Talk:Lou Reed/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2


Russian or Polish?

He's categorized as Russian-Jewish descent, but I thought his family was Polish. See "Red Shirley". http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/red_shirley Rosekelleher (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to be bold on this one, because I'm not sure. Lou's cousin, "Red Shirley," was from Poland, which would seem to indicate that he was of Polish descent, but not necessarily. Several sources say the cousin's "formal" name is Shulamit Rabinowitz, which is the same as Reed's family name before it was changed. Other sources say her name is Shirley Novick, which sounds like a shortened form. All of which is way more information than I or anyone else wanted to know about this... Rosekelleher (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Red Shirley

That reminds me, shouldn't Reed's wonderful short film be included in Filmography? Rosekelleher (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I decided to BE BOLD! and add it myself. Rosekelleher (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lillian Leach

There's now a page for Lillian Leach, if someone wants to add a link from this page. I'm not sure where the link would go. (Somewhere near the Ornette Coleman reference, maybe, mentioning doo-wop as another of his early musical influences.) Reed cited "Smoke From Your Cigarette" by Lillian Leach and the Mellows at the top of his list of favorite songs in 2011, and raved about her on several occasions. See quotes here. --Rosekelleher (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we make this a Good Article by the 18th?

Just a thought. [1]

"First thing you learn is that you always gotta wait." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
ha

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lou Reed. 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 15:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

weasels

"romantically linked" to Laurie Anderson. They were married. They were married under US law. I realise that people may have problems with Lou Reed's history of relationships, but legal marriage indicates more than "romantic linking". PS marriage equality now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.103.252 (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

As the article says, they married in 2008. They were "romantically linked" (slightly odd phrase, I accept) for a decade or so before that, but not married. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The Laurie Anderson article (supported by two sources) says: "Anderson started dating Lou Reed in 1992, and was married to him from 2008 until his death in 2013." So they were together for over twenty years? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The Shades

He was in a band called the Shades, not the Jades. Please fix this, thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.5.28 (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lou Reed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lou Reed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

"notorious for its gangs"

Is there any citation for Freeport High School being "notorious for its gangs"? I attended that same school (well, in a different building, it had moved; the one Reed attended was my junior high) and while we used to joke that the so-called "high-school fraternities" were "gangs with three Greek letters", really in most respects they weren't. I don't remember there being any "gangs" as such, and I seriously doubt that was dramatically different in Reed's era. - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Good shout. I removed it. --John (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Quotes

As the next round in improving this article I'd like to bring down the proportion of quoted material. Quotes should be summarised where possible. Are there any really vital quotes that people are keen to keep? --John (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've started on this. There is probably more to be done. --John (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Article quality

Considering Reed's significance, and the fact that he's been dead for a few years now, this article is really disgracefully poor. Would there be any appetite to improve it? --John (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed some really awful stuff, including an outrageous claim that had been marked as unreferenced since 2011. I appreciate the other editors who've pitched in. Surely there should be book sources for such a subject? --John (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the recent one mentioned, by Anthony DeCurtis, which was a Radio 4 Book of the Week might be a good place to start: [2]? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's what made me think of it. Money is always tight in the User:John household and I would struggle to justify the expense at the moment. Is it any good, do you know? --John (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes. I've often pictured you, John, in that draughty Gorbals tenement, dishing out those meagre rations of thin gruel to your 17 children. But sorry, no, that one's still a wee bit too expensive even for me. For Wikipedia research I tend to start with eBay. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Spookily close, except that there are now 18 of the wee ones and gruel is for special occasions. --John (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Please inspect this edit. It's a time capsule of everything that was wrong with the article. ...its follow-up live album released in early 1975 Lou Reed Live, its time divided primarily between Transformer and Berlin songs, with only one Velvet Underground song, were both recorded at the same show... is the sort of thing die-hard fans care about, but nobody else. There would need to be a source for anything of this nature, and a consensus that it was worth recording on this top-level article. It isn't. Even better, As he had done with Berlin after Transformer, in 1975 Reed responded to commercial success with a commercial failure, a double album of electronically generated audio feedback... is fancruft of the first water, a Wikipedia editor's theory about how Reed's career progressed. Stuff like this should be aggressively purged from our articles and sent to the fan forums where it belongs. --John (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I quite enjoyed it. Reasonably informative. Shame it wasn't sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Well indeed. Presumably it was established there while the subject was still alive. Enforcing BLP properly (and now WP:V) protects us from soapy hagiography as well as defamation. My next pass will look at sourcing; I see some pretty dubious sources, and pending book sources, this article should use only the best online sourcing. --John (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Cripes, "soapy hagiography"?? ... what on earth are you suggesting? And what's next... Pope-on-a-Rope? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lou Reed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

First gives "MISSING FLASH PLUGIN", second gives nothing useful? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Cites from lead

I moved these here in case there is anything worth keeping.

Are you saying that all the material that these were supporting in the lead (which should all be in the article main body, of course) is supported by other, better, sources? All four of those look like WP:RS to me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that we shouldn't normally have references in the lead in a mature article. --John (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I quite agree. So I assume they may still be used in the main body, unless there are already better sources there. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. BBC and AllMusic are good sources. I've moved over two more sources from external links. Next step is to replace some of the poorer sources like YouTube with material from these better sources. --John (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I've done that. Large parts of the new biography are available on Amazon Look inside. It looks decent. --John (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

DeCurtis source

I've been dipping into the new book on Google and it looks decent. Unfortunately as I alluded to above, I currently lack the ability to buy a copy. The Google preview lacks page numbers. If anybody reading this has a copy and can look up page numbers, that would be amazing. --John (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Producer

I see some indications that Reed got production credits, sole or partial, for quite a few of his own albums, and for one Laurie Anderson album. If that's all there is, I'd struggle to support continuing to call him a producer in the lead and the infobox. The sources (that I've read) don't seem to mention his production work at all. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

He also produced an Nelson Slater album. But I wouldn't call him a producer anyway. --Marek Koudelka (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Marek Koudelka. Nelson Slater has no article but the album was Wild Angel. Reed also played piano and sang. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've removed it. John (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I think that was the right call. Producing one's own albums generally doesn't qualify a recording artist to be described as a producer. Being known for producing others' albums does, and Reed wasn't known for that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Metric

Wondered whether the band should be added to associated acts since he collaborated/accompanied them on tours during the last couple of years. DevilboyScooby 00:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts: "This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career." I don't believe Metric were significant or notable to Reed's career, so no, they don't belong among the associated acts in his infobox. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Malik Shabazz, I was looking for that template when you found it. I think that's a good question, DevilboyScooby, but I agree that it should not be included. I think it's a slippery slope -- some artist collaborate with dozens of others at the level that Lou Reed collaborated with Metric. -- Cloud atlas (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Profile image

Two Wikipedia users—“Freshacconci” and “Doctorhawkes”—have been repeatedly reverting my edits on this page without explaining why. For over a year now the profile photo of Reed has been the following Wikimedia Commons file: Lou Reed 1977.JPG (see top right).

Lou Reed 1977

This is an iconic image of Reed during his glam rock period, in which, many would argue, his greatest work was recorded. Reed’s whole image as an artist was based on youth, rebellion, anti-authority, etc., and this photo perfectly encapsulates that. However, for whatever reason, this photo was recently replaced by another photo: Lou reed.jpg. (see bottom right).

Lou reed

This photo shows Reed as a frail-looking old man, barely recognizable, and thus a total misrepresentation of the robust, attractive young man who recorded “White Light White Heat, “The Velvet Underground and Nico,” and “Transformer.” Therefore, I switched the photo back to what it was before (Lou Reed 1977.JPG). Unfortunately, the said users promptly began an edit war, immediately reverting my changes without explanation, and, further, harassing and threatening me. They have accused me of being “disruptive” on Lou Reed’s page and informed me that, as a result, I may be blocked from editing without warning. Hmm. How does that work? To the best of my knowledge users are free to edit whatever they want, as long as the content is appropriate and the editing follows Wikipedia’s policies, which mine does. Just because one user disagrees with another, and makes appropriate edits accordingly, doesn’t necessarily make one or both of them “disruptive.” This is a pretty immature stance. The whole point of Wikipedia is to build and sustain a free, community-based encyclopedia, and the said users are doing a disservice to the project by instead creating a hostile, totalitarian environment in which people do not feel welcome to contribute. Jescoromas (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this matter, as I simply ran across this dispute as part of administrative work, but I will simply provide this piece of advice: "my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. You should have brought this here before you started repeatedly reverting to your preferred version, even if it was the status quo ante. (Such action would would likely have kept your talk page free of some of those warnings you received as well.) Your statement above indicating your justification for the choice of image will be much more well-received by other interested editors than this edit summary. Yes, "users are free to edit whatever they want," but whether those edits are justified are determined by consensus, so please try to achieve that here in lieu of continuing to edit war. --Kinu t/c 21:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I find the color image to be an improvement over the black and white image. The BW image is very low in detail; for example the right side of the face is partially in darkness, or underexposed. The contrast in the BW image is very high. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
The black and white image isn't a particularly good picture of Reed during that period, either. Mick Rock's an excellent photographer, and has some great shots of Reed; is the primary virtue of this picture the gun (and there are more interesting pictures of him with the gun, including pointing it at his own head) or the fact that it for whatever reason is public domain? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 21:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Jescoromas, the edit war was on you, and that is why you were blocked; getting into it from your IP address was not a good move. And of course I just reverted another edit of yours here. Next time you come here again as an IP before that block runs out, I will block you indefinitely--for edit warring, for avoiding scrutiny by edit warring as an IP, for block evasion as an IP, and for displaying an attitude incompatible with working on a collaborative project. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

JMHO, but I prefer the colour pic. It's colour, it shows him with a guitar rather than a gun, and it's closer to what he looked like for the last 30 years of his life. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Aesthetic choices that fall outside WP:MOS would be original research. Deciding what Reed himself would like is impossible (and frankly irrelevant) and making decisions based on what we feel "represents" his career falls outside our roles as editors. However, since Jescoromas has insisted on a discussion around aesthetics, I feel we can engage in this. I'm not certain how the 1977 gun image is representative of Lou Reed. Jescoromas insists it's iconic and emblematic of Reed's period of glam rock. Problem is, the image is from 1977 which is long past Reed's glam period (it's debatable he even had a glam period, other than one album). So, if we are to go by that criterion, i.e. "glam Lou", surely an image from the Transformer period would more appropriate, not this image from four years later. As well, Reed's hair and that leather jumpsuit is more in line with disco styles of 1977. Hardly representative of Lou Reed's whole career. The colour image on the other hand, from 2009, is Lou as an older man and frankly does represent the bulk of his career from the 1980s to his death. From a representative POV, it's the clear choice. If we want to go with an older image (i.e. a younger Reed), and we can find a free one, I have no problem with something from the early 1970s, although again in might not be representative of the man's whole career (assuming most people would be of the mind that Velvet Underground era Lou is better for VU articles, not the main Lou Reed one). It seems like consensus is against the 1977 photo and when Jescoromas' block is over he needs to understand that and cease to edit war. As a side note, my main opposition to Jescoromas' edits were not just about the image choice but also his attitude to other editors, his assumption that he's free to do whatever he wants, and his sometimes bizarre and//or flippant edit summaries. Lou Reed was 67 when the 2009 picture was taken. There's nothing wrong with showing a mature artist, especially one who remained productive and relevant right to the end of his longish life. freshacconci (✉) 19:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Honors

Fine article. And very comprehensive—almost.

Regarding honors:

1. A search of this article's text for "Chevalier" turns up nothing. I mean, huh?

A quick glance at the Web turns up other honor(s) you ought to add as well.

2. I think section "Death, legacy, and honors" ought to be broken out into "Death and legacy" and "Honors"; or perhaps "Final illness and death" and "Legacy and honors."

3. It might be nice to reiterate a few, the topmost, honors in the inset of key facts at top.

Since I'm only a dilettante, I'll let you experts on the topic implement.

Jimlue (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The Jades

I added a reference to Lou Reed's first airplay and the fact that King Curtis played on his first 45 single in 1958. This is notable, and despite re-inserting the correct link reference it was deleted. The King Curtis reference is also noted in the Anthony DeCurtis book, but please don't roll back edits unless you have an actual justification in doing so. I'll be forced to return to this article and edit it to include this portion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.208.172 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

When I googled his birthday, it came up March 2, 1944, Wikipedia..

But when I actually got to the page, his correct birth year was mentioned here. I don't know what that's about, but something is wrong there. It's an important mention I believe, as what comes up is wrong, but I don't know why. Try it, you'll see. 2603:7000:3700:B80E:C482:D974:D85C:73E5 (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of information relating to being gay and ECT

There was a recent removal of information as seen here. The contributor states, "This article never mentions a man with whom Lou Reed allegedly had a same-sex relationship. Therefore, no one can assume what was the exact reason for his parents and psychiatrists treating him coldly during his college years. Our article identifies two women he married, therefore the college episode consisted of him questioning his sexuality, not him being gay. Can anyone cite an RS that identifies a man with whom he might have slept?"

I don't have a Reed biography at hand, but I thought this was commonly acknowledged? The Please Kill Me' source seems adequate to me, without having to actually name any of his lovers. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The Please Kill Me source does not identify a man on whom Lou might have had a man-crush. What does it say about Lou’s alleged fantasies?

Our Wikipedia article says Lou married a woman, they divorced, then he married his second wife Laurie Anderson. If the article also claims he was gay, it needs to mention a relationship he supposedly had. Without that, mentioning his fantasies seems cryptic. Everyone has fantasies that never come true. The word questioning would be more accurate than gay.Brent Brant (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, can Lou Reed’s song lyrics be an RS about experiences he had undergone years earlier involving himself and others whom he did not identify by name in the lyrics or in media interviews?

We can’t access any documents from the psychologist who evaluated Lou Reed the college student. Nobody who is alive knows the psychologist’s name.

We don’t know the identity of a man on whom Lou supposedly had a man-crush, let alone a man who might have slept with him.

Therefore, Lou’s song lyrics might not qualify as an RS.Brent Brant (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop using long edit summaries to justify your changes; once your desired changes have been rejected, you are supposed to discuss your changes here on the talk page. Otherwise, you are edit warring. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 01:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
"The text you removed does not say Reed was gay, but, "He believed that he was treated to dispel his feelings of homosexuality." That would appear to supported by the source. Surely he can feel he is gay at one stage of his life and have a hetero relationship later? Suggesting we need evidence of "a man on whom Lou might have had a man-crush" seems silly.
The quote is: "They put the thing down your throat so you don't swallow your tongue, and they put electrodes on your head. That was what they did in Rockland County to discourage homosexual urges."Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Mick Wall's biography says, "A Jew. A fag. A junkie. Lou Reed had already achieved the first two of these goals by the time he was 17 and his parents sent him for ECT, the big new thing in 1950s America for straightening out it's delinquent kids." Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

In the 1950s, thousands of American people who did not express homosexual feelings received ECT, too. Sylvia Plath was among them. Mick Wall’s biography of Lou Reed might not be a RS. Is anyone besides you going to express an opinion here? Brent Brant (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Several biographies and other discussions of Reed make the claim that he was given ECT with the aim of "curing" him of homosexuality. For example, this article, which refers to biographies by Bockris and Doggett. There is clearly a disagreement between those authors and Reed's sister. The article should make clear both sets of opinions, without giving a definitive judgement one way or the other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Quick question though: does the text of the article justify his inclusion in the categories "Bisexual men" and "Bisexual musicians"? Do we need a sentence or two with citations discussing the issue to support the categorization? Dhalamh (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone really care about some (US?) editors' obsession with "categories". I certainly don't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the article should make clear both sets of opinions, and I don't care about the categories, either. Carlstak (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Bockris' bio does mention relationships Reed had with men in the 1960s. I don't believe specific names are mentioned, but of course identifying lovers is in no way a requirement for Wikipedia. As well, Reed had a relationship with Rachel Humphreys, a trans woman who used both male and female pronouns. By today's language, Reed would probably be described as queer but bisexual is clear enough. freshacconci (✉) 13:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
    Don't remove it, because it's HIS TRUTH!! He would have said the same thing, oh, he actually does say the same thing. Watch his interviews or listen to his music. KILL YOUR SONS. Take a Walk on the Wild Side. C'mon guys, stop being judgemental and homophobic already, it's 2022. 2603:7000:3700:B80E:C482:D974:D85C:73E5 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone have a problem with this sentence I added to the paragraph about his ECT treatments that doctors in the 1950s and 1960s thought would cure homosexual urges?
Later in life, Reed married Laurie Anderson and refrained from commenting on any homosexual feelings he might have had.
Here is the reference for it.
Aleksander, Irina (April 23, 2008). "Morning Memo: Lou Reed and Laurie Anderson Make it Legal". The New York Observer. Retrieved August 5, 2015.Brent Brant (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lou_Reed/Archive_2&oldid=1220548592"