Jump to content

Talk:The Fourmost: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 36: Line 36:


:Your analysis seems sound, but I'm afraid that doesn't get around that it's mostly opinion, and if there's no attribution to it we've no option but to put it down to yourself. Wikipedia isn't somewhere to publish your opinions. An if Lennon did say he wrote it on the toilet (which sounds the kind of throwaway line Lennon would say) then a cite would be good. As for it sounding like "vanilla ice cream", well, that's encyclopaedia's for you. They're not suppose to put forward provocative new ideas. Just bland facts summarised from elsewhere. (And [[WP:FORUM|Wikipedia isn't a forum]].) --<font color="purple">[[User:Escape_Orbit|Escape Orbit]]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 18:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
:Your analysis seems sound, but I'm afraid that doesn't get around that it's mostly opinion, and if there's no attribution to it we've no option but to put it down to yourself. Wikipedia isn't somewhere to publish your opinions. An if Lennon did say he wrote it on the toilet (which sounds the kind of throwaway line Lennon would say) then a cite would be good. As for it sounding like "vanilla ice cream", well, that's encyclopaedia's for you. They're not suppose to put forward provocative new ideas. Just bland facts summarised from elsewhere. (And [[WP:FORUM|Wikipedia isn't a forum]].) --<font color="purple">[[User:Escape_Orbit|Escape Orbit]]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Escape_Orbit|(Talk)]]</sup> 18:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


:Escape Orbit, my point is that there are many, many things written on Wikipedia that are nothing more than opinion, even if they appear to be presented in a neutral, matter-of-fact fashion. Another way to put that is there is quite a bit of misinformation on Wikipedia and misinformation is, by definition, nothing more than someone's opinion. I'd like to suggest to you that rather than removing opinions which contribute to the understanding of a given subject, whether it's cognitive behavioral therapy, Igor Stravinsky's later pieces, or The Fourmost, that you focus on removing opinions which are dead wrong and serve to mislead and confuse. I'd also argue that a good encyclopedia doesn't sound like vanilla ice cream and that there is nothing bland about a well-described fact.

R

Revision as of 14:50, 2 November 2008

WikiProject iconMerseyside Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconThe Beatles Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis Brian Epstein/NEMS-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:
For WikiProject The Beatles

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?
WikiProject iconBiography: Musicians Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.


To the previous writer, thanks for the helpful edits. There was very little information in this entry, and I took my time getting the facts right. This was my first entry in Wikipedia. Hope I did all right. It was enjoyable. R. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.79.74 (talkcontribs).

Original research

There's a few claims that such-and-such a song "sounds like", "is reminiscent of" etc. These statements could be seen as original research unless references are provided for them. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Edits by 24.99.154.165

Could IP editor 24.99.154.165 please explain the following additions?

  • "compositions which were felt to be unsuitable for The Beatles themselves" - By removing the word "typically" you are suggesting this was the only reason. Was it?
  • "and said to be written by Lennon while on the toilet" - Nothing wrong with this fact, but do you have a cite for it? "said to be" are what Wikipedia calls weasel words and should be avoided. Who is saying this?
  • "although it sounded remarkably Beatlesque at the time" - this can only be a matter of opinion. Whose opinion is it?
  • "a convincing re-make of "The In Crowd" - again, whether it is 'convincing' or not is an opinion. Whose?
  • "In August 1966, the group tried to piggy-back once more on the Beatles' work" - Did the band say this at the time, or is it someone's opinion of their attempts? Whose opinion? It's a slightly disparaging assessment; Wikipedia should strive to phrase things neutrally.
  • "which seemed to channel The Lettermen - albeit with British accents" - Another opinion. Whose? Why are The Lettermen a good reference point to compare them with? Are you assuming the reader knows who The Lettermen are and what they sounded like?

Now you might guess where these questions are heading. If the above opinions are your own, then they are not notable and not acceptable in the article. And if there are those of someone who is notable, then you need to cite them. Otherwise they'll continue to be removed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I removed the word "typically" because, in this context, it didn't change the meaning of the sentence -- one I originally wrote, along with most of the entry. The early Lennon song was written on the toilet according to Lennon.

I do not agree it is a matter of opinion that the song "I'm In Love" sounds remarkably Beatlesque. I think it's true, in terms of song construction, harmonic content, group harmonizing, lead singing, and instrumentation. The point I was making is that although the song sounded very much like The Beatles, it failed to chart in the U.S. That seems notable to me, not because I think it but because it's true that the song failed to chart in the U.S. and it's equally true that it sounds Beatlesque.

The bit about piggybacking on the Beatles' work was a recent edit written by someone else, but I think it's an accurate statement, not a disparaging one. The Fourmost began their career releasing as singles a couple songs written by John Lennon. After a few releases by other songwriters, and only one hit record, the group released another single from The Beatles catalog. I suppose the most neutral way of putting it would be to say the group released such and such a song. But that makes the entry sound like vanilla ice cream. Of course, that is only my opinion and some folks are partial to vanilla ice cream. When you talk about how giving an opinion is a no-no in this forum, I'd suggest a predominating percentage of "information" on Wikipedia is opinion masquerading as neutral fact.

R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.154.165 (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis seems sound, but I'm afraid that doesn't get around that it's mostly opinion, and if there's no attribution to it we've no option but to put it down to yourself. Wikipedia isn't somewhere to publish your opinions. An if Lennon did say he wrote it on the toilet (which sounds the kind of throwaway line Lennon would say) then a cite would be good. As for it sounding like "vanilla ice cream", well, that's encyclopaedia's for you. They're not suppose to put forward provocative new ideas. Just bland facts summarised from elsewhere. (And Wikipedia isn't a forum.) --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Escape Orbit, my point is that there are many, many things written on Wikipedia that are nothing more than opinion, even if they appear to be presented in a neutral, matter-of-fact fashion. Another way to put that is there is quite a bit of misinformation on Wikipedia and misinformation is, by definition, nothing more than someone's opinion. I'd like to suggest to you that rather than removing opinions which contribute to the understanding of a given subject, whether it's cognitive behavioral therapy, Igor Stravinsky's later pieces, or The Fourmost, that you focus on removing opinions which are dead wrong and serve to mislead and confuse. I'd also argue that a good encyclopedia doesn't sound like vanilla ice cream and that there is nothing bland about a well-described fact.

R