This is an archive of past discussions about I Predict 1990. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Image:IPredict1990.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.
I tried finding a book by the name I Predict 1986 but couldn't. There's I Predict Nineteen Eighty-Five: Who Will Survive in '85?, and another published in 1986 entitled Twenty Years of I Predict, but nothing with the specific title added by the anonymous editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
How mature. Three other editors commented. One said that he couldn't tell if it was or wasn't because the link you left was incomplete. The unambiguously second stated it wasn't. The third said it was a stupid thing to edit war about. It's not clear if "Agreed" means that he agreed that it wasn't a RS or not. No one stated it was a RS, not even you.
WP:RSN is the place to go to find out if it is reliable. Just by virtue of it being a blogspot blog, the assumption would normally be to consider it "not reliable" until the RSN discussion is held. (and WP:BRD would agree) Now, I would disagree that there was any kind of consensus in that discussion. For starters, it is the wrong venue, plus it was too small and the discussion wasn't about the reliability. I don't know the content, don't care about, but simply speaking as an objective party looking at the URLs and reading BRD, that is my take: leave it out until you can get a consensus at WP:RSN. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it's the right place, and I debated about going there, but I was really relying on the honour of evrik, but it doesn't appear that that is happening. Going to RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know the exact details (my old vinyl's been all safely packed away for years) but I'm fairly sure much of that blog entry is taken directly from "I Predictionary" - a set of background/commentary notes by Taylor which (if I remember correctly) accompanied the album (as well as its lyrics insert). Hopefully someone whose vinyl is a bit more accessible can get hold of the original - in which case the web site reliability question should be moot. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I never owned the vinyl—it was one of the first CDs I bought—but Sock Heaven would list it, and I don't see it there. Now the Truth Can Be Told contains a track called "I Predictionary". Could that be what you're thinking of? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't a track - if I remember right, it was a leaflet. ... I've gone and double checked that blog site and they link back to the relevant page at Sock Heaven themselves this page. I'm not sure Sock Heaven would be a WP-reliable source either - I think it's a fan site rather than an official site - but the I Predictionary itself, while being a primary source, is Taylor's own commentary on a (not really controversial due to being fairly obvious) background to his song. Up to you - this sort of thing isn't really my area of expertise - I just noticed mention of an album I enjoy listening to being involved in a dispute and I don't see any real acrimony here - just a bit of miscommunication.
I don't have "Now The Truth Can Be Told" - I'm more a casual listener than a massive fan - just have a couple of older albums on LP, "Squint" on CD and "Chagall Guevara" on tape (could never find that one in a decent format - I'm a long, long away from America where most of his fans/distribution networks are). Never knew there was a song called that anyway. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. Sock Heaven itself isn't a RS, but because it links back to RSes, it's useful. And Taylor has endorsed it as well, so that's useful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
That was an annoying thing about vinyl: what you get with the record was whatever the distributor or retailer could be bothered leaving in the sleeve. I got the 'I Predictionary' (which the retailer may have received separately as a publicity thing anyway) but, from a different retailer, never got the comic that was included in Boodle Boodle Boodle. Those were just things that happened. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It's there. It's also not a reliable source and the statement isn't even supported by the source you provided. I'm still waiting for your apology for calling me a liar with the Pinocchio graphic above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I just saw the discussion. I added my comments. Good to see you've started your edit war again. --evrik(talk)14:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry you think I've started the edit war. Perhaps you could learn to read the sources and reflect them correctly, and understand what reliable sources are. Then it wouldn't require others to correct you, for you to become ad defensive META:DICK and create an edit war. I'm sorry if this offends you, but I have had enough of your attitude. Either learn how to edit or stop. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
So my friend Peter Chattaway is now a RS? The site, http://www.peterchattaway.com/articles/steve97.htm, is not loading for me. In IE10 I get "This Web page is parked for FREE, courtesy of GoDaddy.com." He has written music reviews for several local papers though and we have a shared interest in Mr. Taylor, but I'll assume this is a paper not a blog, but I'm not sure how you had access to a source that has been dead for quite a while.
I reverted your blog entry as at least two other editors, including myself, have stated it's not a reliable source. The statement is also not supported in the blog. The song is not "reflection on the cult of personality".
Taylor calls it "the rock and roll myth of 'It's better to burn out than fade away'".
He also asks "does artistry justify being a weasel?".
It is "a stream-of-consciousness graveside meditation on the folly of dead-rock- star worship".
I don't see why the existing reliable-enough (for uncontroversial statements about the writer's own work) sources can't be used to support what really isn't a controversial phrase - at the time it was released (near the end of the Cold War) it was a common metaphor for hero worship - cf Cult of Personality (song) released a year later. That the exact phrase isn't used shouldn't be such a big deal - the statement should be distilled and condensed, not plagiarised.
And Evrik - please stop being so rude to Walter - it's quite uncalled-for - the idea is to work with him to improve the encyclopaedia. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. There are better sources so I'm not sure why this blog has to be used, and, the source doesn't support the phrase. Both are problematic. I'd be fine with quoting the lyric of the song, "It's better to burn out than fade away" as the point of the song, since that's what Taylor states is the purpose of the song, and all of the sources agree with that. If we want to expound on it, linking to the celebrity worship article would be fine as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
You just do not get it. Neither the statement or the source are reliable. I am making a deal because you are a problem editor. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
And one thing further, why this one song? There are ten songs on the album. Prior to your edits, as can be seen here, the section discussed the music of the album, not the lyrical content. It also discussed the problems around "I Blew Up The Clinic Real Good". So what's so special about "JMG" that its theme must be discussed and none of the other nine songs must be? 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
And I removed it again completely because it is not appropriate and it's unsupported. It places undue emphasis on one song over the other nine. I would be fine with discussing the theme of all ten songs, but not to incorrectly apply meaning to any song. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Undue emphasis? Sometimes only one or two songs on an album mean anything. I have removed sentences about individual songs. --evrik(talk)14:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Yet every song has an entry at Sock Heaven with links to discussion about each. Only except "Babylon" does not have a discussion about the background or meaning. See them linked from http://www.sockheaven.org/discography/taylor/ip1990/
The removal is WP:POINTY. ""Clinic" actually was individually notable (as supported by its source) and the influence and source is discussed in the liner notes. 14:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
You seem to have a double standard, and you seem to Wikipedia:OWN this article. I was simply following your logic when you said, "It places undue emphasis on one song over the other nine. I would be fine with discussing the theme of all ten songs ..." so again, some songs and some sources are okay, but not others? --evrik(talk)14:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry you think I'm showing ownership. I'm not. What I'm doing is applying Wikipedia standards to the article. None of the other songs created controversy which is why "Clinic" was mentioned, with a source. Not a double standard, but I do see the point. So again, controversy is not the same as theme. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
