User talk:Pmanderson/List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

what this is

Just want to be sure - please correct me if I'm wrong: this is essentially Joe's revised list that he wanted to reinstate and it can be posted without prejudice? So all they did was remove a three year history where people could have gone back and looked at earlier list entries and researched them, adding them when they're up to acceptable - and with the deletion standing all of that work was lost. Well, I hope someone's happy, because I'll be damned if this makes any sense. IAR is dead, long live IAR. Tvoz |talk 17:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the history appears all to be here. But I agree this was ridiculous. - Jmabel | Talk 19:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

ah - you're right, it is there. I bet I looked at the history of talk instead of the history of the page. (That's why I said "please correct me if I'm wrong"...). Tvoz |talk 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Who decides what is covert?

This list is still very controversial. Membership to the list must be absolutely spelled out in the lede paragraph, and even so, the list is not in reference to any article or idea but rather something that is not explicitely spelled out. I think that in order to have this list not constantly go up for deletion, it needs to fulfill both the guidelines for lists but also the relevant essays. Until then, just having sources saying that a song refers to someone else won't be enough to keep the list. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines:

• WP:LIST
• WP:CLS
• Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)

Essays:

• WP:Listcruft
• WP:LISTV

Is there a higher standard for this list than other articles? If sources say a reference is a reference, why is that not enough to make the list? Tvoz |talk 08:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessarily that there's a higher standard, but I do think that there's a different standard. But there needs to be clear (aka not confusing at all) standards for list inclusion, and it needs to be spelled out in the lede paragraph. But sure, if a source states "song X contains a covert reference to song Y," then it should be in the article. If not, then the name of the list should probably be changed. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• May I suggest that "implicit" might be a better term than "covert"? And possibly "allusions" rather than references?
• This may belong as several separate lists, or at least include a discussion of the several types of possible references: quotation and paraphrase, reference to the facts of someone's life, puns on their name, etc.
• The following would all seem to me to be obviously valid grounds for saying that an implicit reference exists:
  1. The artist has acknowledged the reference. For example, the artist might have said this in an autobiography, or an interview, or in a concert (verifiable by a recording), or by linking from their own official web site to a site that presents discussion of the allusions (as Don McLean does with American Pie). If there is ambiguity about the certainty of some of the allusions (as in the Don McLean case) the footnotes should clarify what is going on.
     • Another example of this sort of acknowledgement, though possibly a unique one, is that Patti Smith, in a documentary about Benjamin Smoke, recites the lyrics of "Death Singing" (in their entirety), and makes it clear that they are about him.
  2. As with literary references in any other genre, a respected writer in the field should be citable. For example, a musicologist or historian of popular culture, or a critic writing in Rolling Stone or Village Voice, or the music critic of a newspaper that does serious music coverage (not only the Über-press like the New York Times or The Guardian, but also someone writing for Seattle's The Stranger or for the Boston Phoenix).
  3. I realize that there will be some disagreement over this last, because some people here believe that you have to cite for the sun being visible in the sky on a clear day at noon, but some quotations and paraphrases are so blatant that they should no more need a citation than, well, the uncited statements that make up the bulk of such featured articles as ASCII or Macintosh. Examples of this would include "Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow" in Bush's "Everything Zen" or "I was 21 years when I wrote this song, I'm 22 now, but I won't be for long" in Billy Bragg's "A New England", both verbatim from famous songs. Or (even if we didn't have a solid citation, which we do), Bragg's "a dedicated swallower of fascism" as a reference to "Dedicated Follower of Fashion".

- Jmabel | Talk 20:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth - "implicit" is easier, much easier to deal with than "covert" Modernist 22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Shall we do something with this?

No one seems to be working on this at present. So: should we take it back into article space? I think we should. And we have to decide whether, before doing that, we will remove the ones that are obvious but lack formal citation.

I think it is incredibly stupid to demand a citation in order to say (for example) "'Rebel Rebel' was your favorite song" (in a song whose title, "1974", is the year Bowie's "Rebel Rebel was released, I might add) is a reference to "Rebel Rebel", but I'm not going to fight over it. In no way do we serve our readers by this sort of pedantry, but I'm sick of fighting over it. It strikes me as being exactly as stupid as if in an article on the French Revolution we had to find a citation that each individual mention of, say, Robespierre was to Maximilien Robespierre and not to some obscure and otherwise unknown man of the same surname. Of course there are no such citations to be found, because most writers presume that their readers are not idiots. - Jmabel | Talk 07:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

added wikilink to Rebel Rebel Tvoz |talk 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Per discussion above: as List of songs containing implicit references to real musicians? - Jmabel | Talk 17:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, the most appropriate way to do this is to re-open another DRV on the topic. That way, it will ensure the article is a) fit for inclusion and b) will not be deleted again based on the previous deletion. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you might just create the article as List of songs containing implicit references to real musicians and let it fly, hopefully and unlike Icarus it won't crash, it's very well referenced. Modernist 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that generally in a case like this, it goes back to DRV before going up. But do as you wish. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

When I tried DRV, I was multiply chewed out on the basis that that could only overturn bad process, and that the actual merits of the article were irrelevant. That is a large part of what led to my departure from most of my participation in Wikipedia: I was trying to argue the merits of the case, and was met with legalistic procedural obstruction, which I think should have little or no role in the writing of an encyclopedia. So if anyone else wants to go through DRV and be slapped around, have at it, but I'll be damned if I am opening myself up again to be insulted and mocked. - Jmabel | Talk 06:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is just create a new article, new name, same stuff. Modernist 17:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying we should cut and paste and lose all the history? I think that might violate GFDL. - Jmabel | Talk 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:::I agree with Modernist Tvoz |talk 18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I do not think we should cut and paste and lose the history - I didn't take Modernist's comment to mean that, but if it did, I withdraw my agreement. I think we should rename the article and post it, with the history intact, as resrouce material for future research and inclusion with citations if found. Tvoz |talk 19:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again Joe I do agree with both of you - rename it, post it, history and all, don't break the rules, but try it again - it is well referenced now. Although - have you seen this? :List of songs which refer to other songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) Modernist 00:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unlike this one, that list was nearly or entirely uncited. - Jmabel | Talk 19:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thought - I think you should wait, they are deleting every single list they can find, citations or no citations, best to wait until the climate changes. Modernist 14:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) What with all this global warming, the climate might have changed by now - any objection to me going for it? I have a weakness for articles/lists of this kind - maybe it's my warped vision of reality - but they really are the kinda stuff that give Wikipedia added value over other encyclopedias - unfortunately we have to take a few roughs with a smooth and also include Pokemon et al.. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I never changed my mind about the value and legitimacy of this article. I'd be bappy tos ee this reinstated. Please keep me informed - it was pure luck that I saw this, as my watchlist is somewhat out of control. Good luck and thanks! Tvoz/talk 07:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Tvoz and thanks for thumbs-up! As I'm still a newcomer to the topic, I'll need a bit of time to digest all the comments for and against. And it would be nice to get consensus on whether it should go under a new title, and a couple of other points. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Any objections?

Greetings All. Minor detail - just thinking out loud here: How 'bout simplifying the title slightly & naming it List of songs containing references to real musicians. It could then be divided into two sections, one for covert refs. and the other for overt refs?--Technopat (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)