Talk:We Built This City

Would it be appropriate to mention the Starbucks version of this song in the trivia section? Info about it here http://stayfree.typepad.com/stayfree/2005/03/jefferson_starb.html

References Needed!! NO SLANDER ALLOWED IF IT IS UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS INSTEAD OF FACTS!!!!!

Please Provide References, NOT PERSONAL OPINIONS!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.20.179.169 (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This good enough for you, crazyman? [1] Doc Strange 11:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose removing the "In Popular Culture" line about Comedian Sean Choolburra in the name of poor notability and possible offensiveness/hackiness ("humans of poor complexion dance differently to those of Africa.") --J.Rai (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I won a bet on this once. This song is not by Jefferson Starship, it's by Starship. Paul Kantner left the band and sued them over use of the name so they dropped Jefferson from it. I've never edited a wiki before so someone else do it. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Starship --JHinAZ (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

About the Reception

Obviously from a hindsight perspective, the song is loathed and criticized, but what was the critical reception to the song back in 1985? It would be interesting to post any positive reviews to highlight the irony of musical taste and perception throughout time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.253.202 (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics?

"...The song references radio pioneer Guglielmo Marconi playing the "mamba". While "mamba" has no musical connotations, there is a dance known as the mambo..."

What?!

That's because the correct lyrics are:

"...Marconi plays La Bamba..."

Watch the video. You can even see them singing the syllables.

Are you really this stupid? Seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.68 (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is actually true, it IS indeed "La Bamba", therefore the whole thing with the Blender quote referencing some miss-heard lyrics is pretty ridiculous, like including a quote based on miss-heard lyrics of Manfred Mann's "blinded by the light", it should probably be removed.OzoneO (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Video

Should mention the video (the Lincoln Memorial statue standing up and Abe lip-synching, people running away from the giant dice rolling down the street, etc.). Also, the genre might be Arena rock... AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Rename Article to 'Blender's Opinion of this Starship Song'

A full third of this article is devoted to Blender's proclamation of this being the worst song ever. Regardless of how we feel about the song, are we really going to devote 1/3 of the content to a single publication? --Jazzcat23 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold and remove it. --CutOffTies (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it...but if Santa Claus leaves me coal this year, I'm blaming you!--Jazzcat23 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed Blender Section

I removed the 'Blender' section of this article as the magazine's opinion of the song nearly 20 years after its release isn't really a valid 'reception' gauge. This is my first article edit...hopefully I didn't create an unbalance in the Force.--Jazzcat23 (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear - I don't think the whole section should be removed, but rather trimmed.. see the guideline on undue weight. Anyway, I restored a paragraph. I believe this addresses your initial concern, which I agree with. Thank you. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, just a FYI going forward.. you should be including an edit summary for your edits, particularly ones like this where you're changing around content significantly. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not married to the article either way. It just caught my eye that an 'encyclopedia' would present a retrospective article from 2004 as 'reception' for a song released 20 years earlier (which simply isn't scholarly or accurate). It's par for the course as far as Wikipedia goes. This time I figured I'd do something instead of complain. Ha...bad move!

I already had my hand slapped for the edit by the Wikipedia Ruling Council. Apparently removing nonconstructive material is considered a nonconstructive change. I wonder if Britannica was like this...--Jazzcat23 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It was changed from three paragraphs to one. See the difference. Blender seems to be a reliable source, so I don't agree with removing it completely. If you would like to add more critical analysis from other reliable sources, feel free. --CutOffTies (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to by "Wikipedia Ruling Council", but your deletion did not include an edit summary; to anyone who wasn't also looking at the Talk page it appeared you were deleting material without providing an explanation. As noted above, when removing material please make a point of including an edit summary. Really, edit summaries are good practice in general. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is a temporary failure or a permanent one, but the link to the article on the blender.com is currently broken; it returns an error messages. I tried searching that site for it to no avail. This reference should either be updated (if possible) or deleted. Viajero | Talk 21:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)