Talk:Along Comes Mary

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Along Comes Mary article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Songs Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

removed drug references claims

I just removed a line saying that the song references drug use "though these allusions are disputed by some critics". Since both the idea that it is and the idea that it isn't are both completely uncited and a quick search for any reliable source mentioning it turns up nothing, I'm removing it to here.

It is a very mellow song with vague references to drug use, although these allusions are disputed by some critics.

-- Antaeus Feldspar 20:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just type "Along comes Mary" and marijuana" as a search in google and you'll get a ton of responses back. Whether or not the song was actually a reference to drugs, many people at the time did think that it was, and the controversy on the subject does belong in this article.

Well, as more proff that bloodhound gang claim it is about marijuana. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q1zZroP_Fk Otherwise, I think it is fine as it is, but maybe somebody could add "as many other people believe." The Association also considered it a drug song. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU2c4yKGtJc Jules TH 16 (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware you're replying to someone's comment from 2007, right? Further, that user was completely within their rights to remove the statement as it was unsourced at the time.

I hope you're also aware that 'a ton of responses' on Google are neither here nor there. It's possible to have 'a ton' of responses, and still have none that satisfy WP:RS. Please also read WP:RSPYT regarding the YouTube videos you listed. Yes, this is good evidence to support that what you're saying is indeed true (which no one is doubting anymore anyway), but you can't cite The Bloodhound Gang making a statement on stage uploaded to someone's personal YouTube channel. You also can't say things like "as many other people believe" without reliable sources as per WP:WEASEL. Thankfully, the source already used in the article does indeed clarify many people thought that, so I've specified that in the article. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki editor messed my formatting up; I only added one sentence about the Association to the talk page because I thought it would be good to quote them on it. The rest isn't by me. Jules TH 16 (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]