Talk:Andy Russell (singer)

What is the value today on his record

Andy Russell and his parents are not Spanish but Mexican
As of 10/5/13, this article states that Andy Russell was "was one of ten children (eight boys, two girls) born to parents who were Mexican immigrants of Spanish descent."

According to the book Barrio Rhythm: Mexican American Music in Los Angeles by Steven Joseph Loza, on p. 143, Loza quotes Andy as saying that he has "100% Mexican blood." His mother was originally from Chihuahua, Mexico, and his father emigrated to the United States from the Mexican state of Durango.

Furthermore, with regards to his ethnic heritage, on page 144, Andy states: "You know, I would tell everybody, I'd say 'I'm Mexican,' and they'd say, 'No, Andy, you must be Spanish.'  I'd say, 'No, I'm Mexican...' and they'd say, 'No, Andy, but you're so light.'  And I'd say, 'No, no.  I'm Mexican.  My father's Mexican.  My mother's Mexican..."

I propose the opening paragraph be changed to accurately reflect Russell's personal recollections: He was one of ten children (eight boys, two girls) born to Mexican parents who had immigrated to the United States. (And remove any reference to "Spanish" or Spain).

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ocz3wYCaxt8C&pg=PA143&dq=andy+russell+100+percent+Mexican+blood&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rNNQUoWzH8mpiQKjh4CgDg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=andy%20russell%20100%20percent%20Mexican%20blood&f=false

MiztuhX (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC) MiztuhX (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC) MiztuhX (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

major NPOV and OR issues
This article has several severe issues with respect to neutral point of view and original research.

In the former (NPOV) case: Words like "regrettably" should rarely, if ever be used in an encyclopedic article. (The statement it's attached to -- that Russell has largely been "forgotten" -- is unsupported by citations, but that's another issue.) The "Singing ambassador" section is full of label-written promotional quotes from packaging that say little about Russell other than how wonderful he is, which is typical of such packaging at the time (contrary to the statement that these quotes represent "how [Russell] envisioned his life" himself). Also, merely saying that examining these quotes is "the best way to sum up Andy Russell's life" is also non-neutral (and evidently unsupported).

In the latter (OR) case: The "Legacy" section is full of unsourced speculations about why Russell is "not remembered" to the extent that the writer(s?? wouldn't surprise me if just one person wrote this article, honestly) clearly think he should be, even going on to list recognitions that he did not later receive. (These statements also implicitly state that he should have received such recognitions, which is also a serious violation of NPOV policy.) It also speculates, again, with no support, about the reasons why critics apparently "dismissed" Russell. More frustrating still is that these statements that Russell has indeed been dismissed or forgotten are not clearly supported by inline citations throughout the article; pointing out that he did not win certain awards later is not adequate support for this idea.

The most flagrant circumvention of the original research policy is found in the "Controversy about racial and ethnic identity" section. I would hope that anyone familiar with Wikipedia's basic policies can see what is horribly wrong with this section, but I'll sum it up anyway. This section, including all its subsections, is essentially a point-by-point rebuttal of some critics of Russell, one academic one in particular. While it is of course appropriate to incorporate dissenting views and rebuttals from other critics into the article, writing one's own rebuttal of published, cited criticisms into the article is completely unacceptable. Descriptions of some criticism of Russell as "simple, almost naive" and other such value judgments are also unwarranted, un-encyclopedic and non-neutral. All this "it should be noted that" and "it is interesting to note that" nonsense also needs to be cut out. In general, this section needs to be revised almost entirely, or, if editors are unable or unwilling to rewrite an acceptable version, simply removed.

Essentially the entire article needs review on these grounds. Thank you.Mmrsofgreen (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The sign photo?
Really, a photo of a Boyle Heights sign? Is this to prove the neighborhood has a sign with its name on it? Seriously, though—while I have no doubt the person who added it meant well, it adds nothing of value to the article, and may create the impression that WP is falling over itself to utilize any PD images it can. – AndyFielding (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)