Talk:American Pie (song)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Parodies section

The "Other parodies, revisions and uses" section seems to be getting a little overblown. Can this be treated as a trivia section and deleted? I don't think it adds anything to the article. --Manway (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable descriptions of relevant parodies are indicative of a property's place in popular culture. Powers ^T 13:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Link #20 referring to Roger Ebert's article is gone. I'm not sure if he moved it, or if it's completely gone. What I did find was a Michigan article referencing it (also with the same 404 link here): http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/05/roger_ebert_calls_rob_bliss_gr.html Not sure if this should go ahead and replace the 404 ebert link? 80.101.162.155 (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Notable references section

It's most probably not "Vladimir Lenin - read a book of Marx" but "John Lennon - read a book of Marx" .

See mentioned references like http://user.pa.net/~ejjeff/pie.html

82.83.5.135 (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

some interprite it meaning bolth  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.227.2 (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC) 

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}} I think one, maybe two sentences should be added in "Parodies, revisions and uses" section to link to Lori Lieberman, Killing Me Softly with His Song, and/or Roberta Flack. Those articles link to American Pie, but strangely not the other way around (starting from the American Pie entry, you'd need to follow a long list of external references to learn that story). I think the role of American Pie as inspiration for another famous song is noteworthy with respect to the song's history and would add to the article.

Proposed edit: McLean's performance of "American Pie" in 1973 at the Troubadour Club in L.A., with folk singer Lori Lieberman in attendance, inspired the song "Killing Me Softly with His Song".

REFERENCES: http://www.superseventies.com/1972_1singles.html http://www.don-mclean.com/killingmesoftly.asp Marcolf (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: First, none of those three articles link to this one. Second, the Don Mclean website doesn't mention that it was this song that inspired Lieberman, just Don Mclean in general. I didn't check the other site, as I'm fairly certain it doesn't qualify as an RS. In any event, even if you got a citation, I would argue that it was Don McLean that inspired the song, not any one particular song of his, and thus, if anywhere, it goes in Don McLean, although even that would be require consensus to decide if it's important enough to warrant inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Lennon vs. Lenin

Why does the article say "official lyrics show this to be John Lennon" while the lyrics posted at McLean's own site (http://www.don-mclean.com/viewsong.asp?id=89) say Lenin (or, lenin)? Was Lennon what was printed on the original album liner notes? 98.197.249.31 (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request 2

{{Edit semi-protected}}

The first paragraph of the article reads the sentence The importance of "American Pie" to America's musical and cultural heritage, using the name America instead of United States or United States of America. I request to whoever has the permission to edit this article to modify that, whereas America refers to the whole continent, not the country. It may be used by the people of the United States to refer to their country, but Wikipedia, as an international encyclopedia, should not adhere to this, since outside the United States the term America only refers to the continent.

So please, change "The importance of 'American Pie' to America's musical and cultural heritage" to "The importance of 'American Pie' to the musical and cultural heritage of the United States." Thanks. 201.220.232.61 (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Nico

Partly done: I used a different phrasing, but the "America" part is out nonetheless. The truth is that we could keep it, because that's actually a near quote from the RIAA project itself (see Songs of the Century), but it's not really necessary. I do agree with your general sentiment, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

References

I'm pretty uncomfortable with the list of pop culture references supposedly alluded to in the song. This is all speculation as McLean, who wrote it, has not commented. I think more effort should be made to downplay the interpretations as presenting them is not encyclopedic. This is art, and there are no correct answers. DFS (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

At first I was going to say "But it is sourced, and we do include sourced interpretations of other artistic works, so long as the source is known for artistic criticism." But then I actually looked at those sources, and the authors don't appear to be musical authorities, and the sites themselves don't even appear to meet WP:RS. Plus, I've seen that section change a lot, and I don't know how much of it actually matches the sources any more. I'm inclined to agree that the whole section should be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has provided any justification for why we should consider those reliable sources, which they do not seem to be, I'm removing it all. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Are these really less "reliable" sources than the casual mentions in tabloids we see used to support factoids in music-related and other articles all over Wikipedia? One of these sources was in effect published by a major radio station, and the other appears well researched, itself citing multiple sources, and apparently having been mentioned on Don McLean's own website. That said, I don't think the list format was the best way to present the information; it would probably be better to use some of the theories mentioned to augment the existing prose. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The point you make about other bad sourcing on Wikipedia falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--that is, there's a lot of badness across the 'pedia, but that doesn't prevent us from removing badness wherever someone identifies it and cannot fix it. Regarding the "mentioned on McLean's website", it would depend on how it was mentioned, and the problem is that I think the mention is no longer available. If McLean said, "There's a writer who pretty much nailed most of the references, see the page at ..." then we could include it. If McLean said, "There's this writer who thinks he knows what I meant in 'American Pie'--what do you think?" then we wouldn't want to include it. If anyone has or can find an archive copy of what McLean actually said, that would help us evaluate it. Regarding the "published by a major radio station", that probably wouldn't meet WP:RS in this case, unless the radio station/program were famous for music criticism or investigative journalism. As a comparison, if Behind the Music made an interpretation, I'd probably consider it a noteworthy opinion; if a random dj on a random local station made them, I'd consider it undue. One thing to keep in mind is that any interpretation of lyrics is an opinion, so we have to deal with the NPOV requirement to only include opinions in due weight to their actually importance in the real world. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely there must be reliable sources out there with interpretations of the song? I found some of the deleted content on Google Books here. –CWenger (^ • @) 04:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Good find, and a good illustration of what I dislike about the notion of Reliable Sources on Wikipedia. I know we need some rules about "reliable sources" because identifying the truly reliable sources which are often produced by dedicated amateurs is too subjective, but we should really not be expected to give that book any credence. I say this not because it's so general in scope that its authors are extremely unlikely to have carried out in-depth research on every single topic mentioned in it (though this is also true) but because it states opinion as fact. If that's a "reliable" source, give me an "unreliable" one any day.Contains Mild Peril (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Interpretations

Honestly, most of the interpretations in this article are completely ridiculous. Specifically, the part about the line "And the three men I admire most/ the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost" referring to President John F. Kennedy, his brother, Robert, and Martin Luther King, Jr. or Buddy Holly and co. seems to me nothing more than asinine drivel when taking in the frequency of religious terms throughout the song. I hardly mean to disparage the entire website the citation was given to, but perhaps the line in the song refers to the land being simply godless instead of a consideration of how McLean felt about any of these people. I think this is a confusing assertion, backed with little to no reasonable proof and that it should be removed or edited in a way that gives a broader scope on what those terms mean to the overall context of the song and on the impact of their departure. ----Troy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdsoil2 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Presence on the charts

What's this song doing on the charts at the moment?--90.204.123.16 (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Madonna version

Despite the earlier discussions in 2009, it seems abundantly obvious to me that the Madonna version deserves an article of it's own. By itself, it has 37 references, the version was top of the charts in a half dozen countries, and was certified gold or platinum in nearly as many. The very lead of this article indicates that this version is about the McLean song, not about the song in general. It's fine for the other cover versions, which don't appear to have been nearly as successful, to just have info here (as they wouldn't meet WP:NMUSIC for a standalone article). But the other article was necessary. I've left a paragraph here with relevant information and links to the other article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As there was community support to keep all parts of the same song together I undone your split. If you want to split it might be wiser to get support from the community first. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you'll need to take it to AfD. The other article meets all of our notability requirements. It will be judged as an article in and of itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would vote to have one article on the song. Madonna's performance of it is, of course, notable; but it's still the same song. She also deserves a mention in the lede, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Borock (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Despite the chart success of Madonna's version, I have doubts about any lasting notability or impact that could justify a separate article. Hell, Madonna herself is dismissive of the song, according to the article. There is rather a lot of info about this cover in the article but I feel that's more a case of undue weight than a reason for a split. "Track listings and formats" could really do with being nuked. As far as the hatnote goes, I think that's fine the way it is - the song is by Don McLean, after all. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but wtf are you talking about? The way Wikipedia judges "lasting notability" of songs is chart performance. A song that hits 99 out of a top 100 chart in only 1 country for only 1 week can have a standalone article, so long as there is something useful to say about it beyond just track notes. This song was number one in 13 countries, certified platinum in 2 and certified gold in 4 more. In any event, there is no justification in policy to have these two songs in the same article. They're not the same song, they don't have identical lyrics or musical phrasing, they were released decades apart, and have radically different reasons for being notable (McLean's for being a "magnum opus" and a consistently ranked performer in "best song of all times", Madonna's for being extremely commercially successful). It's absolutely ridiculous that somehow Richhoncho has managed to reverse the normal burden here: the obviously default position should be separate articles, because the Madonna song is separately notable, not me having to argue in favor of a "split", when these should never, per policy, been combined in the first place.

If for some reason these are kept together, the article needs to be radically altered, with equal prominence given to both versions, as there is no rationale for the McLean version being more "important". Qwyrxian (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think some of these statements from Qwyrxian above need analysing.

• Qwyrxian says, "They're not the same song" Excuse me!!! The point of the argument is they are the same song - just different recordings!
• Qwyrxian says, "they don't have identical lyrics or musical phrasing." At least we partially agree here, Madonna doesn't use all the lyrics and she does re-phrase, but what a wonderful section of a merged article can be written about these very points, something really encyclopedic. Oh No you'd rather separate and pretend McLean didn't write the song. Better to have TWO substandard articles rather than one good article eh, just so Madonna has her own article space.
• Qwyrxian says, "Richhoncho has managed to reverse the normal burden here." That is an outright lie, and something you have not yet rebutted is why there have been TWO discussions about merge/separate and the consensus has always been keep together. Please see my list below of other Madonna songs that have also been merged by several different editors. Precedent is most certainly in my favour here.
• Qwyrxian says, "there is no rationale for the McLean version being more "important". Well tell me what would Madonna have sung if McLean hadn't written American Pie?
• Qwyrxian says "but wtf are you talking about" Yep, I am confused too, you have listed all the great reasons why there is only one article for a song.

--Richhoncho (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"The way Wikipedia judges "lasting notability" of songs is chart performance." - please show me the policy which states that. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

From WP:NMUSIC, the notability guideline for musicians, songs, bands, composers, etc.: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If Qwyrxian is relying on WP:NMUSIC to justify a split then he needs to show where it says different recordings of the SAME song can have different articles. Quite to the contrary it says a song can be notable ...that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists. Definitive in my opinion - one song - one article and totally irrespective of notability of particular recordings --Richhoncho (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for my rather obtuse question. What I had in mind was that the guideline refers to "probable" rather than "100% certainty" of notability. I'm not trying to wikilawyer, just to point out that "probable" notability is frequently a contentious issue that depends on consensus based on point-of-view rather than being a clear-cut yes/no decision. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'd go for a separate article. I don't think it makes sense to lump content about several different singles together, and the Madonna content is as much about the single as it is the song. I would also break with another silly convention by titling the split article American Pie (Madonna single). It isn't a Madonna song after all, just a song recorded by her, and the content is primarily about the single.--Michig (talk) 06:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Without getting into further, rather pointless, discussions about this, may I remind everybody that:

1. Song articles generally open with the words "is a song" and never with the more convoluted "is a recording of a song." In other words we are creating articles about songs and not recordings - it is a recording which makes a song notable and those advocating splitting are missing this very basic and intrinsic difference.
2. Also there is precedent to merge articles of different recordings, and pertinent to this I mention (amongst 1000s of others), Love Don't Live Here Anymore (Madonna song), Don't Cry for Me Argentina (Madonna song), Fever (Madonna song), and I Want You (Madonna song).
3. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fan site and certainly not a place for every different performance of every song to have it's own article space just because it is a "notable recording."
4. Nothing is lost by having the two different versions of the song in the same article space, in fact, quite the reverse, we now have the history of the song. I am sure that a good editor would find and add critical comparisons between the two versions to really make a great article.
5. This is the third time this debate has gone on, both the previous debates resulted in merge/remain merged. Isn't about time we all accept this is the format agreed by concensus, over a period of time and by different groups of editors? We could all have improved WP muchly in the time wasted with this discussion.

Finally, I agree with the suggestions to improve the merged article, as suggested by Borock and Suriel198. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that the discussion is always pretty evenly split therefore your statement that "this just needs to be forgotten" is naive. When there is a significant population who disagree with a decision, the issue never "just goes away". If you feel you personally are wasting time by discussing the issue, don't get on Talk... Ckruschke (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

• I further propose that American Pie (song)#Charts and certifications section is removed entirely as it provides no more than a fluffing out of information already concisely contained in Madonna singles discography#2000s. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with you here. It is fairly standard practice to add charts into song articles, I can't see any reason to remove Madonna's but not McLean's. Cheers. Richhoncho (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Separate Article - Agree with point above that even to Madonna, her American Pie cover is no more than just that. If you want to keep a section on "Covers" discussing the people who have done so - fine - but this should simply include a link to Madonna's page or Madonna's American Pie page. Either or, but not here. Ckruschke (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
• Keep in one article - I was leaning toward separate articles, until I started looking up songs that I knew had very prominent cover versions done. Songs like When Will I Be Loved (song) and The Loco-Motion, not to mention Tumbling Dice, which even includes an infobox about the Ronstadt cover version. I think convention is well established and should not be changed at this point. Regards, --Manway 21:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If convention is well established, it needs to be written into the guidelines or policy that songs are specifically an exception to the normal notability guidelines. But I still think it's ludicrous: how can a song that goes gold/platinum not get a page, while a song that hits 99 on one chart in one country get a page, simply because the first song is based upon an earlier song? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It is already written into WP:NMUSIC, WP:NSONG and WP:SONGCOVER, the first you support and the last one you say is wrong! I just don't get it. However, and this is important, notability is not just obtained because a song hit 99 or any other placing in the charts, there must be enough information to create an article which is more than a stub (I suspect we actually agree on this point!) --Richhoncho (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for sounding harsh, but I wish you'd stop referring to WP:SONGCOVER, because it has no authority whatsoever. It's a Wikiproject's personal document. There is very strong, very well agreed upon WP consensus that individual Wikiprojects cannot override site guidelines or policies. In fact, Wikiprojects that have tried to do so have ended up with blocked/banned members and extra restrictions on them. I am willing to grant that WP:NMUSIC (of which NSONG is a part) implies that songs generally get a single article for all versions...but I'm also willing to push the point that I do not believe that in this instance relying upon the special notability guideline is more appropriate than the GNG and the broader issue that the two versions are fundamentally different songs, are notable for fundamentally different reasons, and are both more than long enough to support a separate article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. WP:NSONGS says, Most songs, it does not say, most recordings, it does not say most covers, it does not say most versions and it certainly doesn't say there are exceptions for Madonna. It therefore acknowledges one article per SONG. Now that's a rule, isn't it?

There is also a precedent that different versions do not get separate articles, and here's a short list of those I have seen in the past few days where there are two or more notable versions of the same song on the same page: (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, A Groovy Kind of Love, After Midnight (song), All Along the Watchtower, Baby, Please Don't Go, Because the Night, Blue (Bill Mack song), Blue Suede Shoes, Boom Boom (John Lee Hooker song), Can't Help Falling in Love, Dancing Queen, Don't Cry for Me Argentina, Downtown (Petula Clark song), Eloise (Paul Ryan song), Emotion (Samantha Sang song), Feeling Good, Fever (Little Willie John song), Fire (Bruce Springsteen song), Freedom! '90, Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight), Got to Give It Up, Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song), Harlem Shuffle, Higher Ground (Stevie Wonder song), Hound Dog (song), Hurt (Johnny Cash song), I Heard It Through the Grapevine, I Want Candy, I Want Your Love (Chic song), I Want Your Love (Transvision Vamp song), I Was Born This Way, I Wonder (1944 song), If I Thought You'd Ever Change Your Mind, If Not for You, If You Asked Me To, I'll Be There (The Jackson 5 song), I'll Be Your Baby Tonight, Invisible (Jaded Era song), Iris (Goo Goo Dolls song), It's Raining Men, Jesus Is Just Alright (song), Lady Marmalade, Let's Spend the Night Together, Light My Fire, Little Red Rooster, Love Don't Live Here Anymore, Mamma Mia (song), Me and Mrs. Jones, More, More, More, Mr. Tambourine Man, Not Fade Away (song), Oh, Boy! (song), One of Us (ABBA song), Perfect Day (Lou Reed song), Roll Over Beethoven, Shake, Rattle and Roll, Shame, Shame, Shame (Shirley & Company song), She's Like the Wind, Slow Hand, Somethin' Stupid, Spirit in the Sky, Step by Step (Annie Lennox song), Super Trouper (song), Sway (song), Take a Chance on Me, The First Cut Is the Deepest, The House of the Rising Sun, The Loco-Motion, Theme from Mahogany (Do You Know Where You're Going To), These Boots Are Made for Walkin', Tumbling Dice, Venus (Shocking Blue song), War (Edwin Starr song), When Will I Be Loved (song), White Lines (Don't Don't Do It), Wild Thing (Chip Taylor song), Paint It, Black, You Can't Hurry Love,You Keep Me Hangin' On. Although some have been merged, many have NEVER had separate articles.

It is also worth checking out Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_17#Category:Cover_songs_and_subcategories Category:Cover songs and subcategories which confirms that WP does not acknowledge the importance of cover versions.

So quite frankly any discussion regarding separation/merging of SAME song articles should occur on the talkpage of WP:NMUSIC because that needs to be changed first and precedent overuled. Your request to split is inappropriate at this time.

In response to the post below, the only grounds for splitting is WP:SIZE and this article is nowhere near that point at the moment. Why is this particular song an exception and none of the above?

wtf? Why does the McLean version contaminate Madonna so much?

--Richhoncho (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Separate them It would be one thing if it was just an article that charted as well with only a modicum of information, it's common practice at that point to have it in one article. But this song is an exception. It has so much coverage that the size of it currently is accurate (and could arguably be even longer), but is undue weight for the Madonna version in the article as a whole. Split it out into its out article with a main page link and summary style paragraph for it here. Silverseren^C 01:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

After seeing the examples above, it appears I may be wrong about previous consensus. This is, in my opinion, a completely wrong decision--these two items are idependently notable, for two completely different reasons, and both are not even slightly "substandard". I will think about what step to pursue next, whether that's approaching WT:MUSIC, some place like the Village Pump, or simply forgetting about this altogether (not sure it's worth my time). However, please note that I don't like Richohoncho disparaging my motives--I don't think McClean pollutes the Madonna version (hell, I don't even personally like the Madonna version). I'm just trying to build a better encyclopedia. And the suggestion that these should all be the same article is, to me, no different than arguing that Michigan should just be included in United States of America, or, heck, that Germany should simply be a subsection of Earth. However, I accept that prior consensus across music articles is to keep them together, and it will be up to me (or someone else) to find a venue to argue that (which could, btw, be here, if I decide just to argue that this is an exception to the guideline). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian, firstly I owe you an apology for disparaging your motives. I accept your motive was based "better encyclopedia" rather than pure fandom. It's just so often when these debates get started, it's usually accompanied by a "my band's version is more important..." argument.

Like you I am trying to build a better encyclopedia. I just want the history of a song in one place, I can't see any value in hiding from, say, Madonna fans, that Mclean wrote and had a hit with the same song some 28 years earlier. The following quote from the article also starts to make sense, "It was something a certain record company executive twisted my arm into doing, but it didn't belong on the (Music) album so now it's being punished" when all the history about a song is together - it becomes encyclopedic. Separated it is merely a glorified discography- which imo is not encyclopedic.

You must also consider the discussion about this song was purely about article title and not the content(s).

For me, splitting the history of the song would be like splitting, Michigan by height, two articles, one for below sea level and one for above sea level, or two articles for each and every coin (heads or tails you get the right article?), or splitting a list of US Presidents according to whether they get re-elected.

The premise for keeping song articles together is simple. They articles about "A SONG," we don't disambiguate by words like "cover," "version," "recording" we don't separate like this and this has been going on long before ever I made an edit here and it was the right decision, is still the right decision and most editors still fully agree.

Sorry for this last rant, I get involved with the same old discussion every few weeks and it there are much better things to do around this place. Cheers and happy editing! --Richhoncho (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about disambiguating though. I'm talking about splitting because of size issues. It is entirely common practice to split any section of an article when it becomes too long. That is certainly the case for the Madonna section, especially since it can easily be twice as long as it currently is. And splitting doesn't mean removing all mention of it, it means making a summary paragraph here and a main page link to the split article. Furthermore, I don't see any reason why we wouldn't have a background section in the split Madonna song article that would discuss the Mclean originations and link back to it. It should be in the lede of the split article as well. Silverseren^C 07:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing in Wikipedia:Article size that supports your argument. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPLIT is where you want to look:

"If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is recommended that a split be carried out." Silverseren^C 00:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem, in this case, is editing. Two sections should be trimmed and moved, 'Parodies, revisions and uses' and 'Cover versions'; 'Track listings and formats' should be deleted as trade journal material and not encyclopedic (especially as we are not told what the differences are!). McLean's chart stats could be beefed up as per Madonna's. I am sure you can find some other bits to edit, rather than a shout for "different article space" which merely moves the problem without either solution or resolution. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "the problem". There isn't a problem, this is just a discussion about splitting out a lengthy, highly notable section of an article into its out article, while leaving a summary section here, along with a main page link. Silverseren^C 00:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"The problem" is that you consider parts of the article overwhelming and need of splitting. I mentioned ways of avoiding this split but you are obviously not interested, and I conclude that you are only interested in Article Title Space and not Article Content. Hardly the way to build an encyclopedia. I also repeat 'It is about one song and different recordings of that same song' and the length of the article is not overlong. As you are the only person still asking for the split, I think this conversation is now dead. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep in one article. In current state, there is no need to split and if anything, per Richhoncho above, the length of the Madonna cover section should be reduced. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if the two articles are kept merged, reducing the Madonna section is unacceptable. Please look again at how many places it went gold/platinum, and its chart ranking in numerous countries. In all fairness, the Madonna version should probably cover about 30-40% of the article, given that it has an equal claim to notability to the McClean version. If you're all claiming this is an article about the song, then cover each version of the song with due relevance to its real world notability. If people are going to insist on cutting out notable information from this article, I will see no choice but to force back arguments about splitting. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Please note I did not want the Madonna part cut - other than I feel that multiple track listings, as contained here, are not encyclopedic irrespective of the artist and voiced that above. There is also a misconception regarding "song" articles. It is not a artist -v- artist issue in any way whatsoever, it's not about which artist is more 'notable' either, likewise not which version is more notable (all of such concepts fall heavily into WP:OR). McLean should come before Madonna, only because that is the timeline history of the song. Not sure that balance is possible or necessarily an aim of an encylopedia. If I had felt that the Madonna part was overwhelming I would be looking to beef up McLean - a positive, rather than a negative, action. Similarly, if we had worked together on the article, rather than all this minutae on the talkpage, we could have had another FA song article! --Richhoncho (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Junk it or split it, there is more about Madonna than the author of the song in this article. Stick it in a part of an article about Madonna? And add more about the original here. What an embarrassing mess. Huw Powell (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Homosexual kiss(es)

I am confused by the phrase "showing a lesbian and a gay couple kissing". As written, the phrase seems to refer to a three way kiss between one woman and two men (which would lead me to question how we would know that the female is, indeed, a lesbian). And, to be extremely technical, could even refer to three women kissing at once as "gay" can be used as a description of females as well as males. I think that this is supposed to refer to two separate kisses, one involving two women and one involving two men, but I have never seen the Madonna video. --Khajidha (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that sentence should have been "same-sex couple" so I changed it. Ckruschke (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Undue weight

This article should be balanced and given less weight to the Madonna cover. No matter what, it still is a cover and should not take over the article. A split might be an option. The Banner talk 23:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think if you go back a few months in the Talk pages history, you'll find this exact discussion. I had the exact same opinion as you, but right or wrong we ultimately chose to leave it as is. Ckruschke (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The weight is absolutely fine seeing that the cover version by Madonna is more successful commercially and gained prominence. It is the original version which should be expanded on its song details and other information. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree and have trimmed it. If M fans love it, dump it on her page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your statement of M fans loving it has no weight seeing the third party commercial reception of Madonna version trumps that of McLean's version. Do not remove valid sourced chart info per WP:SONGCOVER they have every right to be here. Just because McLean's version is crap that does not mean that Madonna's version is to be reduced. If you are so damn stuck up about it, then go ahead and expand McLean's version. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 22:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You're very rude. I suggest you dump all the Madonna cruft on her page, not here William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't care your personal assessment of me, but per WP:BRD do not remove sourced content without achieving consensus. Speak to me in terms of policy, not your personal idea. I have given enough traction regarding SONGCOVER as well as WP:RS how the cover version passes enough WP:N to be present. And reiterating what I said above, go ahead and expand McLean's version if you care for the article so much. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 22:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I too am going to revert Mr. Connolley. Opinions don't count. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

And funny thing is when time and time again I had asked their input in expanding Mclean's version in my sandbox none of them gave any opinion in actually doing constructive work. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 22:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"Opinions don't count" is deeply inane -- editorial judgement is, at its core, the application of informed opinions. The text I removed from the Madonna version background section has no relevance to the subject of the song, it is of interest (if at all) only on the subject of Madonna. Its presence in this article makes the article worse. It should be removed. --JBL (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

How does it not relate to the song? When the content talks about the cover being included in an album because of a directorial decision with the artist being against it? —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 23:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The portion of the removed text that relates in any way to the song is primarily about places the song did not appear, i.e., it's not actually about the song. Madonna's quote is totally unsupported by any actual evidence, which might be more interesting. --JBL (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

On reflection in the morning I think Joel B. Lewis was probably right to remove all/part of the text. I actually thought it had been there longer than 31st December 2015, my response was quicker than my brain. Please accept my apologies everybody. Perhaps I can get an apology for the name calling, too? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, happily. --JBL (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

McLean version: Single vs Album

McLean's album version of the song is considerably longer than the radio version (the 'A' side of the single). Does anyone have any information on the differences? Was the 'A' side simply the first part of the album version, or did it have the start and end and cut out the middle? Was the 'B' side of the single from the middle of the album version, or were the 'A' and 'B' sides concatenated together the same as the album version? If so, what verse was the split on?

Anyway, any information on the two versions would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.198.122 (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Madonna Section Part Two

I just deleted 99% of the Madonna cover section as this discussion has been going on since 2009 with no conclusion, despite a majority of the Talk responders suggesting it be removed. I was going to move much of the content onto Madonna's page, but there is only one sentence devoted to the cover so it appears "to me" that Madonna fans don't give it much thought either. Content could be copied and pasted into a new page for those people who lament the lost of hardwork. Let the firestorm start here. Ckruschke (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

You can be bold all you want, but without consensus, you are not gonna go a step further. I dont see majority saying it should be moved, I dont see the Projects being notified, I dont see any of the rules being applied which should set a precedence. No boss, gain consensus through whatever channel is needed, (RFC etc), and then make it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And fwiw, I had started the article for expansion on McClean's content here, if anyone is remotely interested for content building rather than deleting it. McClean's version is more famous, however one cannot argue the commercial reception of Madonna's version, and well let's admit, her popularity in reintroducing the song again in pop culture. I need to look again through the materials I was assembling for the expansion. Help me out guys. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No "projects" needed to be notified - this page falls near the bottom of the priority lists (all Class C or worse) of every project listed on the Talk page - so please reign in the angst. Also Madonna's version did not "reintroduce the song again to pop culture" - McLean had been doing it for years - come on... Your arguments all stem from your non-NPOV about the subject (it appears you've written much of the content?) so please keep it in perspective.

That being said, concensus is obviously important and as I implied at the start, I'm happy to be the whipping boy to get this finalized one way or another. Ckruschke (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke