Jump to content

Talk:Bo Diddley

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

Door-knocking rhythm

[edit]

In England, at least, there is a traditional rhythm for tapping or knocking on doors which resembles the Bo Diddley beat. I presume this goes back in time long before BD. I don't know if there is a similar tradition in the USA. I'm not suggesting that this is the origin of the BD beat, but it does imply that the rhythm is a fairly natural one, and not necessarily of African origin.86.173.167.113 (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in the article. Hyacinth (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Bo Diddley was one of the first American male musicians to include women in his band"

[edit]

Doesn't make much sense, so I have changed it. The citation is a dead link also. Mydogtrouble (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bio of Peggy Jones, (Peggy Malone, after marrying)who needs a Wikipedia page. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0540493/bio Mydogtrouble (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First name

[edit]

Was his name ELLIS or ELIAS? This is inconsistent at several points throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venqax (talk • contribs) 16:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ELLAS. The errors seem to have been introduced in this edit - I'll revert it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bo and the Rolling Stones

[edit]

I remember reading at the time, probably in Melody Maker, that the bottleneck used by the Stones on I Wanna Be Your Man had been given to to them by Bo — in hindsight, maybe on that 1963 tour.

Can anyone confirm or deny?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Bo Diddley. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 17:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning

[edit]

This Wikipedia article on Bo Diddley currently has the following statement:

'Guitar craftsman Ed Roman stated that an unspecified source says it was his nickname as a Golden Gloves boxer.'

It's not clear, to me anyway, what this means especially as the associated reference only has a similar statement. But after a search on the web, I found this link that says that Bo Diddley tried his hand as a boxer http: //www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/arts/music/03diddley.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (Incidentally, this NY Times article cites more derivations of the Bo Diddley name than are included in the Wiki article)

As a result I think this is what Ed Roman meant (not necessarily the truth about the Bo Diddley name):

Bo Diddley was a boxer at one time but not very good, hence the description 'Golden Gloves boxer'. From this Bo Diddly was given his stage name meaning 'absolutely nothing'. CPES (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Diddley"

[edit]

I'm concerned that recent edits have changed "Bo Diddley" to "Diddley" throughout the article. In my opinion, "Diddley" was not his surname. The two word name "Bo Diddley" was his nickname, and should have been retained (where we do not use his real surname, McDaniel). I'll be guided by any written advice that exists, but my thinking is that the use of the single word "Diddley" as his name should be avoided. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. What's next, "Bopper"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SURNAME includes "People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (e.g. Sting, Snoop Dogg, The Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used." Most sources use "Waters" and "Wolf" (for Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf) – they are common last names. However, "Diddley" is not and "Bo Diddley" is seen more often. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Snoop Dogg is not called Dogg I don't think. 50 Cent is not called Cent. And so forth. At any rate this seems to have been fixed. Herostratus (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Beefheart seems to bounce back and forth, between “Beefheart “ and “Van Vliet”, at random? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading some time ago (in his painter phase) that he was trying to distance himself from CB and wanted to be known as Don Van Vliet. Using "Van Vliet" would sidestep the issue. Otherwise repeating "Captain Beefheart" throughout the article would get very tiring. This may be a problem with longer pseudonyms. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that CB was, in his music phase, routinely referred to as "Beefheart". "Muddy Waters" is an interesting one in that it was originally a two-word childhood nickname, but over time I think "Waters" did get adopted as a sort of surname. In Bo Diddley's case, some sources may have taken the same approach, but to a much lesser extent. I know that there are guidelines that say we should be consistent over matters like this, but in my view it's much more important to reflect what good sources say, avoid any confusion, and to use some common sense over what names are used in articles. For example, I tried to avoid, in this article, referring to "Sausage". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't want to see you horsing around. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bo Diddley. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bo Diddley. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why his guitar was rectangular

[edit]

After having his Gibson stolen, he decided to create a unique guitar. If anyone stole it, walked about with it, people would say "hey that's Bo Diddleys guitar".

86.180.10.82 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Guitar is called the Bo Diddley Gretsch.

[edit]

It is one of the few guitars to be named after a musician. 47.36.98.222 (talk) 17:00 January 11 2020 (UTC)

drums

[edit]

He actually could play drums so I added drums in instrument list proof https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRy4GTqIQ2I 44:16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.180.144.9 (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Emphatically States That His Middle Name Is Not “Otha”

[edit]

He claims that his name is Ellas Bates McDaniel (spelling of these names not checked).

See 5:00 - 5:20 in the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqvx2evI0eE

Opie8 (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most reliable sources give his birth name as Ellas Otha Bates - and therefore so does Wikipedia - although Eagle and LeBlanc (in Blues: A Regional Experience, pp.227-228) state that "he may be Ellis Landry, born in late 1927...". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite an interesting video, published by something called "www.newseuminstitute.org", so presumably copyright compliant. It might sound a bit odd that he should very clearly state in that interview with Ken Paulson on Speaking Freely that his name is "Ellas Bates McDaniel" and to state "...my name is not Otha.. if you read that in a book someplace.... I don't know where they got that Otha from...."? But then the article does says he later "dropped the Otha and became Ellas McDaniel". So there's no real problem. Many people, especially in show-business, don't use their birth name. His name, for most people, is Bo Diddley. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. the DAB page for Otha doesn't give any clue as to its origins, although there are a couple of other African Americans there who also have the name. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His official website, by the way, states "...born Ellas Otha Bates....". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An artist indignantly clarifying his name and previous inaccuracies on television would probably be relevant and would perhaps carry considerable weight in a general biography of the man. Many artists have official websites. These are typically not run by the artist. Many pages of this sort have contain glaring inaccuracies, and there is no standard for them journalistically.
Do any of the notorious "Otha" sources provide any backing whatsoever that would establish more credo than the words from the artist's mouth?
Also, "But then the article does says he later "dropped the Otha and became Ellas McDaniel". So there's no real problem." Does the article in question also carry more weight of fact than the artist's words in an interview? As you can tell, I'm intoning that different sources, as most know, have differing gravitas.
As to the argument "But then the article does says he later "dropped the Otha and became Ellas McDaniel". So there's no real problem. Many people, especially in show-business, don't use their birth name. His name, for most people, is Bo Diddley." The article in question does not carry as much weight as the artist's words, so yes, there is indeed a problem/conflict, and the fact about having a stage name is oddly irrelevant here, as his stage name has been preserved and noted very clearly in the article.
I'm a bit new to Wiki, but Ghmyrtle perhaps you can help: "most reliable sources claim" begs substantiation. Which reliable sources, how did you determine their reliability, and how did you determine that the majority of reliable sources contain the "otha" error? Is it Wiki's policy to preserve an error, due to the widespread nature of the error? That would be in the opposite direction of anything methodologically journalistic, wouldn't it? Meaning, it doesn't seem to stand to reason. Also, please see my note about "official websites". Thank you!
--Royal2Real (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to check out the guidance on reliable sources. "Is it Wiki's policy to preserve an error, due to the widespread nature of the error?" - yes, in the sense that it is policy to report what reliable sources say, rather than what people believe to be true. What he claimed in one interview should not outweigh the volume of other sources. For example, the encyclopedia published by the University Press of Mississippi states "Otha Ellas Bates" here; the encyclopedia African American Lives gives "Otha Ellas Bates"; the well-respected book Blues: A Regional Experience by Eagle and LeBlanc (p.227) states "Ellas Otha Bates"; the LA Times obituary gives "Otha Ellas Bates".... the list goes on. His official social security death record gives his name as "Ellas Otha Bates McDaniel". I'm not opposed to mentioning what he claimed in the interview, but multiple sources regarded as authoritative give a different picture - as does his official website of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Royal2Real, the comment "But then the article does says he later "dropped the Otha and became Ellas McDaniel" was made by me, not Ghmyrtle, thanks. The relevant comment on the video is from 4:25. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, glad to see a lively discussion! Ghmyrtle I have checked out the page on reliable sources. I'm checking it out again for you now. I have a few more questions of interest:
It looks like you're making a quantitative argument. You've argued that the greater alleged quantity of "reliable sources" should generally necessitate a greater favoring of even a journalistic repeat-error. There are some problems with this. "What he claimed in one interview should not outweigh the volume of other sources." This is not how journalism typically works, because this is the precise same argument as "If it's popular, it must be right." which I would hope nobody of adult age would find a convincing edict. You then list a few sources, but without any apparent attention paid to the reliability and veracity (or lack thereof) of each source. Simply listing a volume of citations does not make each citation worthy, accurate, integral, or even trustworthy or "reliable".
I'd like to point you to a couple of things, to further illustrate. Wiki's the guidance on reliable sources states, under the header "questionable sources": "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight." -- This is true of some of the sources you're hinging your argument upon. A legacy artist's website (run by whom, a service hired by his estate?) is not a source known for fact checking, and quite obviously is not subject to objective "editorial oversight". It is an unreliable source for something as hard-data related as an artist's birth name, or even preferred off-stage moniker. Further, the same guidelines in the very page you directed me to describe websites "that are promotional in nature" as falling under "questionable sources". You've mentioned "but multiple sources regarded as authoritative..." Those don't appear to be authoritative sources, as per Wikipedia's own guidelines.
So, Ghmyrtle, it looks like we may need to clear up the following: I've challenged your consensus-via-volume argument, we'll need elucidation on that I think if we're to move forward, as well as addressing the questionable sources you've listed, as per the idea that they should be admissible.
Good to be among music-lovers! --Royal2Real (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123 Hey Martin, believe me, I've seen the portion of the video you're talking about, I've actually been talking in favor of it this entire time, haha. It's a great clip! However, Bo does not state or even imply what you've alleged here. The portion of the video beginning at 4:25 does not in fact include Bo stating 'The 'Otha' was later dropped'", nor does he even imply this by stating "That's why I have the name Ellas...". I can help with the linguistic mechanics involved with why this is not an implication, if that will help. In the video, Bo also outright disparages the idea that the name "Otha" was ever belonging to him at any point, actually. He intones with his mocking impression at 5:17 with "somebody decided... we'll just give him [a name]!" very strongly that "Otha" is an entirely fictitious and erroneous fabrication of the press/media. So I appreciate being pointed to the video, but I will point you back to the same video, having pointed out that the implication of "the 'Otha' was later dropped" is not in that video! Funny trails we walk in this editing business, haha. What can we make of this, then?
--Royal2Real (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Royal, I believe you've seen the video. That time code was really for the benefit of other editors. I'm not claiming he says anything about "Otha" there, apart from you what you have already quoted. The sources that Ghmyrtle quotes are good enough for me. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC) p.s. his official website still states "...born Ellas Otha Bates....".[reply]
This is fatuous reasoning, Royal2Real, and one would think you'd know better. It should be obvious that we cannot use a subject's own claims about himself, whether in a video clip, a book, or a newspaper or magazine. Familysearch.org cites the United States Social Security Death Index database, Ellas Otha Bates McDaniel, 02 Jun 2008; citing U.S. Social Security Administration, Death Master File, database (Alexandria, Virginia: National Technical Information Service). His headstone says "Elias B. McDaniel". I've added a cite of the Encyclopedia of African American History to the article. Anyway, just as an aside, I saw Bo Diddley play that chunka "gitar" on the beach not more than 50 feet from the breaking waves, and it was sublime. I think the rednecks in attendance were confused by that rectangular box, thinking it was a joke. He was laughing. Carlstak (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to challenge the reliability of sources, the place to go is WP:RSN - not here. Sorry, but we're here as encyclopedia editors - being music lovers as well is incidental! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a profound number of points that have been missed here. Let's take them one by one.
Martinevans123 "The sources that Ghmyrtle quotes are good enough for me." They are not good enough for Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia's own current standards. Please see WP:RS
"p.s. his official website still states "...born Ellas Otha Bates...."." Martin, I have already covered why this is not a "reliable source" as per Wiki's own guidelines. I would advise carefully reading before responding, I know I always try to, and I find that helps with understanding.
Ghmyrtle "If you want to challenge the reliability of sources, the place to go is WP:RSN - not here." That is incorrect. That page is to delineate what constitutes a reliable source in Wiki's eyes, this page is in part to discuss whether or not the material in the article, including given citations, are subject to proper Wiki standards, amongst other things.
"Sorry, but we're here as encyclopedia editors - being music lovers as well is incidental!" You seem to have taken my polite send-off, intended as "I see you also enjoy music, I do too, this is a good thing" to mean "I allege that the purpose we are here for is not to edit, but to be a category of person called 'music lover'" That's really not what I wrote, nor intended.
You make a great point though! We are indeed editing, and part of that should necessarily be holding the edits to Wiki's standards.
To be extra clear, and to put part of my argument in simplified terms: I have not challenged the content of Wiki's guidelines, I have used the guidelines to challenge some of the relevant citations. None of these citations have been adequately defended against my having pointed out that they're unreliable, and so the edit I made remains largely appropriate, and significant changes are still warranted.
--Royal2Real (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, there aren't "a profound number of points that have been missed". We've got a small disagreement as to whether his birth name was Ellas Otha Bates. If you feel dissatisfied, you might want to open an RfC here. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123 "No, there aren't "a profound number of points that have been missed". I disagree, though I'll re-word that to: A few very important points have gone un-addressed, which I think have disproven the counterclaims toward my edits not being to the general benefit of the article. Being that these points appear to have been ignored/not contended with, they do indeed remain un-addressed. "We've got a small disagreement" Subjective. "as to whether his birth name was Ellas Otha Bates." That seems incorrect. The principle disagreement appears to be whether or not certain sources should be favored in relation to other sources, you've also ignored Ghmyrtle's veracity-by-volume argument, which, while I disagree, should not be forgotten, as Ghmyrtle has made an effort and those views deserve to be considered. Again, I think I disproved his point, but I'm not willing to pretend his argument doesn't deserve airtime. Thanks for the cheers, though I would've liked you to participate! I'll do the RfC and see if some other parties might be able to properly address the points made.
--Royal2Real (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Carlstak Good to see you! The sarcastic and condescending tone of "This is fatuous reasoning, Royal2Real, and one would think you'd know better." is childish and emotional, and not acceptable here. Perhaps a bit fatuous, even! lol. Let's calm down and try not to get our heads full of hot air, shall we?
"citing U.S. Social Security Administration" THIS is a valid citation. Have you seen the parts above where I was describing Wiki's guidelines regarding the quality of citations? SSA records like that would be an example of a "reliable source" WP:RS. Which is good! One would think that in your efforts to snark you may have had the clarity of mind to present your case instead -- This citation doesn't appear to be included in the article's footnotes, however. Have I missed it? Might you include it rather than removing my edits with presumptuous and passive-aggressive commentary? Thanks. Also, I don't know that "I think the rednecks in attendance were confused" comes across as anything but simultaneously smug and tragically ignorant. That's a fine way to get a more tolerant person than yourself to disregard your already bitterly emotional language.
"It should be obvious that we cannot use a subject's own claims about himself, whether in a video clip, a book, or a newspaper or magazine." No, it should not be, as that doesn't appear to be suggested by the guidelines, and you've provided only alarmingly circular logic here. While it IS obvious both to most people, and via the guidelines, that such interview sources involving a claim by the artist themselves, are not to be taken as irrefutable fact, you'll notice I'm not arguing anymore for more than the inclusion of Bo's words regarding this issue. One of the thing I'd attempted to add, if you'll take a look at the edit history.
I wonder if WP:PRIMARY might be relevant, wherein we find "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."
We could look at WP:RS/QUOTE: "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount [video of the person speaking the quote would appear to be fairly reliable as to whether or not he said it] and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive." Should we not consider the quotes from the interview? Should we not include his own protestations about his name? Surely we should at least mention it, which my now excised section about the name controversy would be useful for, and the existence of that section would also seem to be partly necessitated by Bo's strident clarification in the video, and implication that it was a big deal he was sufficiently concerned about, even at that advanced point in his career. A recording of a TV program of that sort and era would certainly be considered a published and reliable source.
The video clip fits Wiki's definition of a reliable, published source, as demonstrated, is a direct quote from the person the article is about, seems to carry with it both by evidence of importance to the artist, and by the clearly evident bevvy of documents and attestations about his name having roughly 12 trillion different forms, is certainly a worthy addition to the article.
If we could get everyone to type in a more mature and dispassionate manner, that would surely be more beneficial to this process.
--Royal2Real (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tl;dr. Bludgeoning this page won't work. Carlstak (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR, in case you don't know the abbreviation. I'm still participating, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely possible that Diddley just never learned his middle name from his mother and therefore believed that he had none. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Later years and Death sections. Specifically vague ownership of music rights and lawsuits. Advertisement

[edit]

--Later years section:

-7th paragraph:

"with the sportswear brand." What brand? Also what happened with the lawsuit mentioned at the end of the paragraph?

-12th paragraph:

"Diddley sold the rights to his songs early on, and until 1989 he received no royalties from the most successful part of his career." There is no mention of this anywhere else on the page and should be expanded on.

--Death section:

"In 2019, members of Bo Diddley's family sued to regain control of the music catalog held in trust by attorney Charles Littell." Who is Charles Littell? There is no mention of him prior to this. Did he have control of his music prior to his death or because of his death he gained control of his music?

"The family was represented by Charles David of Florida Probate Law Group in the 2019 lawsuit." This is advertising and should be removed. 73.228.222.112 (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bo_Diddley&oldid=1259430423"