Talk:Three-Five-Zero-Zero
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Three-Five-Zero-Zero article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Rewrite
[edit]Wow. A Ginsberg poem as a source on what wording government officials used in public. Uh, no, even if AG had gotten it right chosen to tell the truth in more than a poetic sense. (Oh, BTW the page cited & lk'd as "Full Text of Ginsberg's Wichita Vortex Sutra" is now an excerpt.)
And if the 11 lines quoted were justified under fair useby the comment made in the old version, we would also be able to have articles that are 95% song lyrics, preceded by comment like "Its fans say it's the boss because it's about kitty-cats" (probably no matter what it's really about). But we can't do either (even when it is liked for being about kitty-cats).
Is the song anti-war? Virtually the whole of Hair is anti-war (tho somebody must have told them that there'd be hell to pay if Claude went to Canada instead of accepting induction), but (unless i've forgotten someone's taunting of the main characters) this chorustis arguably the most militaristic passage in the whole production:
- Take weapons up and begin to kill
- Watch the long long armies drifting home
Does that mean something different from "make war on the state, in order to stop this war"?
I've kept the description objective, and the lk to the musical's article can serve to let users judge, in a broader context than its own cryptic lyrics, about what role it is likely to have in light of the larger work that it's a nearly forgotten fragment of. And perhaps someone can find three credible experts in construing incoherent verse who agree about what the lyrics mean.
--Jerzy•t 03:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Jerzy .. i'm ok with most of the rewrite though i went in and made a correction and a couple deletions - i have one comment .. you write "And perhaps someone can find three credible experts in construing incoherent verse who agree about what the lyrics mean" .. "incoherant verse"? Its poetry. We all take different meaning from art but imho I don't think the lyrics are 1) incoherent or 2) arguably anything other than anti war in its sentiment - Mblaxill (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Further research
[edit]A blog (sorry, not an acceptable source, but useful to those prepared to repeat some of the blogger's work in order to come up with his presumably reliable sources) says that Ginsberg wrote it on Feb 14, 66 (started? completed? not likely the same day, since it runs over 15 pages in the print edition cited). And blogger cites NYT of 4 days later, with the 3800 figure instead of 3500. (Libraries have free-to-view microfilm; NYT site charges for the article, but has the title and lede for free.) The blogger's quotes, and another Website's excerpt, confirm the passage i removed from the article, and the blogger's excerpts from Ginsberg include, in order, most of the words of the lyrics (but not the two final call-for-insurrection lines).
--Jerzy•t 03:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- This article about the song shows that Jim Rado intended the number to be about the casualties rather than the troop strength: http://www.orlok.com/hair/holding/articles/MiscellaneousArticles/3-5-0-0.html -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
"Notable" lyrics
[edit]Any selection of specific lyrics as "notable" is the editor's POV. Any reference to specific lyrics as notable requires a source that the lyrics are notable, per WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, or otherwise needs consensus here now that it has been challenged. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Continuing to restore without sourcing is edit warring. Cresix (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- are you an admin? Not sure why you're here insisting on edits and making edit war accusations - its absurd to say including anti war song lyrics in an anti war song are POV - though including the word "nigger" in the article seems very important to you Mblaxill (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Whether I am an admin is irrelevant. Anyone can insist on sources for edits because WP:V is a cornerstone principle of Wikipedia, and any editor who continues to add without the source is edit warring. What you consider "absurd" is beside the point. Let me repeat: Any reference to specific lyrics as notable requires a source that the lyrics are notable, per WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, or otherwise needs consensus here now that it has been challenged. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So instead of wondering whether someone is an admin or repeatedly adding your POV selection of lyrics without a source, please find a source that the lyrics are more notable than other lyrics of the song. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- This article is adequately referenced by the Miller article, which discusses the song. I have re-organized the content to expand on Miller's discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- None of the sources -- NONE -- point out those lyrics as any more notable than the others. Ssilvers, please stop edit warring during an ongoing discussion here. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Cresix, the lines that you suggest deleting are the two last lines of the song, which are part of Miller's detailed discussion of the song. The comparison of these lines with the Ginsburg poem, which the Miller article discusses, is of interest to readers of this article. This is just a brief illustration of the points that Miller is making in his article. I disagree that it is not discussed in the reference. It is our task as editors to select what, from the sources and text of the subject, is of interest to readers, and that seems to be exactly what Mblaxill has done. I think that, if anything, this very short article should discuss more of the song rather than less. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sslivers, Miller doesn't single out these lines as more notable than all of the other lyrics in the song. Selection of these particular lines as more "notable" is the editor's opinion. Cresix (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I personally like the particular lyrics selected, but I agree in principle with Cresix that this needs better verification by a reliable source that those lyrics are notable. 71.50.99.0 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sslivers, Miller doesn't single out these lines as more notable than all of the other lyrics in the song. Selection of these particular lines as more "notable" is the editor's opinion. Cresix (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Cresix, the lines that you suggest deleting are the two last lines of the song, which are part of Miller's detailed discussion of the song. The comparison of these lines with the Ginsburg poem, which the Miller article discusses, is of interest to readers of this article. This is just a brief illustration of the points that Miller is making in his article. I disagree that it is not discussed in the reference. It is our task as editors to select what, from the sources and text of the subject, is of interest to readers, and that seems to be exactly what Mblaxill has done. I think that, if anything, this very short article should discuss more of the song rather than less. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- None of the sources -- NONE -- point out those lyrics as any more notable than the others. Ssilvers, please stop edit warring during an ongoing discussion here. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- This article is adequately referenced by the Miller article, which discusses the song. I have re-organized the content to expand on Miller's discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)