Talk:Angels (Robbie Williams song)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Pop music High‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin music Low‑importance

	Latin music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin music (music performed in Spanish, Portuguese and the languages of Ibero-America, see project scope for more details) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin musicWikipedia:WikiProject Latin musicTemplate:WikiProject Latin musicLatin music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Queries

'Angels' did NOT Win the 'Best Single of the Past 25 Years Award', at the 2005 BRITS. It was for the Best Single of the 25 BRITS, that had taken place to that point. The first was in 1977, then there was a gap - then it began again in 1982. The 2005 Awards were the 25th since 1977. That's what 'Angels' Won - the Best Single of 25 Years of The BRITS. For some reason, it has gone down as winning a 'Best Single of the Past 25 Years' Award - which would mean The BRITS began in 1981, & 2005 was the 25th. That never happened!
One need only look at some of the other Singles Nominated with 'Angels', to see that it was not for 'The Past 25 Years'. For example - 'We Are The Chsmpions', by Queen - a 1977 No.2 Hit.

No Singles Nominated would have been earlier than 1981, had it really been an Award for 'The Past 25 Years'. Unfortunately an awful lot of people do not think things through. 82.22.122.117 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember "Fly" beeing a Robbie Williams song, and even less a b-side of Angels. Are you sure of what you've written ?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Angels_%28Robbie_Williams_single%29 13:31, 3 July 2006 User:83.114.16.60

It should be worth mentioning that Williams himself sung a version of Angels in Spanish. It is not a direct translation of the original English lyrics either. At one point you could listen to it from the Guy Chambers website. The song and indeed the lyrics can be downloaded from the internet. 00:54, 20 August 2006 User:87.74.132.185
I just saw a programme on RTE (Irish state television) that claims that Angels was written by a then unemployed Irish musician who Robbie Williams met in a bar. This man was later paid 7500 pounds for the rights to the song. Didn't catch the name tough. 212.64.98.189 23:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angels was originally written by Ray Heffernan as an acoustic guitar piece, and tweaked by Heffernan and Williams when they met briefly in Dublin.

The original lyric was 'I'm loving an angel instead...', as the tune was a love song to Heffernan's girlfriend, dedicated to the memory of their child who had recently died in hospital.

Chambers converted the song to a power pop tune, including I think, adding the famous piano intro. He signed away the complete rights for between £5000 and £10000 depending on whom you believe, but received no writing credit on the album. He even had to buy his own copy of the CD to hear it. Wow.

At the very least Heffernan deserves a mention in this article - but perhaps he needs a decent agent more! Centrepull (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Angels by all angels.jpg

Image:Angels by all angels.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Angels by all angels.jpg

Image:Angels by all angels.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Yuridia CD.JPG

Image:Yuridia CD.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:51MC439R6GL. SS500 -1-.jpg

The image File:51MC439R6GL. SS500 -1-.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Williams did not write the song

There has been huge expose that Williams did not write the song and it was Ray Heffernan from Dublin who never has been recognised by williams. And all mention of this keeps getting deleted from this page. Perhaps other more frequent editors can help protect the page from the editor or editors deleting this Tommyxx (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Tommyxx (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's extremely controversial. If there is any then there should be a different page on this conflict, but there should be nothing like that on the song here, because it isn't 100% proven.--Trulystand700 (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interview with the guy including the early recording of it. This info needs to be added as there are many articles about the fact.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the information about the uncredited writer. This is a he said/she said arguement and has no place in the article. Wikipedia is about facts, the facts are Williams/Chambers are the only officially credited writers of the song. The source provided makes no comment about the alledged claim at all. Provide a reliable source that requires Ray Heffernan to be officially credited (outcome of a lawsuit?) and it can be put back in.--Dkspartan1 (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the uncredited writer story has crept back into this article, with him even being given official writer credit in the infobox. Even if the story were true, the official credit still mentions Robbie and Guy Chambers only (see, for instance, the songwriters info on the website of ASCAP.com, which lists all songs published by publishing companies and authors associated with ASCAP). Therefore the credit in the infobox should read Williams and Chambers only. Since this story has yet to be proven (and to be verified by official sources, such as Robbie Williams himself, his management or his record company), I really think it should not be detailed here as fact, but merely as a minor and unproven sidenote.-- Zighlveit (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)(talk)[reply]

That, and Williams has publicly stated multiple times, that Ray Heffernan did not write the song. Ray Heffernan being in possession of an early recording (sung by Williams!) does not prove anything. I'm in no way supporting either one's side of the story, but we can't just make up our own truth here. Until proven, we need to stick with the official version. And maybe credit the controversy in a new article. Worstbull (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the posts below on this talk page; there's been extensive open discussion around the inclusion of this content - it didn't just "creep" back in. People are always going to have varying perspectives on the matter, and there aren't many cases in the history of popular music where there's such an unresolved controversy over a song's authorship. I'm firmly in favour of the infobox stating 'Attributed to Robbie Williams and Guy Chambers, as at present. That statement remains official and accurate. In terms of claims that Williams denies Heffernan's ownership, that was true until about 2017, but simply isn't true now. I'd recommend anyone still holding this position to watch his interview on True Geordie [[1]] from 2:10:40 onwards, where Williams talks through the matter in detail. One of the very first things Williams states in this interview when asked about Heffernan's authorship is "it's not a conspiracy, it actually happened". The accreditation note in the physical CD single of Angels also corroborates Heffernan's story. It's important to consider Heffernan has stated numerous times that this is a triggering matter for him, given how big the song got in relation to his lack of royalties, and that he doesn't intend to ever take legal action, in order to preserve his mental health. In terms of the page, a lot of sourced information which myself and others had previously added around the authorship dispute has been removed over time - lots of people (mainly IP editors) don't like the insinaution that a big hit like Angels has controversy surrounding its writing. Maybe a distinct article about the controversy would help. Jonie148 (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Angels (Robbie Williams song). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.rt100.ro/editie-top-100_x10141.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angels (Robbie Williams song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006100124/http://www.fimi.it/archivio_certificazioni.php to http://www.fimi.it/archivio_certificazioni.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Writers for the song

For those trying to say Ray Heffernan is a credited songwriter please note, there's no evidence other than his claim (primary source). Robbie is on record denying Heffernan's claim. I have no problem including the claims from Heffernan in the article, it's a well known story (controversy section?), but he can't be listed as an official songwriter. There's no evidence or confirmation other than his claim, that's how it has to be presented.Dkspartan1835 (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dkspartan1835. I understand your argument, but I have to disagree with your claim that there's no evidence. As the section of the article you deleted made reference to, in the sleeve notes to the CD single of 'Angels', there is a little acknowledgement that reads 'Even Fallen Angels Laugh Last - Thanks to Raymond Hefferman'. I'm happy to provide visual evidence of this, if necessary. Within my extensive personal Robbie Williams collection, the Angels single is the only CD to include such an acknowledgement, indicating that Hefferman certainly had a significant hand in some aspect of the track. In my personal opinion, Wikipedia shouldn't just reflect the claim of Williams (i.e. the narrative of the millionaire celebrity/multi-national record company), but should reflect the contested nature of the authorship. I'd be happy to see the writership of the song listed as 'contested', or have a 'see below' link in the writers box and lead, or similar; along with a 'controversy' section added to the article, as you suggest. The only thing I don't personally agree with, is to have Williams and Chambers solely credited in the lead without acknowledging that Hefferman has made claims to the contrary. --Jonie148 (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on this discussion with the removal of content in the lead over the last 24 hours. The argument about the writers of this song is well discussed and sourced in the writers section. The lead is used to summarise an article of which this is part of it, so it makes sense to include a mention of it. There is hidden text in the article that states "Stop! DO NOT remove the following sourced information without first contributing to the discussion on this talk page". Unless someone can give a valid reason why sourced content should be ignored and a comment about it removed from the lead, then I feel it should be included. NZFC^(talk) 04:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The hidden text has been removed and restore so many times, this is enough to make it clear that currently there is no consensus for inclusion. Therefore, the burden is on those who want to include it to gain consensus. The article should remain in the stable state prior to the inclusion of the hidden text, until such time as consensus is gained, this is in accordance with BRD. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works, the information is sourced which is why it is included as the lead is suppose to summarise the article. Just because it's controversial doesn't mean we removed WP:NOTCENSOR. BRD works in that you've now removed it, I've reverted you so give a reason why it shouldn't include sourced information? NZFC^(talk) 20:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. You really think that's how Wikipedia works? Just because some content is supported by a source, you can't remove it otherwise it's censoring Wikipedia? Please tell me that isn't what you're trying to say. Erm...no that isn't how BRD works - changes are made (the content was added) - That's the B of BRD - it's being Bold. Then it got reverted, which is obviously the R - then the D is the discussion. If the discussion does not gain consensus for the new content, then the article goes back to a previously stable version.

"BRD works in that you've now removed it, I've reverted you so give a reason why it shouldn't include sourced information?" Sorry, that's just funny. No, buddy - that isn't BRD.

Also if you think I'm the same person as MAXXII12, then go file an SPI report. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, information is in there as per MOS:INTRO The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article. So seeing as we have a whole section in the article dedicated to writers of the song it makes sense to be in the lead. If you feel it should be removed, maybe you can file a WP:DRN to get other thoughts. NZFC^(talk) 21:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't understand (or didn't want to understand) my comments, did you?

Let me make this really easy for you to understand. If you want this disputed content included in the article, then the burden is yours to gain consensus for it. Got it?

Oh and file an SPI report if you think that I'm MAXXII12, if you make any further accusations about me using a sock IP, then I will file a report against you for making personal attacks. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not voluntarily removing the content as I believe it is relevant to be in the lead to summarise the content of the article. So I have filed a dispute for it since this conversation is getting us no where. NZFC^(talk) 21:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your refusal to follow basic BRD rules, your edit warring (you were just warned, weren't you?) and your personal attacks in the form of baseless accusations of sock puppetry and block evasion lead me to think that your presence on Wikipedia is rather too disruptive. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm ok with my presence here and have helped contribute to Wikipedia and will continue to do so but thanks for your concern. NZFC^(talk) 08:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that says it all. As long as you don't see any problems then the opinions of others are irrelevant. That is the attitude that caused you to get a warning for edit warring - you thought the edits were okay, so fuck everyone else and you demand to get your own way. But, it's all okay because it's not your call, I wasn't suggesting that you retire as an editor, I was suggesting that if you don't modify your attitude, your abrasive and selfish will result in that choice being taken away from you.

Did I say that, no but thanks for assuming. The editing warring I shouldn't have done but I was correct on that page. I just handled it wrong and learnt from it this one. We have a dispute, it's now at the noticeboard and can see what others think. If I'm wrong here and the line gets removed, that's ok but people can have difference of opinions, that's how this project works. I will continue to edit and learn as I do so. NZFC^(talk) 09:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I was correct on that page" no you weren't, you were edit warring. Content doesn't make it okay to break the rules.

"I just handled it wrong and learnt from it this one." No, you went straight back into an edit war. You didn't seem to learn a thing. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is the correct place or at WP:DRN, but I will probably make a post in both places. I have reverted the removal of sourced information about Ray Heffernan and feel the current wording updated in December 2017 by User:Jonie148 greatly improved the article. Almost all of the edits in this article are IP addresses and newly created accounts removing the sourced information without edit summaries or talk page discussion and then a handful of longer-historied editors reverting this removal with edit summaries and talk page discussion.

I have thought for a while that there is some sort of sock/meatpuppetry going on with either one editor, a handful of editors or a Robbie Williams fan message board that could also involve someone close or working with Robbie Williams in a WP:Conflict of interest to remove the information. Otherwise, we seem to get a lot of new editors that just happen to make the same edits over and over again. As for the newest IP editor, User:124.106.139.19, I get suspicious when a brand new editor seems well versed in protocol or terminology like they did in unsolicitedly bringing up "then go file an SPI report", shows they have done some previous Wikipedia editing. Aspects (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"As for the newest IP editor, User:124.106.139.19, I get suspicious when a brand new editor seems well versed in protocol or terminology like they did in unsolicitedly bringing up "then go file an SPI report", shows they have done some previous Wikipedia editing." well, Sir - that is your problem, not mine.

But, I do have a question or two for you.

1. When did I claim to be a brand new editor?

2. Now, before you say "but your edit history..." - do you know what a dynamic IP address is? 124.106.139.19 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, guess the Geolocate from your talk page that says your in the Philippines and on a static IP is wrong here [2] NZFC^(talk) 18:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd also guess the Geolocate is misinformed about my connection, because it isn't truly static. Static IPs in the Philippines are usually for businesses only. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to insufficient evidence and no official accreditation, Ray Hefferman cannot be stated as an official writer/co-writer. The only sample of evidence used, is a note mentioning Hefferman. This was a note created in spite of the legal dispute between the two parties, as Williams settled to avoid legal delays.

Watch this interview from 2:10:40 onwards. You see that guy talking about Ray Heffernan's contribution to Angels? Yep, that's Robbie Williams himself. Your argument is invalid. --Jonie148 (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Angels (Robbie Williams song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Authorship

The consensus is that a statement should be included in the lede paragraph that authorship of the song has been disputed by Ray Heffernan.
Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

Should a statement be included in the lede paragraph that authorship of the song has been disputed by Ray Heffernan? There is agreement that this controversy will be mentioned in the body of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide your !votes in the Survey. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Survey. That is what the Threaded Discussion is for.

Survey

Keep - I was involved in the above discussion on this talk page and also the one that brought the discussion to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. The dispute about who wrote the song is a decent part of the article on the song and so should be represented in the lede as well per MOS:INTRO. NZFC^(talk) 00:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provided it remains no more than one sentence and given there appear to be multiple realiable sources on a high profile song. (Summoned by bot) -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as despite it being subject to frequent drive-by deletions, it does highlight what I feel to be an important section of the article. --Jonie148 (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion

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.

Removal of Ray Heffernan again

Hi 82.6.184.81, please don't remove information about Ray Heffernan. It is reliably sourced and relevant to the article. Reverting or editing it again could result in you getting blocked. NZFC^(talk) 02:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a question about this. What makes it reliably sourced? To me, it doesn't seem to comply with wikipedia's rules - am I wrong? Corevibes (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Heffernan was the original writer. No proper acknowledgement in this article, not even a section on that.

Wikipedia is not only about facts everyone can easily look up somewhere else, such as who was officially credited with the song. Wikipedia article should be a convergence of facts and existing evidence. Ray Heffernan was paid " to go away" per Williams' acknowledgement. It's a fact. Ray Heffernan is in possession of the first ever recording that sounds exactly like the song. This particular article has a bunch of articles from here and there as their sources, it's not exactly a scientific research-based article with references to studies pulished in peer-reviewed journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Species84721 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Species84721: By all means, feel free to help make the writers section of the page more rigorously sourced. It's been the subject of a lot of consternation over the last few years, and if you listen to the referenced interview with Williams on True Geordie, it was actually this Wikipedia article which made him acknowledge Heffernan's claims, after two decades of outright denials. Your comment about the need to add academic sources amuses me greatly - this sort of back door deal is not the sort of thing that there will ever be reliable sources published on. --Jonie148 (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Species84721, I think this is pretty well covered in the first section of the article body, the Writing section. Popcornfud (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning lead

Upon reading this article for the first time, I thought I mistakenly clicked on an article about Ray Heffernan! I was struck across the face with large sections of information about his claimed input - which was not what I was looking for!

Given the clear controversy about the sources on Ray Heffernan's input (most of this talk page!), I don't think it's relevant enough to include a long paragraph about Heffernan in the first part of this article:

- It's not particularly relevant that Heffernan claims to have co-written an earlier version of the song - definitely not enough to warrant a paragraph in the first section!
- It's absolutely not the most important things that people need to know!

It belongs in the 'writing' section. For those reasons, I would remove that paragraph in the lead section - BUT I was told off for removing something that said 'do not remove' - so I'm going to keep it there, but shift it to the 'writing' section instead on the above grounds of not being relevant enough for the lead. Corevibes (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corevibes. I'd prefer that the information on Heffernan was replaced in the page lead. A quick look at the article's talk page indicates that this is by far the most significantly debated aspect of the article - consensus for the last few years has been that this information belongs in the page lead, and lots of editors have fought for it to be there, so that it's prominently displayed to Wikipedia readers. Relegating it to the writers section entirely (as you have done) seems like censorship to me, but you may of course obtain consensus for the edit. As another user wrote on your talk page, it really would have been good for you to seek consensus before editing the page in this manner, twice. --Jonie148 (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should summarise the main parts of the body. As this seems to be a decent chunk of the article, the current coverage in the lead appears to represent it appropriately as it stands. Popcornfud (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]