editor has gotten his mean-spirited version "protected." Also to say the Sex Pistols "refuted" McLaren's description of them as being highly influenced by Hell's clothing style is to mislead. They didn't "refute" (which is to demonstrate as being false) but rather they "disputed" (which is to make an opposing claim). (And this is all incorrect anyway, since there is no doubt whatsoever that the most famous Pistols' clothing was provided by their manager McLaren from his boutique Sex--which also provided the band's name--so if McLaren himself admits that those clothes were highly influenced by Hell, then the Sex Pistols' appearance was obviously influenced by Hell, no matter how much they might want to pretend otherwise.) In the final analysis I'm just making the point that this editor is prejudiced and has an agenda and shouldn't have been allowed to put his version of Hell up as the definitive "protected" one that no one else can contribute to. Roosterer 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't think it an abuse of Wiki when your version was randomly protected, and you engaged in no discussion, which shows you don't understand the point here. Who are you anyway? I assume Roosterer is the new name for "66" user;you should so clarify then. Why don't you clarify what you compromised on; I am one of the prior editors and I didn't see you compromise on anything. Also you are the one who keeps putting in irrelevant or misleading material (if you are 66). And your making it personal by insulting the editor/s in this fashion is uncivil, a Wiki no-no. As an editor I took out a lot of excess stuff and justified it. The point here is to address things point by point, come to a consensus or put to a vote if that is not possible. If you feel a different "underground" film is better mentioned, make the argument. But neglecting to mention any isn't right when you here claim it was a part of his artistic life. In short, you did not go back and forth w/me. Let's do it now. If you have reputable cites for his self and other reported drug use dates (and the article says heroin addict not junkie as falsely summarize w/a slant trying to show the editor "dislikes" Hell), that would be a help; if you want to put he doesn't drink, it likely should be listed as a claim unless it is verifiable. The discussion page already states why the links were pared down. Re-read Wiki policy on links. Your opinion that Hell is interesting and important is an indicator perhaps of npov; the goal of the article isn't to build him up or tear him down but to summarize. Calling hte editor abusive is uncalled for and ag. Wiki policy. Again, whether he quit or was fired should be cited/sourced, not nec'y in the article but here where changes are discussed. I don't see a discussion of refutation re the Sex Pistols and suggest it is not that imp. a point to be making here in depth. The sex pistols were important (and far more popular then hell) on their own, for their music, stage presence, etc. 4.231.245.229 16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia - Third opinion[edit]

Posted to Wikipedia:Third opinion was a two part request for a third opinion. The second of which was this:

User:Steel359 ... reverted (and kept protected) original Richard Hell page to an unproductive version he'd previously noted as such. Refused to civilly engage and has been hostile, uncivil/nasty AND performed vindictive and wrong admin. action on RHell page. He's preventing discussion on his talk page by protecting it; please resolve. This appears wholly wrong admin. conduct and action. (Perhaps email him to unprotect his page so you can post your response on it as there is no where else for me to see it) 02:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I think that frustration is bubbling over here. For example 4.231.245.229 you complain that 66 has created an account and not informed you (and others) that "Rooster" is now his/her user ID. However because you have not created an account I presume that the previous posting by 4.236.15.190 was also you (whois is a useful tool). If so why do you tell Rooster that (s)he should inform people of a change of user ID when you do not do the same? As you are currently editing Wikipedia more actively than just a passing comment why not create an account?
  2. I think User:Steel359 acted correctly over this issue. (See WP:BLP#Semi-protection and protection) The only problem that I could see was I could not work out which version of the page (s)he reverted to.
  3. As this is a biography of a living person please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. In future all changes to this page must have Verifiable reliable cited sources. All the information that is already on the page must either have citations added or be removed. See WP:FOOT on how to use footnotes to create citations.
  4. With reference to "GEEK MAGGOT BINGO", I think that it is also worth reading these sections Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/Archive 1#NOR and the entry on Christopher Michael Langan: lessons and Talk:Christopher Michael Langan#WP:NOR - removing original research, do not re-insert unless you have a source other than original research is worth reading.

--PBS 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stepping in. Regarding my failure to mention that I was 66.108.61.240 before I registered--I thought it was obvious from the way I referred to my previous posts that were signed 66.108.61.240. I didn't realize I needed to specifically state it. I have two other questions. I see that you write that "All the information that is already on the page must either have citations added or be removed." First question--How can citations be added when the page is frozen "protected"? And, second--Every sentence of the article contains some amount of information, but at least 95% of the content of the article is common knowledge, is listed in nearly all the innumerable short bios of Hell in books, on the web, and elsewhere. Surely it is too much of a burden to cite references for every sentence of the article. I asked the aggressive editor who wanted to reduce the biography and denigrate Hell, making misleading and/or false claims about drug use, and the death of Hell's father, and the publishers of Hell's books (calling them "small" which is patently misleading/untrue), etc., exactly what in the original edit he needed citations for and he did not reply. How do I judge what statements require citations? Also, if you don't mind my asking--How long would I have to supply the citations before you start removing data from the page. I ask just because I'm busy, and unfamiliar with Wiki procedures, and it will take some effort (which I then fear will again be wasted if the other editor with his agenda just starts jumping in again!). Thank you very much. Roosterer 66.108.61.240 15:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO you did not need to state it, as it seemed obvious to me, but it is done now. The block on editing the page ends on Tue, 01 May 2007 12:03:58 GMT. It is quite normal for pages to be protected to give editors a cooling off period. The information my be common knowledge to you but not to everyone. You do not need to cite every sentence, but citations at the end of paragraphs are a good idea and will turn this from an essay into an useful encyclopaedic article. It will also cut down edit disputes. The burden is on you to add citations if you want to add information this is very clearly laid out in WP:V. With biographies of living people the emphasis is on fast removal, with other types of articles "citation needed " can linger for months. --PBS 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't originally complain re 66. using and creating Roosterer; as s/he notes, it seems obvious Roos. was 66. My problem was when I attempted to respond and edit the page and a flag came up saying I was blocked for abusive behavior. I then checked other user entries on this talk page and saw that all, all BUT 66 were blocked, including Roosterer. I couldn't help but think then (since users back to 2002 were showing the block flag when you clicked on them) that 66. had formed Rooster (who ended up blocked, and so I assumed could not have been created from 66.'s computer, but was specifically created at a new locale) and then contacted someone to get everyone else who'd contributed to that page blocked as abusive. Then I saw that the version of the page was suddenly changed back to the version 66. wanted, for no reason. 66 thus seemed to be creating an alleged abuse situation to get changes 66 refused to discuss on this page (it lay dormant in the interval). (Dmcdevit and I researched into it and it seemed the several day block was a wide range block instituted against a roving vandit).
By the way, I am not Nick Zedd. I am familiar w/underground film however, and he has been steadily working in the genre and Hell does star in the film cited as an example of his underground work. I read that Hell's father died in a car crash. If that is not correct (and it stuck w/me so I assume it is) you should find it in the archives or know that you don't know why. The resource I am most familiar w/ is indeed a small press (Hanuman) autobiography Hell wrote, and I believe the notation may be in that. I can't presently locate it and may or may not have it as I don't keep everything I read. Compared to major publishers, other than Go Now have all been on small presses. As to "common knowledge" if it is listed in a bio to Hell's book (I can't believe they are that long) that is self-generated and I'm not sure it counts. The Web as we can see is notoriously unreliable. Reputable 3rd party sources are things like magazine articles, books... The cite will allow people to judge the info. Also, I have no agenda other than truth and accuracy; I feel hagiographic and excessive bio entries are inappropriate; Hell in fact has a history of "talking himself up," trying to make the case that he is IMPORTANT. The Sex Pistols are obviously more important. The Ramones were obviously more important. Not to say he doesn't warrant an entry or discussion but a self-appointed biographer who wants to show how important Hell is (as PR for his book?) is not the one who should be taking over the page and preventing it from being a collaborative accurate effort. If Roos/66 can't keep npov considering especially his commercial interest in HEll, he should bow out of this page except to note verifiable errors. 4.236.15.81 17:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were confused about the blocks on editor accounts and who and who can not edit this talk page. I do not think that you should suggest whether another editor should or should not edit an article page. What I do think is that any information on a Biography page of a living person should have a citation at the end of a paragraph which can be used to validate that the paragraph is accurate. Opinions about a person should be written in such a way that they are verifable and that they have a neutral point of view. --PBS 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originator of punk fashion[edit]

From the article:

Hell was an originator of the punk fashion look, the first to spike his hair and wear torn, cut and drawn-on shirts, often held together with safety pins. Malcolm McLaren, designer of the Sex Pistols, has said Hell was the inspiration for the Sex Pistols' look and attitude, as well as the safety-pin accessorized clothing McLaren sold in his London shop, Sex. (Members of the Sex Pistols dispute this.)

Who claims that Hell was the orginator of punk fashion? What is the source for this statment? When did MM says Hell was the inspiration and what is the source? Which memebers of the SP dispute this and who says that they do? --PBS 18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McLaren himself has made this claim many, many times, and all of the Pistols, particularly Lydon, have concurred. Read Lydon's biog, "Rotten," or the seminal "Please Kill Me" for additional details. --MG196 17:08 22 June 2007

Contrary to what the editor says who wants to slash the Hell article and describe him derisively, I have really not added much of substance--the only things I remember adding were a few facts regarding Hell's parents. Apart from that the only reason I contributed to the page was because I looked at it one day and some unreasonable person who obviously just meant to attack and make problems had added a demand for a citation to nearly every sentence in the article. So I gave substantiating details to some of the statements in the first section --though I HADN'T written the original material describing Hell's music and look as being extremely influential upon the 1977 and earlier punk bands. A statement (not written by me) in that section, to which a demand for a "citation" had been added, read something like, "Hell was the inspiration for the Sex Pistols' look and attitude, as well as the safety-pin accessorized clothing McLaren sold in his London shop, Sex." To supply a source for that statement, I rewrote it slightly for clarification, and added:

McLaren returned to London from New York in 1975 intending to put together a group in Britain, and as he said in an interview published in the definitive punk oral history Please Kill Me, "I came back to England determined. I had these images I came back with, it was like Marco Polo or Walter Raleigh. I brought back the image of this distressed, strange thing called Richard Hell. And this phrase, 'the blank generation.'" The group he then put together would be the Sex Pistols, named after McLaren's clothing store.

Who wrote Please Kill Me? What is the page number that this quote comes from? BTW It only covers one of the three sentences in the paragraph --PBS 09:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google is a useful tool Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk( Amazon www.nyrock.com) Authors Legs McNeil and Gillian McCain. If you are going to cite from it you will need to provide the specific publication you are using because different publications can have different page numbering. --PBS 09:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the information is derived from interviews with McLaren published in Please Kill Me, though he speaks about Hell's influence elsewhere as well. Then, when the editor kept slashing that passage, I voluntarily compromised and rewrote it in the simple form you see in the article now. Still the aggressive editor had to remove that COMPROMISED treatment and try to freeze his mean-spirited and deceptive version by having the page locked. (I don't know the source of the statement that the Sex Pistols dispute that their look was influenced by Hell. I don't doubt it though--they liked to portray themselves as the only group in the world--as so many groups tend to like to do. Still I'd like to hear what my nemesis editor would name as source.)

McLaren is one source, but others who were around at that time have different memories of what were happening. For example The Great Rock and Roll Swindle was entertainment not a documentry. For this reason, I do not think that an uncloaborated statment by McLaren is defiative, it needs at least one more independent source to confirm the information, or it should be made clear that this is a claim put forward by McLaren. --PBS 09:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not buy the aggressive editor's claim that he's without point of view. The only changes he makes are to denigrate Hell and make him seem small. Why does he take out half the links to offsite Hell material? Why does he say Hell's books come from small presses? PowerHouse, for instance, the publisher of Hell's very highly thought of and substantial hardcover book HOT AND COLD, is a MAJOR art book publisher--see http://www.powerhousebooks.com/index.html --). Akashic, the publisher of GODLIKE has won numerous awards and published many important books. The editor just wants to associate "small" with Hell. If you want proof of Hell's achievements as a writer in recent years, just look at his catalog at his site (http://www.richardhell.com/helllit.html). The editor under reveiw also took out what someone (NOT ME) had written, which has also been said in many articles and reviews, that the Dim Stars was an indie or Alternative "super group"--and the editor changed that to insultingly describe the band as a Thurston Moore "side project" or something like that, when Hell wrote all the bands lyrics, as well as did all the singing, and played all the bass (did these three things on all but maybe two out of the CD's 14 or so songs). There's no question, this person's only purpose is to cut down Hell. That's not a legitimate activity for an encyclopedia writer. Then he starts saying here on this page how much more important than Hell the Ramones and Sex Pistols are. That's a further huge giveaway of where he's coming from. What's the relevance of that??? Those groups have huge articles in Wikipedia. The purpose of Hell's article isn't to rate him in comparison to other groups. Hell has great respect among musicians and deserves a respectful treatment here. The Ramones are great, the Pistols are great. Hell has written essays lauding both. But the editor who keeps changing Hell's article in order to make it look like Hell has accomplished less than he has is betraying the spirit of Wikipedia and of true punk spirit as well. Roosterer 02:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we put all this in the past, and keep focused? I put this section here to ask for citations for a specific paragraph so that I can help you both write a better article. I thought we could work together on this paragraph so that you have an practical example of how improve the article without WP:OR and a WP:NPOV. To do this we need properly constructed citations for all of the information. --PBS 09:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to make sure that all information on the page is from a verifiable source. If it is from a book or an article in a magazine then author, title and page number should be given in the footnote. If there is a dispute over whether the source is reliable, or it is a controversial statement then the paragraph that uses that source should be structured in such a way that it is made clear in the article that "Fu Bar said so and so (A Reporter. Fub Bar in Paris, NME, April 1, 1980 p. 21)."
--PBS 09:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hell was an originator of the punk fashion look, the first to spike his hair and wear torn, cut and drawn-on shirts, often held together with safety pins. what is the source for this?
Malcolm McLaren, designer of the Sex Pistols, has said Hell was the inspiration for the Sex Pistols' look and attitude, as well as the safety-pin accessorized clothing McLaren sold in his London shop, Sex. What is the page number for this?
(Members of the Sex Pistols dispute this.) What is the source for this? --PBS 12:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.k., I supplied references for that paragraph. If you want more, let me know, but I can only do a little at a time. Thanks for the helpful and scrupulous attention you're giving this. I hope you won't require references for every detail though. I would think that a lot of this would be uncontroversial, but I'll try to do what you ask. Roosterer 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. As a general rule one but preferably two independent sources are plenty for a fact. What seems to you common knowledge is not to others. As a general rule the more paragraphs that are footnoted the more useful the article is to a person who does not know the subject. See for example Battle of Waterloo and how it was at the start of the year. Not a lot of facts have changed, but adding sources makes the information much more trustworthy. So when you have time if you add citations to the other paragraphs this will become a much better article even if the information does not change. If anything comes up that is contentious I suggest that you approach it by putting in both points of view in the form "Fu said X. However Bar said" and cite the sources for this information. (see the Battle of Waterloo#Hougoumont and the time the battle started for an example).
If I can be of any further assistance drop me a line on my user talk page. --PBS 10:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to make the article tighter[edit]

I have attempted to make the article tighter, so that readers can digest the relevant summary info w/o being loaded down w/excess details. Let me know if you think anything should be added back as informative and necessary, weighing the fact that we do want it to be trim but muscular. Eg, I thought citing the Rough Trade book for the observation that his song was considered a top 10 punk song by many was sufficient w/o adding a whole paragraph of names. Similarly, I think info about his parents can be kept slim; referencing a bio as a source would be useful. I left the list to other sources of info in the end as it is but would ask you pick and choose; it is not a bibliography but a few well-chosen cites for readers to go to for more info (there are wiki guidelines on this). His acting I feel should be mentioned in the body of text. If you feel his starring role in Geek MB should be replaced w/something else, let me know what. Nick Zedd has his own Wiki entry and has shown at moma and Hell stars in the film so I thought it was an appropriate site. If they had a public falling out I suppose you could add that reference if it is notable. Hope I've explained my edits, feel free to discuss or dispute any/all if on reflection you feel strongly and I will respond (my server has problems so it may be a day or two but I will). (I do think he is clearly best known as frontman of Voidoids; consequently I deleted probably; let's discuss if you honestly think he is best known as something else; that's a perfect for a vote item if there is a serious question). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.43.230 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I have been a little slow on the uptake, but I have been preoccupied with much work. I don't see most of the wording changes you describe. Maybe you meant that you were just discussing doing them, though it sounded as if you were saying you'd actually done them. Maybe Philip thought they were hasty and reinstated the original texts. I can see rewording the ROUGH GUIDE reference and I'll do that now, turning most of the information into a footnote. I don't see the necessity of much of the rest of the changes you talk about. The "probably" wording seems reasonable since I'd bet there are more people who know the name "Richard Hell" simply as a musician and/or writer than who know the entire name of the band. I think the information about his parents is interesting. I'll add citations for it soon. As for GEEK MAGGOT BINGO, Hell's starring role in the 1978 35 mm feature BLANK GENERATION directed by Ulli Lommel is much more significant than the crude 16 mm GEEK which only had Hell onscreen for maybe fifteen minutes, and Richard also starred in the NYC underground feature FINAL REWARD, and acted in WHAT ABOUT ME?, in both of which he does more than in GEEK. But none of these are a large or meaningful part of his career, and none of them are very highly regarded or widely known. They're obscure New York underground movies that are essentially amateur. The only movie which really had any impact and in which Richard is well handled and does well is Susan Seidelman's SMITHEREENS, which is mentioned already in the trivia section. If there is to be an expansion I'd think it would be in descriptions of his books, where he really shines. The books have gotten a lot of respect and it's the way he's made his living for twenty years. I'll trim the links a little, as you suggest (Also, I have that issue of CONDUIT that includes the interview with Hell that Mike Watt, who was bass player for the Minutemen and now for the new Iggy & the Stooges, put up at his blog. It is correct as transcribed at the blog.) Thoughts? Roosterer 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Boys? First Punk Song?![edit]

I have never, EVER read this claim anywhere. Who made this statement other than the author of the article? Personal opinions are fine, but to make a statement like that here without any historical quotes to back it up is just silly. --MG196 17:13 22 June 2007

To reply to this challenge to the idea of the Neon Boys recordings being the first punk tracks... It was 1973 and this band on these two cuts ("Love Comes in Spurts" and "That's All I Know") were playing violent, fast, short, aggressively and mockingly yelled/sung songs. "Spurts" made fun of the idea of "love" too, and that was a new thing to do in rock 'n' roll and became a major signature concept of punk. The band also had short hair and dressed in torn clothes and leather jackets. Within a year, with one other musician added, and a name change (to Television), they would be the first band playing at CBGB. These are all good reasons to consider the possibility of calling these songs the first punk tracks. Sure, there are plenty of other plausible contenders, but it's not crazy to suggest the possibility that those songs are the first punk recordings in the modern sense of punk.

Name of Boarding School Hell Attended[edit]

I know that the name of the boarding school Hell attended in Delaware, where he and Tom Verlaine met, was not "St. Andrews" as someone recently wrote. I have researched Hell's papers at the Fales Library at NYU and that is not the name of the school. 66.108.61.240 11:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source that verifies this? --Audacitor 14:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found that Hell names the school, Sanford Preparatory, in the published first chapter of his autobiography, so I changed the entry accordingly, adding a footnote for the source.Roosterer 02:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Misinformation About Ulli Lommel Blank Generation Movie[edit]

Someone added this to the Hell entry: "Hell also co-wrote and starred in the 1980 film 'Blank Generation', which featured many songs from the Voidoids' album of the same name. The film was loosely based on Hell himself, and featured French actress Carole Bouquet as his love interest." I'm removing it because it's untrue. Hell gets a small writing credit on the film, but Hell has disassociated himself from the movie many times. As he writes in his published notebooks (published by Hanuman Books as ARTIFACT in 1990), "Anyway, by the end of the movie Lommel [director and writer of the film] was bringing in new scenes to shoot every day, none of which had any perceptible relationship to the original script and which he refused to explain even to the extent of saying where in the chronology of the script they were supposed to come. It was impossible and, having no idea what I was supposed to be, I finally was just nothing." Also there are NOT "many" songs from the album in the movie--there is exactly one, and short excerpts from two more, all played live, and then one that's supposed to be in a recording studio is lip-synched. As I wrote above in the Edit Talk "Attempt to make the article tighter," "The only movie which really had any impact and in which Richard is well handled and does well is Susan Seidelman's SMITHEREENS, which is mentioned already in the trivia section." I think people are using the entry to publicize movies for their own purposes, not because the movies are interesting or that they have any meaning in Richard's career. He's a writer and a musician. If there's going to be a list of his achievements outside of music it should be books.Roosterer 12:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has been in several low low budget movies; whether you or he like them or think he is "well handled" is irrelevant. They are worth mentioning. A "small writing credit" is a writing credit, is a co-writer and and your own notes note several songs from his album in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.47.149 (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm McLaren[edit]

The paragraph cited is not talking about fashion, but the song Pretty Vaccant and how it came from McLaren pressuring the Pistols to write a song like Blank Generation. Ripped, and torn tee shirts with Nazi and Biker imagery were sold by McLaren and Weswood from the beginning when the shop was called Let it Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.207.238 (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews to interview Richard Hell[edit]

Wikinews is to interview Richard Hell about his life, music, career and future. If you have a serious question for Hell, please leave it on my talk page under the title "Richard Hell interview". --David Shankbone 00:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

removed misinformation about Hell's ethnic background[edit]

Someone inserted "Born to Jewish parents" at the start of Hell's Bio section. I removed it. As described in numerous places, even including the scabrous Heebie Jeebies at CBGBs, which is a book by a Jew trying to portray Punk music as Jewish, Richard didn't have "Jewish parents." His father, who died when Richard was seven, was an athiest non-practicing Jew, and his mother was a southern WASP Methodist who taught Richard nothing about Judaism. So if someone really thinks it's so important to specify every particle of everyone's ethnic background, that's the information. I don't think it's relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.20.206 (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect line regarding "new album"[edit]

I removed the line that stated that RH was currently (2008) in the studio with three guitarists recording a new album. That was clearly a misinterpretation of the info that Hell was recording in that period with three guitarists, but the project was in fact the "repair" of his 1982 DESTINY STREET album, which undertaking (DESTINY STREET REPAIRED, released in 2009 by Insound) is already described in this article...

References don't belong in External links- they belong here[edit]

These sources do not ever belong in External links. I have moved the link farm there to this talk page where they do belong. Warning: I didn't check them over, so be careful in choosing any references here. Thank you. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • NYU's Fales Library Guide to the Richard Hell Papers
  • Excerpts at YouTube from 2007 movie written, acted, and directed by Hell: Age Monologue, Pt. 1, Age Monologue, Pt. 2, and Melinda's Neck
  • Steven Beeber interview with Richard Hell from the "Luck" issue of CONDUIT magazine June 23, 2003 — largely about Hell's writing, in which Hell explains his disbelief in free will. (This version is on a blog site and has not been verified as a true copy of the original).
  • Richard Cabut and Andrew Gallix. Talk to Richard Hell about his latest novel and album, 3:AM Magazine, 2005
  • David Dalton. Hell interviewed
  • Robbin, Ira. "Richard Hell". TrouserPress.com. Retrieved 2007-01-07.
  • Jason Gross. Interview with Richard Hell, Perfect Sound Forever, December 1997 — interview is largely about his writing, but also about music.
  • Richard Hell "Hell On the Movies" richardhell.com 2006 — Richard Hell's movie column for BlackBook magazine, which appeared 2004-2006
  • Richard Meyers & Roy Suggs. Official Press Biography richardhell.com
  • Bryan Swirsky. – Exclusive Interview TRAKmarx, 2004 — About his music days in the 1970s
  • Adam Travis. Interviewing Hell (25 February 2005), bookslut.com, March 2005 — an interview where Hell is intensely adversarial to the interviewer

Birthday 18 September or 2 October 1949?[edit]

Can anyone clear this up? Most of the interwebs, including this wiki page, cite Richard Hell's birthday as 2 October 1949. His personal page on Facebook shows 18 September 1949. His website says "3 months before 1950".. not much help. genesee.gbh (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Generation year of release[edit]

User 67.169.230.150 keeps insisting on changing the release date of the first album from 1977 to 1976, without explanation or sources. All known sources say 1977 and this should not be changed unless a source saying 1976 can be identified. Can anyone else please also try and explain this to the user, who refuses to understand that a change like that has to be sourced?Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Richard Hell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Richard Hell/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
I think this article is bad and incorrect because one user who wants to give a negative impression of Richard Hell has been aggressive and dominated the editing and then even gone to the lengths of "protecting" the page so that no one else may edit. The page "protection" is unwarranted. As an editor, I was trying to compromise with this person by finding a middle ground between that editor's negative approach and my fact-based if somewhat admiring approach. I never included information that wasn't verifiable. It is the user who has "protected" the page who has repeatedly reverted the article to that user's version, whereas I tried to compromise. It's misleading, for instance, to say Hell was a junkie for 20 years, "off and on" or not. Hell has always been forthcoming about his drug use. He had a drug problem 30 years ago (1977-1984 or so) and then relapse for a year or two around 1990, but has been clean since 1992, using no drug stronger than coffee--he doesn't even drink or smoke. It's ugly and unwarranted to call him a drug addict the way this editor does. Also why mention GEEK MAGGOT BINGO? Hell was in numerous obscure underground movies. I think the GEEK reference is a giveaway that this editor is connected to "Nick Zedd," a person who's often attacked Hell and who directed that movie. My main objection to the article though is that one editor, the one who has been guilty of repeated reversions and is clearly hostile to Richard Hell, has gotten the last word and written the article that will stay up "protected." I could point out many other ways that information on Hell listed by this editor is incorrect or presented in a negative light, but the main point is that it's unfair to give one editor control. Roosterer 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Hell&oldid=1206577495"