Talk:We Didn't Start the Fire (Fall Out Boy song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 07:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/We Didn’t Start The Fire (Fall Out Boy); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: No - The article fails verification at several points. The sentence In a deviation from the original, Fall Out Boy's updated lyrics abandon chronological ordering, at one point referencing Rodney King next to deepfakes is cited to a source that describes neither Rodney King nor Deepfakes, while the sentence Wentz cites the event's ubiquity and the need for rhyme space for Bush v. Gore in explaining why it was not included is cited to a source that mentions neither rhyme space nor the COVID-19 pandemic. The article also relies somewhat heavily on sources from Stereogum, which isn't at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources but appears to be a group blog (albeit one that seems to be better established than most group blogs so I'm unsure of its reliability for music reviews).
  • Neutral: No - Per WP:SUBSTANTIATE, Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. The example given is that of John Doe is the best baseball player, and the way that in-text attribution would work would be to specifically attribute the claim to the sources that say it. The article currently does not do that sufficiently (it handwaves, saying "The release of the song led to lines in news media such as"..., but this isn't sufficient attribution per WP:INTEXT).
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Yes
  • Other problems: No - Per WP:INTEXT, [i]n-text attribution should be used with direct speech. More or less the entire critical response section does not use proper in-text attribution; it quotes from numerous stories and organizations without naming a single one.
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article needs substantial revision to align with core content policies before this can be run at DYK. Separately, while irrelevant to DYK, I'm somewhat concerned about whether this warrants a standalone article in light of WP:NSONG. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Red-tailed hawk: Lotta issues, but it's a small article, lemme take a whack at it and get back to you. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Red-tailed hawk: Allll righty. So I've fixed the sourcing (too many tabs open, got the cites mixed up), but I think the article is okay with respect to NPOV. WP:INTEXT's fourth example pretty clearly spells out that in-text doesn't require cluttering each and every quote with name and organization (and it doesn't require naming the researchers, only that the truth didn't come down from the clear blue sky). These statements certainly aren't in wikivoice, which is what that policy was intended to address – the first and second examples aren't relevant because the names of the people making these statements aren't more relevant than simply being members of the press. I would count Stereogum as reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS. As for NSONG, Notable covers can have a standalone article provided it can be a reasonably-detailed article based on facts independent of the original., and I would imagine it a disservice to merge this article back to its target. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fourth example in WP:INTEXT (i.e. the one about the tissue) is about a claim of fact; we don't need to attribute factual claims (such as the existence of a piece of tissue) to a particular journal article when we can simply use a citation. That's different than a claim of opinion, which statements like Move over, Gal Gadot's 'Imagine'! are. A specific person wrote that, believes it, and published it as their opinion; that is something we should use attribution for. The first example seems much more applicable, and the guidance that In-text attribution should be used with direct speech is directly applicable to this case, as such quotes are forms of direct speech. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Red-tailed hawk: Okay, seems pretty reasonable. Intext added :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for making the changes. Nihil obstat. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

This discussion resulted in consensus against merging. The opposers provided arguments grounded in the relevant guideline and info page (WP:NSONGS and WP:MERGE). The supporters cited (implicitly) parts of MERGE and long-standing precedent at other articles. The fact that the guideline has recently changed via RfC—an RfC consensus which survived a later challenge—means that it would be inappropriate to base a merge decision on pre-RfC precedent. If I did no weighting at all based on alignment with the guideline, this would at most have been a no consensus close. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per @Amakuru:'s mainpage comment here, I'm proposing we merge this page with We Didn't Start the Fire. Without objection, this will occur within a week. Feel free to discuss. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that this be moved to Talk:We Didn't Start the Fire, per Wikipedia:Merging#Step 1: Create a discussion. That being said, oppose:
  • per WP:NSONGS, Notable covers are eligible for standalone articles, provided that the article on the cover can be reasonably-detailed based on facts independent of the original. This article is over 450 words long, it has an infobox and a table and a navbox and a blockquote. It contains information on its composition timeline, its result, and the critical analysis, both of which are distinct from the target article. The target article, We Didn't Start the Fire, is 1144 words – I would be curious to hear how we merge these articles without 1. the cover taking up 28% of the resulting space, or 2. losing key information.
  • per WP:NOMERGE number 3, Merging should be avoided if ... The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short. This article pretty indisputably meets GNG – I count significant coverage from four RSP-greenlit sources (Slate, Los Angeles Times, Polygon, USA Today).
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not remotely notable enough for its own article. Covers go in the main article page, unless there are very significant reasons why not, per years of practice that has not failed us.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The basic formatting of song cover versions, as most pages are normally formatted, is to put them in the article of the original song: examples include: 1985 (SR-71 song) and We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together (i'm talking about the taylor's version mind you). And probably many, many more that I'm sure you can find yourselves. Chchcheckit (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a typical cover, though. It's gotten a significant amount of media coverage for its deviations from the original song. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support A separate article is unnecessary. Most of the article is taken up by a long unreferenced list (OR?) that fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING,WP:MINORASPECT, and probably a few other guidelines. Merge the informative sourced parts to the original song article. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to remove that part, but the article still spans 450 words without the list – still a bit big for the original, I think. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Size is not an issue. Many FAs are longer (some much longer) than this article merged with the original. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should be part of a section regarding song covers, most songs are formatted on Wikipedia to have sections for covers from other artists. HorrorLover555 (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The cover does not deserve a separate article. Calling it a "notable cover" is an exaggeration. What would you call "Fast Car"? "Hypernotable"? It has been performing much better (and it has no own article). GeorgeJack (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; most notable covers haven't been split out because the RfC only closed six months ago. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is independently notable, and therefore should not be merged. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the F.O.B song differs from it's source material enough to be considered less a cover and more an homage, however I can see how it
    is similar enough to the Billy Joel work be in the same article. Perhaps if the two are to merge, it would at least be best to add a section about the Fall Out Boy song, [As I've seen done on other song articles, such as certain songs like John the Revelator, who's origins as a gospel ditty and it's later descendant of the Depeche Mode song are both explained in the same article.] ~~MetricPin~~
    s. MetricPin (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sidenote here, I was mistaken. The Blind John Willie original version of John the Revelator does indeed have the sub-articles I meant, but I forgot that the Depeche Mode cover was combined with the article for Lilian. Sorry! ~~MetricPin~~
    MetricPin (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone uninvolved please close? Therapyisgood (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Therapyisgood, i'd recommend asking WP:RfCl. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious, "have y'all even read current policy?" oppose. The argument to merge seems to boil down to "that's how we usually do it", ignoring the fact that policy required it to be done that way until last year, when the policy was changed. So of course that's how most articles do it; no one had the option to do otherwise, previously. This is a song with independent notability and almost entirely different content from the original lyrically. I have yet to see a good reason why this, specifically, is a good case for a merger. The current policy is Notable covers are eligible for standalone articles, provided that the article on the cover can be reasonably-detailed based on facts independent of the original, and under that I don't see how it could ever be the correct call to merge here. I would caution the closing editor to discount any arguments that treat the previous, overturned policy as best practice. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As much as I'd love to merge it because it's a bad cover (and I feel some may share my sentiment), it's notable specifically because it's been covered in multiple sources for how bad it is. It's one of the most notable examples of a bad cover in recent years. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Numerous sources have covered the cover (whether on how bad people seem to think it is or for other reasons). I've also read that the policy for this sort of thing changed last year. It definitely seems notable enough. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 01:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's not a cover! Hurt sung by Johnny Cash is a cover. This is a totally different song with completely new lyrics just the same title, tune, and chorus! jengod (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Defined list of events[edit]

I went though and outlined a brief summary of the list of events mentioned in the song, in a similar fashion to the page for the original song. Given the non-chronological structure of this version, I didn't try and outline them in chronological order like the first one (there are also many lines left ambiguous to which specific event they're referring) but if people would like that, or some other change, I'd be interested to hear.

Aquova (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the list (and the one at the original song's article) for copyright reasons. It contained most of the song's lyrics (conveniently boldfaced), so an overquote of the lyrics; and it copied all of a list with subjective membership criteria (viz. events since 1989 that Fall Out Boy think are notable), which is copyright violation for the same reason that a copy of a "top 100 films of all time" list is. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:ResolutionsPerMinute Your thoughts? 2600:100C:A112:99FE:F992:40D2:A0A3:1BD4 (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this song lies way outside my zone of interest (1988–2014). ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 00:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How so? 2600:100C:A112:99FE:A1BE:1621:8701:B432 (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:We_Didn%27t_Start_the_Fire_(Fall_Out_Boy_song)&oldid=1204609107"