Talk:Tom Lehrer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Santa Cruz

Did he teach at Santa Cruz? Is he still teaching? Bovlb 02:32, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)

I was actually just looking that up, as I'm headed to to UCSC next year. On this 2003-2004 Catalog[1], he's listed as a fellow at Cowell College. His departments are American Studies and Mathematics. I hope I'll have a chance to hear him speak.

Andy M. 01:43, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Kant Song

Is the song found at the following pages: http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/philosophy/kant.htm and http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/philosophy/kantsong.mp3 composed by Tom Lehrer? Is there any direct Tom Lehrer connection? Eptin 04:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm, it says directly "Translation by Roderick T. Long" and "Music and vocals by Paul L. Fine". Furthermore, it's not really Lehrer's style, and it's not like Lehrer is the only person on the planet to have ever composed witty songs on academic themes. --Saforrest 05:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Birth day

I noticed a recent change to his birthday but coulden't imageine an error like that for so long. The change actualy is correct his birday is 9 April 1928 [2]. I am wondering how a mistake like that could be make. It's been there for so long i can't find where the initial change was made. I should be more trusting of IP edits.--E-Bod 01:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Influence on Zappa?

I'm no expert on either Tom Lehrer or Frank Zappa, but could safely call myself a lifelong fan of both. I can find no evidence that Lehrer was a direct influence on Zappa (though I would grant that Lehrer helped pave the way for public acceptance of the kind of offbeat music that Zappa later created). This must be understood in light of the fact that Zappa's music and writings are rife with reverent and irreverent references to his sources and colleagues.

On Zappa's first LP, "Freak Out," credited to the Mothers of Invention and released on the Verve label in 1966, the liner notes include a list of over 100 names under the heading "These People Have Contributed Materially in Many Ways to Make Our Music What it is. Please Do Not Hold it Against them." The list includes everyone from Elvis Presley to Karlheinz Stockhausen, but Lehrer's name does not appear.

In Zappa's "The Real Frank Zappa Book" (Poseidon Press, 1989), there is a brief section titled "Does Humor Belong in Music?" Again, Lehrer's name does not appear. Rather, the section ends with the comment "I owe this part of my musical existence to Spike Jones."

Lastly, in Ben Watson's 621-page book "Frank Zappa: The Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play" (St. Martin's Press, 1995) -- which may fall just short of being a full-fledged scholarly work but nonetheless appears to have been exhaustively researched -- there is no mention of Lehrer in the index.

In that case, I'll take out the line. "Clearly" is not particularly NPOV, and it's unsourced. moink 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to correct myself somewhat. I just saw Barry Miles' new "Zappa: A Biography" (Grove Press, 2004) in a bookstore. Lehrer is, in fact, listed in the index. To paraphrase the book -- I don't have it in front of me -- it says that Zappa satirized the Left in the tradition of Mort Sahl, Tom Lehrer, and Woody Allen. But it doesn't explicitly state that any of these three figures were direct influences on Zappa.

It's fair to say that Zappa heard Lehrer at some point in his life. He was a musical omnivore, so it's about as done a deal as you can hope for. That said, I don't really hear a Lehrer influence when I listen to Zappa, so if there was one it was very slight.

Lawsuit?

Does anyone have any verifiable information concerning what I recall was a libel lawsuit by the widow of Werner von Braun (unt I'm learning Chinese, says Werner von Braun...), which led to the stoppage of sales of Lehrer's records? Punchi 03:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lehrer himself has stated in an interview that he has never been sued by the Von Brauns (I don't know whether you consider him to be a credible source, of course; I do). Sixtus 16:19, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, you can't libel a dead person. It's conceivable that Von Braun himself, during his lifetime, could have brought a suit, but certainly his widow couldn't have. Hayford Peirce 23:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Was he ever THREATENED with legal action (eg, if he continued to perform the song)? - AG, Stockport, UK.

Discography

I've edited out the Discography entry for That Was That Was The Week That Was. Although some songs appear on the album that Tom Lehrer had written for the show, Lehrer himself does not perform on the album. Since we don't include, for example, albums containing someone else's rendition of a Beatles song in the Beatles discography, I felt it was misleading to include TW4 here.

But But - these songs were written to be performed on the show, not for Lehrer to sing! So this album is the Lehrer-authorized original version and should be mentioned. 85.165.35.82 12:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

-- Heath 128.173.105.144 00:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I got the discography here ... you are correct, it does NOT belong in the discography. However, it may still be of some interest to his fans ... it should probably be mentioned somewhere -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Physical Revue

I notice that this gets a mention, but no elaboration. Perhaps it should be elaborated on a little more (maybe a sentence or two), since it's how he got his start? One good article about it is here. --Aquillion 17:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reviews on An Evening Wasted

The reviews are printed on the sleeve notes of "An Evening Wasted..."

Are they real, or false documents? -- Tarquin, Thursday, July 11, 2002

According to Lehrer in an interview (reference?), they are indeed real. 85.165.35.82 12:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I found the first one in The New York Times archives - February 9, 1959. Paul 15:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Russian lyrics on Lobachevsky

Heard the "Lobachevsky" song for the first time. Obviously wanted to know what the comments attributed to Pravda and Izvestiya were. Being Russian myself I was able to decipher one and part of the other and did an internet search to fill in the rest. Here is what it says:

Pravda: "There lived a king once and with him lived a flea". -- according to some pages where it was found, this is a line from Goethe's "Faust".

Izvestiya: "I am going where the Tzar himself goes on foot" -- This is a Russian saying meaning "to the outhouse".

-- EugeneKatz, Saturday, December 21, 2002 The transcription of "Lobachevsky" in the songbook says "insert nonsense phrase here, in Russian if the audience doesn't speak it, or it Russian doubletalk if it does". -- Tarquin

The 'Pravda' comment has a Russian connection in that the composer Mussorgsky set a Russian translation of the Goethe text as his famous 'Song of the Flea' (1879).

---Pfistermeister, Jan 20, 2006

On a similar theme, the music of his Mozart parody (in "Clementine") begins with the theme of the aria "La Chi Darem La Mano" from Don Giovanni, speeded up - AG, Stockport, UK.

TomFoolery with new lyrics

Late 2006 in San Jose, CA. a small group produced TomFoolery, with altered lyrics with Mr. Lehrer's blessing (and possibly help). Who's Next ended with San Francisco(!) getting the bomb, The Elements now has an added verse with the new elements, and the Hunting Song was revised: the current American Vice President is the hunter.

The refrain is now "Two game wardens, seven lawyers, and a cow", and Air Force two doesn't have enough room to carry the haul.

JOATMON 09:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"We Will All Go Together when We Go"

To the best of my knowledge, this song was not written for TW3 -- it dates from at least a decade earlier. Someone should confirm this, and remove it if necessary.

I've added "So Long, Mom" to the list of TW3 songs, as it's one of the very best -- and I'll never forget Steve Allen performing it. Allen's naturally ebullient, somewhat over-the-top delivery was more appropriate than Lehrer's sarcastic/sour style.

WilliamSommerwerck 13:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not for TW3 originally, although it's possible it was sung on that show at one time. "We Will All Go Together" was one of Lehrer's songs from his second album, in the mid-1950s. "So Long, Mom" was from TW3 (i.e. on the TWTYTW album), along with other nuke-related songs, including "MLF Lullaby", "Wernher Von Braun" and "Who's Next?" Wahkeenah 03:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Terrible

The whole article is really really terrible, and absolutely shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. It has been written by someone or more who have very little knowledge of Lehrer, his background, impact, or influence. It contains very little of the basics - e.g. background, upbringing, influences etc. It's the pits, the worst article I've so far read on Wikipedia. Come on now, Lehrer has enough genuine admirers with knowledge and appreciation. For Heaven's sake clear up this mess. Best Wishes. Fairlight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.50 (talk) 19:45, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Send the Marines

If "has currency" versus "dated" is just a personal judgment of the song (the author's or anyone else's) that veers into music criticism, which is simply not encyclopedic. If the comment is that this song is still played while others are not, that's fine but it needs a source. If the comment is that people think the cold war songs are outdated, whereas people still connect with send in the marines, that's an encyclopedic thing to say, but again, it needs sourcing. Otherwise it does sound POV. I mean, Tom Lehrer is all about POV, he's a POV singer, but we're trying to describe things neutrally here. Wikidemo 01:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You can justify an argument that such a statement, without citation, is POV-pushing. To argue that it's "irrelevant", as the other editor did, is his own POV-push. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like original research to me, regardless of POV. Orpheus 02:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Listen to the song sometime and tell us if you still think so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As this guy did: [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Or this one. [4] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Or this one. [5] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, listening to the song and saying if I think it's true or not is the definition of original research. Have a browse through WP:V and WP:RS. Orpheus 04:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not original research, as my cited links above demonstrate. You can argue that it's POV-pushing, but you can't argue that it's original research on my part, as others thought of it independently and posted it on the internet. You can also argue that those aren't acceptable sources for actual citations. But you can't argue it's original research. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can't find reliable sources to cite for this, that is the very Wikipedia definition of original research, c.f. WP:OR. As explained on that policy page, "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." Your links are not "publications" of the kind we consider. Furthermore, "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article". Since you have not done so, you certainly have not demonstrated what you claim. --Horoball 07:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you don't agree with them, they are not "reliable" in your eyes. However, I did not write that stuff, someone else did, and anyone can see those comments. So it may be POV-pushing (as is the argument to exclude it), but it is not "original research" on my part. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't even bother reading them, so I don't know if I agree or not. But comments in Amazon reviews, for example, are not a reliable source, according to WP:RS. In most circumstances (such as this one) blogs are not either. You should learn the definitions of "reliable source", "verifiability", and "original research" in the Wikipedia sense because that is integral to the functioning of Wikipedia. Seemingly, you are unable to read these policy pages since you persist in your ignorance, but you are mistaken about what "original research" is. Someone else can write something, you can link to it, and it can still be original research. Understand? If not, please see the relevant policy page. --Horoball 11:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The challenge of "verifiability" (which, FYI, means "to make true", contradicting the theory that "it's not about truth") is the usual "gotcha" through which editors exclude anything they don't agree with. An example I ran into is about the kind of music that's played at ballparks. The pedants argued I couldn't use blogs because "they are not verifiable". However, if that's the only source, and many different blogs say the same stuff independently about many different ballparks, then obviously it's factual, unless you buy into some broad conspiracy theory to deceive the public about music played at ballparks. Similary, a number of independent writers have noted that "Send the Marines" is just as applicable now as it was in 1965. But since you don't want that fact stated, you hide behind the "verifiable sources" argument. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think these comments show some issues you have with official Wikipedia policy. Rather than argue these points here, you would do better to argue them on the relevant policy talk pages. Here, editors are expected to understand and follow these core, non-negotiable policies. And there is no need to label people that explain policy to you as "hiding behind" something and attributing rather laughable secret agendas to editors such as myself. --Horoball 11:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand by everything I said. Over and out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, and I usually agree with you, Baseball Bugs, and I promise I'm only stalking you in a good way (I was on your talk page with my goofy misunderstanding about the famous loss of copyright on the bugs bunny film). I believe that the song is indeed still relevant today as a good natured but serious jab at American militarism, and yes, it does resonate with people today more than many of his cold war or other current events songs....though some like his elements of the periodic table song are always popular. However, this is a loaded issue with POV on both sides. For all we know the people who want the statement removed have a pro-military intervention point of view. I think the song is corny and overdone, and the only interesting thing about it is that it could have been sung yesterday. However, the reasons for why we make our arguments aren't really important. It's the correctness of the argument. I agree that your own analysis listening to the song is original research. It may be good and truthful original research, but we just can't do that here or else everybody is going to start using this site for music criticism. Next will be that Britney Spears can't sing, or is too fat. Where will it end? And also, those blogs aren't good sources, particularly not about something that people might disagree with. In fact, even if you could establish that many people think the song is relevant, that's inherently a judgment call. Relevance to today's political situation isn't the kind of judgment we make on Wikipedia, sourced or not. We don't call songs good, bad, offensive, annoying, etc. We can only say that people find them that way. So again, if you can find a source that people think it's relevant you can report here that people think it's relevant. But you can't say that it is relevant. That's my opinion anyway. I'll see if I can find a source for it. Wikidemo 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed trivia section title

And deleted triva tag.... Albion moonlight (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tom Lehrer Day!

As you may have noticed Tom Lehrer turns 80 on April 9 '08. A perfectly structureless group of people on YouTube has decided to declare that as Tom Lehrer day, this year. Rejoice! Excuses for abusing WP Talk for this, but it's a quick spreading vector. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 17:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation as to why Lehrer gave up touring

The material "When asked about his reasons for abandoning his musical career, he cited a simple lack of interest, a distaste for touring, and boredom with performing the same songs repeatedly" is from the CD box set's accompanying book, as I've now added. I am rather rusty at editing, having last done much prior to reflists et al, and wasn't sure how to get it to do a citation that pointed to something inside the article. I'll endeavour to bring into my office my copy of the CD box set and accompanying book, and put in a fuller discography citation if I can figure out how to do the internal links properly (help would be appreciated! thanks...).

Allens (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Speed

In the film Speed, Dennis Hopper says "Be prepared. That's the boy scout's marching song," quoting Tom Lehrer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin324la (talk • contribs) 01:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Lobachevsky song

I am sure The University of Michigan Historical Mathematics Collection does not violate copyright: see here. If they have it on their web page there should be no problem with links to it. Mhym 00:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken. If you check the file's ID3 information, you'll see it's from his album Song & More Songs. Unless the University has permission to post the file, it's a copyright violation and we should not link to it. - EurekaLott 01:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Mhym misses the joke: "plagiarize! Plagiarize! Plagiarize!" ... but if Wikipedia calls it, please, research... DWaterson (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Better

I'm glad to say this article is much improved since I wrote the above three years ago, and the History page shows the efforts that have been made in the interim. There remain contentious issues, as this page shows, but at least the casual reader will get an impression of Lehrer and his songs. Fairlight 10th Feb. 2010

PhD?

I don't think Lehrer actually received a PhD from Harvard. I believe he was in the program for many, many years, but never completed his dissertation.

More to the point: What was his research, published, aborted, or otherwise?

According to the interview in Rhino's 3-CD-box, he couldn't be bothered. 85.165.35.82 12:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

He jointly authored at least two mathematics papers, which I have put into the article - AG, Stockport, UK.

From "The Remains of Tom Lehrer" liner notes: I never got a Ph.D. I wanted to be a graduate student all my life, and they wanted me to be a Ph.D. The two goals were incompatible." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.5.223 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The hell you say?

Am I the only one who finds the following paragraph just... fuh?

Fans of rapper Eminem have also noted some similarities in Eminem's style to that of Lehrer. The style comparison is best evidenced on Eminem's South Park parody "The Kids" with its piano backing, clever use of syntax and off-beat rhyming, and even references to torturing small animals similar to that of Lehrer's notorious "Poisoning Pigeons In The Park". One can also draw a parallel to the singer/songwriter Mary Prankster, whose oeuvre includes a feminist reading of Hamlet ("Green Eggs and Hamlet"); a satire of a pastoral idyll ("Blue Skies over Dundalk"), reminiscent of "Poisoning Pigeons"; "Student Loan", which echoes Lehrer's "Bright College Days"; and "Tempest", whose style recalls Lehrer's love of rhyming series (e.g., "Poisoning Pigeons" and "When You are Old and Gray").

I mean, I like Mary Prankster as much as any sane person should, which is to say lots, but... what the hell? 69.250.43.75 05:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks weird to me too, but since I know nothing about Eminem -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Promptly deleted.

Why was this deleted? If the song by Eminem exists, and indeed has piano and off-beat rhyming, which I am unsure having not heard the song, then some of the paragraph is relevant. If the song does not exist or does not have any of the things mentioned then, by all means, the deletion was necessary. Tainted Deity 18:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's original research, isn't it? 81.151.151.61 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

More or less as an aside, the British comedian (and birdwatcher) Bill Oddie wrote a song, "Persecuting Pigeons in Trafalgar Square" on exactly the same theme as "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park". JHobson3 (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Jello Shots?

He INVENTED Jello shots? That seems unbelievable... DoorFrame 15:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Tom Lehrer the man, his myth and his music -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

During the 50's he worked at the Los Alamos scientific laboratory in New Mexico. Despite the fact that many of his songs had been quite critical of the work being done there, he was still able to get security clearance (Joseph Mc Carthy missed this one). In 1955 he joined the army, His reason for joining goes as follows "I figured I'd better do it while there was a hiatus between wars." While in the army he worked for the National Security Agency where he developed vodka Jell-O (my source for this is the Boston Globe January 1, 1984, I am not making it up). This was done as a way to circumvent a restriction on alcoholic beverages on base (Jell-O is not a beverage).

Is there anything to verify that besides his own claim? It seems likely that other people may have invented the concept of mixing alcohol with Jello in addition to Tom Lehrer (not that I don't LOVE the idea of it being just him, by himself, inventing it like a mad scientist in a liquor-filled laboratory). DoorFrame 22:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be the article should be phrased something like "...in the army...where he claimed to have invented...". This is verifiable (if he did indeed claim it). Notinasnaid 13:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This claim is also mentioned in the "Too many facts about Tom Lehrer" liner notes from the Remains of Tom Lehrer boxed set. Stapler 9 42 April 1st, 2006

Page 11 of the libretto from _The Remains of Tom Lehrer_ tells you all about the orange Jello with vodka. =Chica= 10:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Satire can't be taken seriously. This guy sings satire of course you don't take what he says as fact. But the fact that he claims to do XY & Z should not be disputed. (I have the box set but i can't find it so i cant verity the previous statement but i have no reason to believe it is not true)--E-Bod 00:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read the liner notes. He does claim this... Mark Sublette (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Atheist?

it says hes Atheist. but wheres the source

I've read elsewhere he is, and I remember in the book that comes with the "Remains of Tom Lehrer" CD set it mentions that his family are ethically Jewish but not religious. But Category:Atheists is probably best kept for people who are widely renowned for being atheists, like Richard Dawkins - otherwise, being an atheist just isn't special, and there's no way the category could be complete. So I'll remove Tom Lehrer from the category. Robin Johnson 11:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

being not religious doesnt mean hes atheist

Quite, although I think I've read elsewhere that he is an atheist. That's not a good enough source to put it in the article, of course, and even if it was, I don't think it would make him the kind of outspoken noted-for-being-an-atheist atheist that the category is for. Robin Johnson 12:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In the interview liner notes of the 3-CD set, he says he does not prefer one religion to another and speaks disparagingly of the idea of religion. He does not make any more concrete statement, though.P.L.A.R. 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a source on his wikiquote page "Interview (1996)" that leads to http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Tom_Lehrer. The website and interview give the impression that he's an atheist (or maybe an apatheist). Is this Original Research? Have there been any new (or old) interviews that make his beliefs (or lack thereof) clearer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StudentInsomniac (talk • contribs) 03:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about neglecting to sign, I'm new at this. Is Category:Atheists really restricted to those who are famous for their atheism? StudentInsomniac (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It's to be used when the belief (or lack thereof) is verifiable. If it's documented in a reliable source, then it can be used here. I don't think it would be fair to draw a conclusion from the interview you found. - Eureka Lott 04:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal Life

I see no mention in the article about wheather or not Mr. Lehrer was ever married. Has he any children? Is he possibly gay? Or has he been a lifelong bachelor? I would think that an article about a man that has lived for 80 years should at least say something about this.Mk5384 (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a direct quote from him that was found on the Internet Movie Database (IMDB): ["On why he never married]: I have a notoriously short attention span. I can barely concentrate on (the 8-hour stage production) 'Nicholas Nickleby', let alone sustain a relationship." I am not sure how to incorporate this into the article; if someone can do so, feel free to use this quote! --74.0.166.140 (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That Was The Week That Was

    The singer on the show was Nancy Ames who has a Wikipedia article dedicated to her.

George-Portland (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)George-Portland

Parody

RE: "His work often parodies popular song forms" & "Lehrer's style consists of parodying various forms of popular song": Is this true? Certainly the songs are satiric, but the target is the subject matter, not "song forms." Perhaps "His work often mimics popular song forms"? Giordanob (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

IHMO, this varies. Sometimes as you say, the content is the important thing, and the song is the vehicle e.g. "Alma", "Who's next?". But in other cases e.g. "The Irish Ballad", "When You are Old and Gray", Lehrer explicitly attacks song genres, choosing "to kick them when they're down". PateraIncus (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, the music. For instance, "The Vatican Rag" is the old standard "Muskrat Ramble". I do believe that most of the tunes are not original, and he only wrote lyrics. However, that does not mean that he parodies popular songs (or song forms, whatever that's supposed to mean -- the sonata form?) like Al Yankovic. He is an humorous writer using verse and music. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Eric

See Parody music for the sense that is intended here. LadyofShalott 05:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

BA and MA

1. I removed the words "for a thesis on the topic of Johnson's algorithm and its application to computer science" in the description of his MA thesis, because Johnson's algorithm was only published in 1977. Does anyone have information on this?
2. I fixed the year of his BA from 1947 to 1964. Here is the source: [6]. דוד (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Tom Lehrer song - MTA

I am seeking the words and music for an early Tom Lehrer song entitled - "The MTA" about the Boston Subway system. Would appreciate any information at e-mail - Justleft@aol.com. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.48.224 (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to the song popularized by the Kingston Trio, it was written in 1949 by Jacqueline Steiner and Bess Lomax Hawes, borrowing its melody from a much older song, "The Ship That Never Returned". No known connection with Lehrer, though it does sound like something he might have written. The lyrics can be easily found online.76.195.220.145 (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Loomis Chaffee or Horace Mann?

Apologies if this has already been brought up and/or resolved—

A revision in the "Early life" section of Tom Lehrer's Wikipedia article took place on 25 November, 2011, changing his high school from Loomis Chaffee (Connecticut) to Horace Mann (New York): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Lehrer&diff=462466478&oldid=462022521

The revision did not seem to attract much discussion at the time, as the new claim was supported by a cited source (an article from the Harvard Crimson, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1981/11/9/tom-lehrer-pbrbumors-to-the-contrary/ ). A search on Google, however, was able to reveal sources suggesting that he graduated from Loomis as well as sources suggesting that he graduated from Horace Mann.

Moreover, both Loomis and Horace Mann have, in their official sites/publications, claimed Lehrer to be an alumnus of the Class of 1943—

Loomis's "Theater and Dance" page: http://www.loomischaffee.org/page.cfm?p=342

Horace Mann's magazine issue of alumni involved with music (see Page 11): http://www.horacemannalumni.org/HoraceMannMusic.pdf

Currently, the Wikipedia articles of Loomis and Horace Mann simultaneously have Lehrer listed in their "Noted alumni" sections.

Has there been a mistake made somewhere? Did he attend and transfer from one of these two schools and then graduate from the other? If so, in what order? Should we try to clarify this and find out more about the specifics of the circumstances?

Avaria vitievA (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dead?

is Lehrer still alive, becausemy friend keeps insisting he's dead, but the evidence I've seen seems to say other wise

He is alive and well, living peacefully in Cambridge, MA Lgrinberg 02:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Err... last I heard he was living in Aptos, CA (a small, very rich, very aged town near to U.C. Santa Cruz, where he still lectures...) 68.96.255.13 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're both right. Steelbeard1 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How can they both be right? - Katami 16:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Wahkeenah 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As are you 129.67.116.37 12:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this like that Schrödinger's Cat thing, where Lehrer lives in both Aptos and Cambridge at the same time, but will only be found to be living in one of those places when somebody decides to take a look? Captain Quirk (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Vatican Rag" based on "Spaghetti Rag" unsupported

The citations only demonstrate the music of "Spaghetti Rag." The assertion that "Vatican Rag" is based on it appears to be speculation or original research. 108.200.48.254 (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

indeed, the statement probably doesn't belong there. a cursory Google search reveals nothing helpful, and i don't imagine there's actually any reliable third-party discourse on the matter. ~ Boomur [☎] 02:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Use yur brains boys! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBR9hsNS0dg

Where there is a four note ascending phrase repeated four times in descending fashion Lehrer breaks the music completely and gives "Genuflect! Genuflect! Genuflect!"

A variation of this work entitled the "Watergate Rag" lies in the Lehrer Papers which entertained many of his inner circle of friends briefly. "Well, all that's just — Poppycock! Poppycock! Poppycock!" Laurencebeck (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

this isn't a discussion about whether or not the "Vatican Rag" is based on the "Spaghetti Rag", it's a discussion about whether or not this information is available from a reliable source. see WP:OR and WP:RS; regardless of whether or not it's true, original research does not belong in wikipedia. not sure what you mean about the "Lehrer Papers", but if you're referring to something containing a conclusive statement about the relationship between these songs then feel free to cite it in the article. ~ Boomur [☎] 03:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

musical legacy / kreisler

it says here that G. Kreisler had "reworked" two of his song - kreisler denies that until today and there is actually no proof for this claim. No one knows whether lehrer or kreisler wrote the songs first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.186.129.235 (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC) - wasn't logged in, kreisler-comment is mine; on wiki german about g. kreisler are sources

On the German wiki about Kreisler, this is rather controversial. According to the wiki, Kreisler denies that he has stolen these songs, rather suggesting that Lehrer was the one who stole his songs. In his autobiography Gerhard Bronner claims that Kreisler was aware of Lehrer's song before he's written the German one. So in the end its his words against hers. Moreover, the relationship between Kreisler and Bronner isn't described as very good in the German wiki. Hence, I strongly suggest to remove this sentence from the article or reformulate it in a less biased way, unless we find proof for either side of the argument. Donzjmc (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Joe Raposo

Lehrer was born in 1928 and Joe Raposo was born in 1937. How were they "Harvard schoolmates." Is what is meant is that they both attended Harvard? It is unlikely that they were contemporaries there.StN (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That must be what was intended. They were not classmates, and in fact graduated about 11 years apart. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"That's Mathematics"

> In 1993, Lehrer wrote "That's Mathematics" for a Mathematical Sciences Research Institute video celebrating the solving of Fermat's Last Theorem.

This isn't entirely true. Lehrer himself says otherwise here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VZbWJIndlQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.177.76 (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"Although he was raised Jewish, Lehrer became an agnostic."?

This is at very least poorly phrased. It seems to be implying that his becoming an agnostic caused him to not be Jewish anymore? Which is very much not a common thing to happen. See, for example, the article on Jewish atheism. If that is indeed the case, it should be explicitly stated -- e.g., as "... Lehrer became an agnostic and stopped identifying as Jewish.".

And if that isn't the case and he still is Jewish, it shouldn't imply that he isn't -- phrasing it as maybe "Lehrer is Jewish and agnostic". 129.64.199.213 (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you consider "raised in the Jewish faith" a satisfactory improvement? Is that terminology appropriate? Not being anything near an expert on Judaism or Jewish culture, that's the way I read the original, i.e. not referring to ethnic/cultural Jewishness. "Identifying as Jewish" sounds just as ambiguous to me, but like I said, not an expert... --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Such phrasing is not common usage, and leaves in place the word "agnostic", which does not appear in the cited passage. Almost anything we might say is taking liberties with the cited source. Just so we don't impose our own interpretations of Jewishness too strongly, I propose Raised Jewish, Lehrer later was skeptical about religion in general. That seems to me consistent with the sense of the citation. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"Raised in the x faith" is common enough in my personal experience, but I don't really care either way as long as the chosen wording is clear and accurate. I didn't check the source when I responded here, but the quote cited doesn't really seem to help much - does it really say he's "skeptical of religion"? Maybe the full source is more elucidating... --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what it means: he swapped being Jewish with being agnostic. What's unclear about that? It worked for me, as I was raised Jewish and am now agnostic. - Denimadept (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

i think from the context it's pretty clear that this is a reference to faith, not heritage. Boomur [☎] 22:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

GAN

Checking on the status of my own remaining nom, I noticed this article was nominated by 79.179.3.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). My comments do not constitute a review but, having now been through the process five times, I can say with certainty that the article would fail as it stands. A cursory read-through finds:

• "He is best known for the pithy, humorous songs ..." Many editors will balk at "best known" per WP:NPOV; I'm one of them. In addition, "pithy" is not neutral and would need to be quoted and sourced.
• "Although he was raised Jewish, Lehrer became an agnostic." As noted above, this is poor phrasing. Perhaps "raised in the Jewish faith" per Fru1tbat. (Come to think of it, why is this not mere trivia? Such a statement should be paired with a brief—and sourced—explanation of why it matters, such as how it affected his songwriting.)
• "... a joking reference to a leading scientific journal ..." Probably ticky-tack, but a reviewer could argue that "joking" needs a source.
• "These experiences became fodder for songs ..." Not sourced.
• "Despite holding a master's degree in an era when American conscripts often lacked a high school diploma, Lehrer served as an enlisted soldier ..." Since this is from Lehrer's own introduction, and since this phrasing doesn't explain why holding a Master's degree precludes enlistee status, this needs rewrite or to use his direct quote.
• "In 1960, Lehrer returned to full-time studies at Harvard ..." Not sourced.
• Musical career, graf 1: not sourced.
• Also within Musical career are six "citation needed" tags and one "speculation?" tag; this alone could be cited by a reviewer in an immediate fail.

The nominator should either withdraw, or get to work quickly on the article's numerous issues; just because it's currently at the bottom of the Other music articles list doesn't mean a reviewer can't take it immediately. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 22:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This was 79.179.3.187's first Wikipedia edit (at least under that IP), and one of eight that day (there haven't been any since). One of the other edits was to one of the people running the GA Cup, and his response was that the article would be a quick fail due to sourcing issues alone. My thought is that if the IP does not begin to address the issues raised here and there within the week, that the nomination be reverted. GAN is busy enough so that nominations by brand new editors should be undone if the nominator isn't prepared to do the necessary work. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Meantime, I was trying to be mindful of the possibility that a regular editor was simply not logged in when making the edits. (Edit: and then I saw this ... ) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 03:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I would fail the article or simply remove the nomination. I'll leave it up to you guys to decide.--Dom497 (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged, Dom497. Per you and BlueMoonset, I'm leaning strongly toward giving the nominator another day or two to begin making improvements and revert the nom otherwise. I don't think failing the article would really be fair to those who've contributed thereto, regardless of the work it still needs. (Edit: so much for that idea ... ) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 21:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tom Lehrer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 11:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More as soon as possible. Tim riley talk 11:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This enjoyable article is not yet ready for GA. There are far too many statements that lack citations, and I'm sorry to say it is an immediate fail.

• Academic and military career
  • First paragraph – uncited
  • Third paragraph – has a "citation needed" tag
• Musical career
  • First paragraph – uncited
  • Fourth paragraph – uncited except for the quotation.
  • Fifth paragraph – has a "citation needed" tag
  • Sixth paragraph – has "citation needed" and "speculation tags", and no citations whatever
  • Eight paragraph – no citations
• Revivals and discographic reissues
  • Two uncited paragraphs
• Musical legacy
  • First paragraph – has a "citation needed" tag
  • Second paragraph – citation lacking for Shuch quotation
  • Sixth paragraph – uncited
  • Seventh paragraph – has a "citation needed" tag and is mostly without citations
  • Eighth paragraph – has a "citation needed" tag and is completely without citations

If this problem is systematically addressed it will be worth considering renominating the article for GA. Tim riley talk 12:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tim riley: you may wish to peruse Talk:Tom Lehrer#GAN. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 20:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw it when I looked in to add the "failed GAN" tag. I agree, as you see, with the view there that the article is nowhere near GAN level yet. I hope someone (you, perhaps?) will bring expertise to bear to bring it up to standard. I much enjoy Lehrer's songs and I was very sad to have to quick-fail the article, but there was no alternative. Tim riley talk 20:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That was pretty much the reason I jumped in at talk—I'm a long-time (seriously, I'm old ) Lehrer fan ("Masochism Tango", anyone?). As you no doubt saw, I was thinking, given the exceeding likelihood that this was a drive-by nom, just deleting it rather than failing. Meantime, it's quite possible that I may take on the article someday. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 21:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Over the last few weeks, I have been motivated to address nearly all of the concerns raised by this GA review. Although I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing, and I am partially biased by my own (uncited) collaboration with the subject of the article, I believe the "citation needed" qualms have been addressed, partly because there is no dearth of material concerning Mr. Lehrer. I also observe that the basic structure of the article is commendable after many collaborative improvements. So in whatever way a re-review can be commenced, it will have the support of this editor. James Alien Woods (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Articles

• http://spectator.org/articles/33723/whatever-happened-tom-lehrer
• http://www.avclub.com/article/tom-lehrer-13660

--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

More sources

This 1995 term paper on Lehrer has an extensive bibliography — almost all of which is offline, but still. Should have some interesting content, I think. DS (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

AB=Bachelor of Arts

I made a small edit last week to the article. It made one sentence in the article easier to read, by using replacing an uncommon abbreviation with the common, equivalent spelled-out term instead. Another editor reverted it, because the abbreviation was wiki-linked, said editor believing that was sufficient. I see no reason to use the obscure term. Further, the use of that term is not supported by the cited source. I would like to undue the reversion. Note that the editor did not start a discussion before reverting.

The article references Lehrer's undergraduate degree as "AB" which is short for "artium baccalaureus." Common usage today is the English equivalent, "Bachelor of Arts." Harvard continues to use teh archaic term (and even has a web page explaining it. The wiki article on the subject uses the common English term, fully spelled out, but includes the abbreviated variations in the lede. Since Lehrer received his degree from Harvard, it would seem the article elected to use the Harvard style. However, the source used to support teh statement about his degree uses the term common term "BA," not the Harvard-esque "AB."

It seemed to me that many readers would be unfamiliar with the term, and BA would be more appropriate, especially given the source's usage. However, rather than disgruntling the Harvardians, I compromised on "Bachelor of Arts," which is most self-explanatory, and causes no issues.

WP:MOSABBR generally prefers that acronyms and abbreviations be spelled out the first time they are used. While Bachelor of Arts is given as a common abbreviation in MOS, the clear intent there was to avoid clutter when the degree is appended to a name, i.e., Tom Lehrer, AB would make more sense abbreviated, while AB as a standalone phrase would be spelled out. The equivalent would be "Gen. George S. Patton" versus "Patton was promoted to Brigadier General in 1939." In teh first context, "Gen." makes sense. In the second, substituting "promoted to Brigadier Gen." would be silly.

I move to return the change as I made it. @Hertz1888: feel free to chime in with your counterarguments.

The reverted change: - Dovid (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The undergraduate degree received by Lehrer, in common with other graduates of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and possibly certain other colleges, was an A.B. or AB—not a B.A. There must be thousands of articles on WP pertaining to graduates of these colleges that use the "Harvard-esque" abbreviation. I see no need to "translate" it in this particular article – or in general – when wikilinking is an option. One of the primary purposes of linking is to lead the reader to explanation of an unfamiliar term. Any reader who seeks clarification of the "AB" has only to click on the link and reach the linked article. In fact, just hovering over the link suffices to display the less "obscure" equivalent term "Bachelor of Arts". Do we need to make a change wiki-wide? Conversely, why should this article be an exception? My advice would be not to continue trying to "fix" something that isn't broken. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

One can not assume knowledge on the part of the reader. The correction made the article clearer. It has been restored. Scr★pIron^IV 14:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your peremptory revert was at best premature, as there has not been time for discussion, let alone consensus, to develop. None of my points have been addressed. Knowledge on the part of the reader is not assumed where a link is provided. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

When there is only one dissenting voice promoting the use of an obscure term in an encyclopedia written for all, then there is nothing premature at all. Refusing to permit clarity for all readers is elitist at best. So, for the sake of the vast majority who did not go to one of these pretentious schools, the WP:COMMONNAME will be used. Scr★pIron^IV 17:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Diversity be damned; anything that's different must be pretentious and elitist? Is that a justification for editing the article? And, as far as I can see, WP:COMMONNAME applies to article topics and titles only, not to article content overall. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A reader of a print version does not have the option to click or hover over anything. I can't see that anything is lost by spelling out the abbreviation here. --McGeddon (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, the reader of a print version is at a similar disadvantage with regard to all links, of which there are millions in Wikipedia. A discussion of how to accommodate such readers should, perhaps, take place at a broader level than here. If we spell out the English equivalent of A.B. here, shouldn't the same be done in thousands of other articles? Why just here in particular? If that question can be answered satisfactorily, I would then be comfortable proposing, as a compromise, leaving "AB" in place and putting "bachelor of arts" in parentheses following it. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "AB" should be retained; it's the degree that Lehrer earned. The term is not that obscure, and the wikilink clarifies it for those who may be unsure. The same is true for the unchanged "MA". BlueMoonset (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)]

AB is obscure and should be explained in parenthesis. I am fairly well educated, but not educated by ivy league privates. There are many degree awards that I don't know, and most other (non-ivy) collegians won't know. Heck, I'm just now finding out the difference between an opthalmologist and a D.O., and I'm sure you could say that "everyone" already knows that or, if they don't, they should take the extra time to look it up. Coming back to AB, you can keep it a secret if you wish, but if you want to illuminate the subject, let the rest of us know what it is or just leave it out entirely. N0w8st8s (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)n0w8st8s

Although UC Berkeley also has AB (funny for a computer science degree, but it was from the School of Letters & Science, not the School of Engineering where my master's there was an MS), I'm not that opinionated on something so pedantic. What might be more unusual to some is the question of why degrees in mathematics are not labelled with "science". No biggie, "as long as one is always careful to 'call it, please, research', intones Lobachevsky. James Alien Woods (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Princess Margaret

It seems to be surprisingly difficult to find a reasonable online confirmation of princess margaret quotes, in fact the following Google result might suggest it is a quote of her laudator rather than her. Someone would need to check/research the exact quotes and portrayals of it in contemporary newspapers or may in some offline article on Lehrer.

• "Tom+Lehrer"&dq=catholic+ranging+from+Mozart+to+"Tom+Lehrer"&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0CCAQ6wEwAGoVChMI2PTW5caRyQIVCoksCh3F9QSx

--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Related to the keen 1957 interest of Princess Margaret in Lehrer's oeuvre (great citation there!), it is incontrovertible that she and her brother Prince Philip dug Lehrer when relatively young. This is supported by the Boulware reference (SF Weekly, loc. cit.) wherein Lehrer himself commented on his interaction with the two at the 1998 Cameron Mackintosh celebration where he sang "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park". Even though Lehrer and the Queen Mother shook hands, the interview text reveals that the Prince & Princess Margaret had to sneak playing Lehrer's stuff which the Queen thought "was horrid". Otherwise, the reference to this latter performance later in the Wikipedia article to this event points to a 1967 video rendition of "Poisoning", not the 1998 one on DVD I hope. James Alien Woods (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Addressing "citations needed" plus other Tom Lehrer trivia

Note: I am new to Wikipedia editing, but have loosely collaborated and corresponded with Prof. Lehrer. Here is some blank-filling -- if a seasoned editor wants to run with this before I can read a "Dummies" book on Wikipedia editing, then that's fine.

• "In 1960, Lehrer returned to full-time studies at Harvard," [citation needed]
  • From an 1981 article in The Harvard Crimson by Jeffrey R. Toobin:
  • http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1981/11/9/tom-lehrer-pbrbumors-to-the-contrary/
  • "In 1960, at the height of his fame, he stopped performing regularly to continue his quest for the elusive Ph.D." Update: now I see that it is just footnote [7]
• "Resident songwriter [...] (TW3), a satirical television show:" [citation needed]
  • Much discussion of this occurs in musicologist Barry "Dr. Demento" Hansen's "Too Many Facts About Tom Lehrer" in the notes to CD box set "The Remains of Tom Lehrer". Now I see this is footnote [20], so that's an easy substitution.
• "Kit and the Widow" [citation needed]
  • This is already underlined as a Wikipedia cross-link that mentions both, so maybe this "citation needed" flag can just be elided.
• "in Sweden, but was quite popular and still has cult status." [citation needed]
  • Direct quote from: http://www.astronautix.com/l/lehrer.html
• "Nacha Guevara sang Spanish versions of several Lehrer's songs for the show/live album "Este es el año que es".[43] [better source needed]
  • How about from the original source Nacha Guevara herself?:
  • http://www.nachaguevaraweb.com/portal/index.php/1971-este-es-el-ano-que-es
  • [Aside: it was big fun corresponding with her husband/pianist Alberto Favero who collaborated on "Los Elementos" at least!]

Lastly I'd like to add a line in the section below his math paper citations about his Erdös number (4), together with his extraordinarily low EBS (Erdos/Bacon/Sabbath number) of 9, viz. http://erdosbaconsabbath.com James Alien Woods (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have not examined your proposals, but my suggestion would be try adding one of them yourself. A reference needs to satisfy WP:RS which means blogs and the like are not considered to be reliable unless by an acknowledged expert in the field. Don't worry about the formatting because someone will clean it up. For a reference, just put the information in brackets where it belongs, and again someone will clean it. I formatted your message. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I edited away the "citations needed" with germane references. I also noticed that when adding the footnote to paragraph 8 in "Musical Legacy" about Lars Ekborg, the entire paragraph is exactly the same as the one in Encyclopedia Astronautica. If originally from there, I do not know whether that is considered "fair use", and for all I know perhaps that article is derivative of Wikipedia. I defer to seasoned editors about how to handle such. James Alien Woods (talk) 05:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations are very strictly prohibited and text copied from from another source should be removed. Editors who attempt to add such material after warnings are routinely blocked. However, the situation can be complicated because a lot of websites copy text from Wikipedia so determining who has done what can be tricky. The text at http://www.astronautix.com/l/lehrer.html mentions Wikipedia, and the format of the article almost guarantees that it was copied from here—very definitely derivative. That means the website cannot be used as a reference for an article because the result would be what is sometimes called "circular referencing". The rule is that references must satisfy WP:RS. Questions about the use of a particular source for a particular claim can be asked at the noticeboard (WP:RSN). Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I just reverted that addition for the same reason (before seeing this discussion). That said, the others are definitely improvements over having no citation at all - thanks for your work on this, James Alien Woods! Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Followup -- I came here originally to edit in a single line about the intersection of Lehrer, mathematics, and popular culture (the links between collaborations in science and theatrical performance via the Erdős–Bacon number), but (unexpectedly to me) it seemed controversial after studying Wikipedia history, at least until last week when Wikipedia adjudicated that a deletion request for the cited article should not be granted. I notice that in 2011 within the Lehrer article a reference to Erdös and/or Bacon number was deleted as trivia. I can respect the evaluation, and note there were indeed Lehrer trivia sections in the past here. But even though it's now considered non-trivial, I just added a reference in "external links" instead of to the article proper in case of lingering feelings. I suppose the ref can also go into the Popular Culture section, since that's what the collaboration distance game involves, and Lehrer is very notable in this department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Alien Woods (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, along the way I've tried to systematically address the concerns registered in a "GA review" about lack of citations. The only "citation needed" left is the last two sentences of Musical Legacy paragraph #8, having provided a cite to the first part about Ekborg's liner notes. I note that this para was added on December 15, 2013 by some IP address, but it was correctly flagged with "cite needed" even though it was "probably true" (at Dec 15, 2013, 13:49). I've stared at enough translations from the Swedish to give up on finding a citation (verifiable of not), so if no one here minds, I'll just delete those two sentences, not taking away from this gist of the first part I hope. Lastly for now, thanx for all the encouragement to a newbie. James Alien Woods (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Australian Tour

No mention of his Australian Tour, where the local Scout Association attempted to ban him performing "Be Prepared". 61.68.69.206 (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion -- summary duly added to the chronology. [And, happy 89th birthday today to "our goodman" TL.] James Alien Woods (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

elements

... "The Elements", which lists the periodic table ...

Er, no. The periodic table is a specific arrangement of the chemical elements. The song arranges them more randomly. I haven't quite decided how to change it. —Tamfang (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Not randomly. Rhymingly. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Note on New York Times Review

This is just a quick note: The New York Times review mentioned on the article is actually from February 9, 1959, and written by John Steuart Wilson, the music critic for the Times at the time. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: Lehrer has never married, and does not have any children. This lack of direct heirs may have motivated his choice to place all his songs in the public domain. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done – original research. Favonian (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)