Talk:Electric Arguments/Archive 1

Archive 1

DRM issues

Perhaps this article could include some discussion of the DRM issues[1]? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Low importance?

Can someone kindly explain to me how an album largely by Paul McCartney, the most successful musician in music history, can possibly be "low-importance" on the Wikipedia importance scale? Thanks. Final Philosopher (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, compared to all the other articles on Wikipedia, an article on a music album is less important, than, say, Albert Einstein. It's also more important to focus on the article of Paul McCartney himself than every article about all his musical work. But hey, that's no reason to improve this article and others about his albums! :-) TheTwoRoads (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The scale you can see if for WikiProject The Beatles, which rates all solo albums by a single Beatle as Low-importance. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 12:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Title; original research?

I've tagged some material as possible original research. The title comes from a poem by Allen Ginsberg, but the cited source does not go into nearly the detail that the article does in terms of the possible connections between the music and the poem. (It does have a lot of other excellent commentary by McCartney and Youth that can be added to the article, however.) The material in question is interesting, but seems like a pretty classic case of what Wikipedia calls "original research" unless it can be attributed to a reliable source. It might be better posted elsewhere on the internet unless we can find a good source.

I'd raised this concern once before and removed the material in question, and it was restored by an IP editor (4.182.232.9) who didn't seem familiar with Wikipedia's policy, as the edit summary suggests:

• "This is not speculation: it is a literal description of the literal meanings of the literal words of the poem. No OR is involved in naming album tracks."

Previously, another editor had raised the same concern by adding a "citation needed" tag, which was also removed (probably by the same person above, with IP 4.182.237.106) with a similar edit summary:

• "citation unnecessary for literal reading of poem's grammar".

The edit history shows that similar IP's had originally added the material to the article, e.g. [2], [3], [4].

I believe the IP editor(s) was acting in good faith and simply is not familiar with Wikipedia policy. So, I ask that this time the tag be allowed to remain in order to solicit input from other editors, which is the best way to resolve minor disagreements like this. Thanks! --Middle 8 (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I hope the above didn't sound overly technical/obsessed. I mostly edit science and medicine articles, and it's possible that the detail- and source-focused approach that is critical there is kind of superfluous at WP's music articles. I really don't mind if this Ginsberg stuff stays (and my own take, fwiw, is that it likely is a pretty good take on the sorts of meaningful connections that Sir Paul may have been making).

What I'm gonna do is mine that video for more material specific to the making of the album; there's a wealth of good stuff there. best regards, Middle 8 (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a whole lot about a little. McCartney, according to his own words in the cite, simply used two words, "Electric Arguments," that he read because he liked the two words. There should be no cause to go into the background or content of the Ginsberg poem. If someone nevertheless feels this need, it should be written up as an essay and posted somewhere other than Wikipedia.

In addition, the Off The Ground content is extraneous and appears as if the writer never read the lyrics to the song by that title, after which the album is named. Completely original research in any case.98.232.58.2 (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)