Talk:Fire and Rain (song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fire and Rain (song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Comment

Just forget it. I was incorrect! Mike H 22:16, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fireandrain.jpg

Image:Fireandrain.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 19:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnificent Corsairs

Other web sites name Taylor's first band as "the Magnificent Corsairs", not "the Flying Machine" Corsairs were well known airplanes in WWII, but this would not be anything Taylor had experiences with. None of the stories about Suzanne Schnerr indicated there were flying machines which crashed. I don't believe this story, and I don't think it is any kind of conspiracy. The true story has not been told, for some kind of personal reason. Frizb (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Fire Rain will mealt the skins of the evil doers[reply]

Removal of "Rumor" section

There has been a "Rumor" section. Entirely un-encyclopedic. It contained a totally debunked myth about the inspiration for the song. I have removed the entire section and replaced it with a sentence that references that the myth existed. But it is inappropriate to include the full details of a totally debunked fabrication. Davidpatrick (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query re dates -- apparent error

The article now says, "The album was released in February 1970, with the song being released as a single the following February." In this context, that would mean that the song was released as a single in February 1971, which contradicts the infobox. Was the song released as a single in the same month that the album was released? JamesMLane t c 16:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Taylor singles chronology was broken. When each single article is listed with it's predecessor to the left and subsequent single to the right of of the current single article and this chronology is broken at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_and_Rain_(song) and jumps backward in time to 1969 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_in_My_Mind. This error time loops back to the 1st single and not to Fire and Rains predecessor Elsnod (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)elsnod[reply]

The article currently says the single was released in February, 1970 - the same time as the album. That's incorrect. The single was released in August 1970, as pointed out in Warner Brother's ad in the August 29 issue of Billboard. This was after Johnny Rivers and Georgie Fame had released singles of the song. PatConolly (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization?

The cover of the single shown here clearly shows that the ay of "And" is capitalized, in contravention of normal title-case practice, and and of how the article is currently titled. Should we be considering a rename? -- Eliyahu S ^Talk 21:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Allmusic review: Janovitz, Bill. Fire and Rain at AllMusic. Retrieved June 6, 2015.
Billboard Johnny Rivers' review: "Spotlight Top Singles: Top 60 Pop Spotlight". Billboard. 82 (34). Nielsen Business Media, Inc: 92. August 22, 1970. ISSN 0006-2510.
Billboard Johnny Rivers' chart before Taylor: "Billboard Hot 100". Billboard. 82 (36). Nielsen Business Media, Inc: 80. September 5, 1970. ISSN 0006-2510.
Cashbox charts: Downey, Pat; Albert, George; Hoffmann, Frank W (1994). Cash box pop singles charts, 1950–1993. Libraries Unlimited. ISBN 978-1-56308-316-7.
Grammy Nomination for Song of the Year "Grammy Awards Final Nominations". Billboard. 83 (6). Nielsen Business Media, Inc: 12. February 6, 1971. ISSN 0006-2510.
Grammy Award winner: "Winners". The Recording Academy. National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. Retrieved June 6, 2015.
Grammy Hall of Fame award: "GRAMMY Hall Of Fame". The Recording Academy. National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. Retrieved June 6, 2015. Seattle (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified claim

I can't find a source for this statement, but I'll leave it here. If anyone else can find a source, feel free to add it.

It eventually sold over a million US singles, but never received its corresponding certification.

Thanks. Seattle (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title change

I've moved the article back to Fire and Rain (song), where it has been for 14 months, and created Fire and Rain as a disambiguation page. There are currently 4 articles with the title "Fire and Rain", and no evidence has been presented that the song is the primary topic for the name in English. It may well be, but evidence needs to be presented first. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fire and Rain (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, 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) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What covers are significant?

I'm a little confused about WP:SONGCOVER criteria. Egghead06 has, on that basis, at least three times removed the statement about Blood Sweat & Tears cover on Blood, Sweat & Tears 3. And also removed Dido's cover. But Egghead06 always retains these two versions: "Marcia Hines covered "Fire and Rain" on her 1975 debut LP, Marcia Shines. Her version reached #17 in Australia." "Al Jarreau covered it on his 1976 album Glow" Why are Al Jarreau's and Marcia Hines covers significant but BST's not? Their album reached #1 in the US, and I'm sure a lot more people heard their version than Hines or Jarreau's. PatConolly (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Egghead06: Please pay attention to Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and Wikipedia:REVEXP and stop reverting any additions made to the Covers section of this article without explanation. Dharmabumstead (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do the Tim Hardin and BST covers pass WP:NSONGS, a component of passing WP: SONGCOVER?--Egghead06 (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven’t looked into the BST version, although I agree with PatConnolly that a lot more people would’ve heard their cover on their #1 album than heard (or even heard of) Marcia Hines’ cover.

Tim Hardin, who is notable in his own right as a songwriter whose work has been covered by dozens of artists (and, more importantly in this context, has been cited several times by James Taylor as a major influence on his songwriting) recorded a rendition that is singled out and discussed in the Allmusic article about the album (and elsewhere, although those aren’t as easily cited because they’re not freely available online).

And I think you’ve got it backwards. WP:NSONGS is not a component of “passing” WP:SONGCOVER, it’s guidelines for whether or not a song is notable enough to have its own article. Wikipedia:SONGCOVER is a guideline for mentioning cover versions in articles about notable songs.

WP:SONGCOVER says “only if at least one of the following applies”, one of those requirements is that “the rendition is discussed by a reliable source, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right.”

So: a major influence of James Taylor’s recorded a cover version that was discussed by a frequently-cited and popular music review site (and others in print), thus “passing” the criteria for WP:SONGCOVER. BST’s version was on a #1 album and also mentioned in the Allmusic review of that album. Both versions seem to pass WP:SONGCOVER, and both are at *least* as notable as the Marcia Hines version, since more people would’ve heard either of those versions than the Marcia Hines cover.

The article is improved and more useful when there are more cover versions listed, and although this is one of the most covered songs in pop history, there are only two cover versions listed.

How does constantly reverting any additions to the covers section of this article (without explanation) help anyone or improve the article? Dharmabumstead (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it says "the rendition is discussed by a reliable source, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right. Merely appearing in an album track listing, a discography, etc., is not sufficient to show that a cover version is noteworthy". Track listings are exactly what you are using as references. The cover needs to be discussed not merely mentioned.--Egghead06 (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, track listings aren’t “exactly what I’m using as a reference”. Read my reply above again. Tim Hardin’s cover is discussed in the Allmusic article about the album, and the fact that Tim Hardin was cited several times by James Taylor as an influence makes it noteworthy as well.

The article is improved by adding this reference (and could actually use a few more; this song has been covered hundreds of times, but there are only two covers mentioned in this article, which is somewhat ridiculous). How is the article improved by you removing this reference (and apparently any other reference to a cover that gets added)? How is that constructive? 11:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC) Dharmabumstead (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but none of your additions pass WP:SONGCOVER. The covers you add did not chart. The renditions do not pass WP:NSONGS. The references do not discuss the cover, merely mention it. That’s why I remove them. Articles are not enhanced by endless "Joe Nobody covered this in 1972" type additions and that why SONGCOVER exists to weed out such trivial mentions.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hardin is hardly “Joe Nobody”, the cover was not “trivial”, and ‘charting’ is not a required criteria to “pass” WP:SONGCOVER. 99% of the edits you've made to this article are deletions or reverts, and I don't think the article is improved by this weird continual "gatekeeping" by a single editor. And - still - you continue to conflate SONGCOVER with NSONGS. Dharmabumstead (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be crystal clear: WP:NSONGS covers guidelines for whether or not a song is notable enough to merit its own article. The criteria for WP:SONGCOVER lists two requirements; a cover must meet only one of these to be valid); WP:SONGCOVER is simply guidelines for whether a cover version should be mentioned in an article about a notable song that’s passed NSONGS. Please stop reverting cover references based on your overly strict and flawed interpretation of NSONGS and SONGCOVER. Dharmabumstead (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t see how it could be clearer-

"When a song has been recorded or performed by more than one artist, a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:

the rendition is discussed by a reliable source, showing that it is noteworthy in its own right. Merely appearing in an album track listing, a discography, etc., is not sufficient to show that a cover version is noteworthy; cover songs with only these types of sources should not be added to song articles, either as prose or in a list.

the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS."

This is SONGCOVER and the Tim Hardin version satisfies neither.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. It's discussed in the AllMusic review, a reliable source. That plus the fact that Tim Hardin was basically James Taylor's main songwriting influence when he was starting out, even though this in itself isn't a criteria for SONGCOVER, makes this cover worthy of mentioning in the article.

Is your purpose here to improve this article, or just revert every change anyone makes to the covers section without explanation and then engage in endless pedantry when anyone calls you on it? What you're doing isn't improving the article. Dharmabumstead (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tiresome. I've requested WP:3 on this, since we seem to be at a stalemate and we're the only two editors arguing over it. Dharmabumstead (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m following WP: SONGCOVER and that is my justification in removing non notable covers. As for not giving any explanation for edits, I have on numerous occasions. The explanation is that I’m following WP: SONGCOVER.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be *all* you do with this article - revert, revert, revert. Your overzealous and severe interpretation of WP:SONGCOVER is not really improving the article, is it? The fact that it's one of the most covered songs in pop music, and the range of artists who've covered the song, aren't mentioned because of your gatekeeping. It's preventing the article from being as useful as it could be. Dharmabumstead (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not about me. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and comment on content only. Thanks.--Egghead06 (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a personal attack; it’s the truth, as anyone looking at the history of this article can see. This article isn’t as good as it could be because of your gatekeeping behavior. Please read WP:OWN. Dharmabumstead (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should also probably review WP:AVOIDYOU, specifically this part: “Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.” 06:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Dharmabumstead (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, read that. It links to WP:WIAPA where it states…"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." That’s, at all.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Stating a simple fact about your editing of this article does not constitute a ‘personal attack’. Dharmabumstead (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: So, firstly, this discussion could do with being toned down a notch or three, applicable to everyone involved. That aside, the first thing I would note is that WP:SONGCOVER is internal WikiProject guidance. As such, it is not a policy or guideline, and is not at all binding. I believe, though, that the concern which seems to underlie it, that being that articles about well-known songs could become full of mentions of every minor band that happens to record a cover of them, is reasonable. So, I think the question to ask here is, do reliable sources to a reasonable extent discuss (not just mention in passing) the cover version? That doesn't mean that the cover needs to have enough sourcing to itself pass GNG, but there should be substantially more source material about it than just verification of its existence. The question is not so much a WikiProject guideline as it is of due weight. If reliable and independent sources didn't have much of anything to say about a given cover version besides that it exists, that is not significant enough to bear mention in the article. That would also vary by article—some very well-known songs that have tons of cover versions may only have mention of a few highly significant covers, so that the article is not overrun, while for less-known songs a less well known cover might bear mentioning. This, of course, is an extremely well-known song, so one would err toward the former. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Thanks for weighing in. I agree that a well-known song doesn't necessarily need an exhaustive list of every cover version, and that while WP:SONGCOVER is useful as a general guideline, it's not a strict requirement. I think other factors should also be considered.

Tim Hardin was never well known as a performer, but he was far from "Joe Nobody" - he was hugely influential as a songwriter (go ask Bob Dylan). Hardin's deeply personal, confessional style of songwriting has been cited by James Taylor (and many others) as a huge influence on his own songwriting, and Taylor, like a very large number of other artists, has covered several of Hardin's songs throughout his career.

I think the clear influence of Hardin on Taylor's songwriting makes Hardin's cover of "Fire and Rain" (his only recorded cover of a James Taylor song) carry more than enough weight to merit inclusion in this article. I believe it provides some context and insight into the song's creation and its importance. Dharmabumstead (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure that's very nice, what reliable and independent sources would you cite to support that position? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria within SONGCOVER states the preference for the cover to be "discussed by a reliable source". The Allmusic reference to include Harding’s cover says "wrenchingly moving interpretation of James Taylor's "Fire and Rain.". Not including the artist’s name or the song title, that amounts to four words. Are four words a discussion by a reliable source?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not enough. That's just a brief mention. To merit inclusion, there would need to be more than that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, here’s the entire quote, in context: “The resulting album is not that far from Hardin's classic Verve Records releases in terms of content, a mix of confessional originals interspersed with a handful of covers, of which the best is a wrenchingly moving interpretation of James Taylor's "Fire and Rain." If we really have to split hairs this much: that's 43 words out of a 310-word article. And 1 of the 8 sentences in the article.

As you said, WP:SONGCOVER is “not a policy or a guideline” and “not at all binding”. My argument (see above) is that there are other factors that should be considered as well, and this mention shouldn’t be eliminated based merely on WP:SONGCOVER. 19:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Dharmabumstead (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't particularly care about WP:SONGCOVER. That's just a WikiProject style thing, and it's not a policy or guideline. On the other hand, WP:NPOV, specifically that about due weight, is a policy, and indeed our core policy. One sentence in a clearly editorial piece is not sufficient to merit inclusion. Are there any other sources about it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any source on this is going to be "clearly editorial", isn't it? In this case it's a record review, from a reputable source frequently cited by articles on wikipedia, and the sentence with the reference to the "Fire and Rain" cover comprises more than 10% of the article. There are several other sources where Taylor mentions what a big inspiration and influence Tim Hardin has been for him (I just added another one to the article), but no, there are no other sources I can find besides the Allmusic review. I just read WP:UNDUE, and I'm not seeing where 'more than one source' is a requirement. Am I missing it?

I'm genuinely curious here: how is the mention of Hardin's cover - a single 26-word sentence with three references - any less "weighty" than the sentence about the Carole King song in the first section of the article? Or the lengthy description of the Simpsons episode (the only reference for which is a YouTube video that's no longer available)? Dharmabumstead (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're not looking for sources that talk about Hardin in general, or Taylor's thoughts on him. This is not the Tim Hardin article. Sources specifically discussing his cover of "Fire and Rain" would be necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the one I already provided? Dharmabumstead (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's one sentence. That's not enough. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic reviews are usually short. The sentence is 1 of 8 in the article. Can you point me to the Wikipedia policy that states how many words constitutes a 'discussion'? Is 14% of an article not sufficient to meet this policy? How many sources are necessary?

I'm asking these questions not to be snarky, but because I'm trying to improve a mediocre article on an important song, and, as usual, it involves running a gauntlet of micrometer-wielding Wikipedia lifers who will revert at the drop of a hat without explanation, and wading through a web of exhaustively detailed yet often incomplete or conflicting "policies". It's exhausting. I'm trying to help, and it always feels like I have to go through a hazing ritual to get anything done. Seems like every policy is strictly adhered to except for WP:DNB. Dharmabumstead (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So while we're at it: it's not the Carole King article, or the "You've Got A Friend" article. or "The Simpsons" article. Should those references be removed under a strict interpretation of WP:UNDUE? Dharmabumstead (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in other stuff arguments. If you think those should be removed, then remove them. This discussion is specifically about the Hardin cover, not something else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE seems to be all about balancing an article, which by definition would require discussing 'other stuff', wouldn't it? Dharmabumstead (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think discussion of the Hardin cover "balances" the article? It seems you're exceedingly determined to get that in. I'm really not sure why; it isn't that significant. If it was only ever talked about in one sentence in one source, it just isn't substantial enough to merit mention. If something else is "sourced" to only a YouTube video, that probably needs removal too (in the interest of "balance"), not a bunch of other poorly sourced stuff dumped in to "balance". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I explained 'why' it's significant and why I think it should remain in the article several times in the discussion above.

I'd like you to answer at least some of the questions I asked. Why is 14% of an article from a well-respected and frequently-cited review website 'not enough' to merit a mention?

WP:SONGCOVER is not binding, yet it seems to be the only reason the reference to Marcia Hines' cover is allowed in the article - other than it appearing on the charts, there's no discussion of it anywhere to be found, other than a single sentence in an article about Marcia Hines in an Australian newspaper. And the reference to Billboard magazine actually has no 'discussion' at all of her cover.

Given Hardin's influence on James Taylor, the Hardin cover is at least as 'weighty' as the Marcia Hines cover. Dharmabumstead (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might be right about the other ones. But "14%" is still just a single sentence. Right now, it seems like the cover versions are largely trivia, and may all need to go. But that's certainly true of a particular cover with only one sentence about it in a reliable, independent source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you several times now to point me to the Wikipedia policy that states exactly how long a 'discussion' needs to be to warrant a reference, and you still haven't. Is it a matter of opinion? My opinion is that 14% of an article from a reputable source should be plenty; it's more discussion than any of the covers that are currently listed in the article have gotten.

I'm not trying to be reductive here (I'd rather see an article have too much info than not enough), but the entire covers section doesn't seem to be held to the same standard and scrutiny that my edit is undergoing.

The very first entry in the 'Covers' section claims that the record label was 'impelled' to release James Taylor's version of the song, but cites no sources for this other than page 7 of the August 29th, 1970 issue of Billboard magazine...which turns out to be a full page Warner Brothers ad for the single. How do we know the record company was 'impelled' to do anything? We don't know.

All of the references to the covers by R.B. Greaves, Johnny Rivers, and Georgie Fame have no discussion about them anywhere - the only thing noteworthy about any of them seems to be that they were released before James Taylor's version and that they *allegedly* made modest appearances in the chart. I say "allegedly" because all of the references to those chart numbers pull up 404 errors when you try to check them.

Even with all of that, I don't think the cover section should go away; rather, I think that there should be less strict and pedantic (and sometimes, it seems, selective) enforcement of a hodgepodge of Wiki policies for edits made to that section. It'd be nice to able to find a list of the covers of this song by notable/influential artists, but it's not apparently not allowed. How does that serve the reader or make the article better? (side thought: would articles that are exhaustive lists of covers of notable songs pass muster here?)

There has to be an element of human decision making involved in the process of building a wikipedia article to make it useful and interesting; please tell me that it's not just a bunch of home owner association enforcers running around with a ruler measuring the length of people's lawns.

Does my single sentence, amply sourced mention of the Tim Hardin cover harm the article, or is it possible that it would help a reader understand the song and its creation better?

Dharmabumstead (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already discussed undue weight on more than one occasion, which is a Wikipedia policy. And continuing the "14%" isn't useful; it is still one sentence, regardless of percentage. That's not sufficient. It may well be that many of the other mentions of covers are similarly insufficiently sourced, and also need to be removed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The 14%" isn't useful for your argument, perhaps, but it's a valid question that you still haven't answered. I've read WP:UNDUE. Where does it lay out a specific metric for what is 'sufficient'? Is that your opinion, or is there an actual Wikipedia policy somewhere that defines this? Because as it stands now that '14%' is more discussion than any of the other covers in the article have gotten.

Once again: does my single sentence, amply sourced mention of the Tim Hardin cover harm the article, or is it possible that it would help a reader understand the song and its creation better?

Dharmabumstead (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any "amply sourced" mention. If there were ample sources, I wouldn't object. What sources do you have aside from the single sentence that would justify calling it "amply sourced"? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep fixating on the "single sentence", when that "single sentence" is actually a significant chunk of the sourced article, which is from a reputable and often-cited source used all over wikipedia. And one of three references I cite in my edit.

Once again: please point me to the Wikipedia policy that explicitly lays out the specific metric for what's considered 'sufficient'. And why does my edit seem to be held to a different standard of 'sufficient' than any of the other covers mentioned in that section?

Once again: does my single sentence, sufficiently sourced mention (three references) of the Tim Hardin cover harm the article, or is it possible that it would help a reader understand the song and its creation better? Or is it more important here to measure the length of the lawn? Dharmabumstead (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References in other works

I moved the mentions of references to this song in other works to their own section, since placing them in the 'Background and composition' section at the top makes no sense. Dharmabumstead (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]