Jump to content

Talk:Speedy Gonzales (song)

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 13:52, 5 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Article life

[edit]

I loved its cumbia version and hated to see no article. Laudak (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

I removed:

Much as I love the song and believe it peaked, such pieces of facts must be referenced and very desirably explained in article text. Laudak (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Composers

[edit]

Allmusic also mentions David Hill, Brian Setzer, and Jim Lee in various spots and Buddy Daye, not Kaye. 05:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit]

An editor is insisting on removing a section title "In popular culture" which has this content:

In 1976, it was heard in "The Haunting of Julia" (aka Full Circle) a Mia Farrow horror movie, (bathtub scene). In 2010, the song was used by Canadian cellular telephone company Telus in a television commercial.

on the grounds that there's no reliable source. This is true, but the material is true, as can be seen (regarding the first) here and here and here and here and several other places. (These are all blogs or comment sections and so of course not reliable individually, but its not credible that all these people would be engaged in a conspiracy to spread this untruth.) Regarding the second, here is a YouTube video of the Telus commercial (there are others), and there are several ringtone sites offering Speedy Gonzalez described as "the Telus commercial song"). These are not reliable sources and it's not impossible that all this is some huge hoax I suppose. But it isn't. Therefore {{citation needed}} should be sufficient to support this clearly true material, until such time as reliable sources are found.

The editor is citing WP:BURDEN to supersede WP:BRD (with the addition of the {{citation needed}} tags) in regard to his deletion of the material, but since the material is almost certainly true then the burden would fall on that editor to demonstrate how this plethora of unreliable sources came to exist, I would say. Herostratus (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such exception: if you want to include the material, find a citation in a reliable source that documents the material. If you cannot find such a citation the material cannot be included once an editor (myself, in this case), has challenged its inclusion. Those tags are useful only when an editor finds material they find dubious but they choose not to remove it. In this case, I found the material dubious and removed it: it's not your place to restore it without meeting your obligations under WP:BURDEN.—Kww(talk) 02:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no such exception there's no reason for the {{citation needed}} template to exist. But it does. You haven't challenged the veracity of the material. Are you saying that material isn't true? Simply challenging material on the basis of it not being (yet) cited would allow you run through the Wikipedia deleting all material marked with {{citation needed}} and indeed all material without a proper citation, which would constitute over 50% of our material I guess. I'm not sure that that's a path that we want to be going down.
You say you found the material "dubious". I don't know why, because it's not the sort of thing that people would likely lie about -- there's no ideological angle here, or anything; no one's ox is being gored. It's not the kind of thing that people would get innocently wrong, either -- a lot of people have seen that movie, and that advertisement. At any rate, for whatever reason that you found the material dubious, you have no reason to do that anymore, since I demonstrated above that it's true, to the satisfaction of any reasonable person I believe. So since you no longer think it's dubious, why are you still insisting on its removal? Maybe you should step back a bit and think this through.
At any rate, you have me over a barrel -- WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS are supposed to prevent editors from just removing sections that they don't like on their own hook, but that doesn't work if the issue is pressed (as you have), since WP:3RR supersedes WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. So I can't restore the material at present. (Another editor could.)
So what's the next step? Do you want to concede my point, or move through the steps of dispute resolution? I'd be willing to go to a message board, or WP:3O if that's agreeable. I'd also be willing to wait a bit to see if other editors watching this page want to comment. What say you? Herostratus (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best if you conceded my point and followed policy: there's no license to add unverifiable material simply by tagging it with "citation needed". As I said above, the purpose of the "citation needed" tag is to give the person that disputes the material a choice: he can either tag it or remove it. In this case, I removed it. Now that it's disputed, it cannot be restored without a reliable source. That's basic operation of Wikipedia. WP:BRD does prevent people from removing material they dislike if it is policy compliant. In this case, because there are no reliable sources for the information, it is not policy compliant. There isn't a message board or dispute resolution process that can validly force it in. You could, conceivably, get me over a barrel by finding a group of editors that refused to follow WP:V, but that won't happen often in the case of a trivia list of "in popular culture" items.
As for WP:BRD, you seem to be acting like my removal of unsourced material was the starting point. It was the addition of yet another unsourced edit earlier today that triggered my removal of the unsourced list. I reverted that addition (and the earlier unsourced addition of the commercial at the same time). You forced it back in without discussion in blatant violation of policy. I removed it because of that policy violation, and I removed it again after you continued to edit war your inclusion of unsourced material that cannot be traced to a reliable source. You've discussed it, but only in parallel with your insistence that the material be retained, which you've attempted to do by repeated restoration of challenged material. It's out per WP:V and WP:BURDEN. WP:BRD has no bias favoring the inclusion of material vs. its removal, especially unsourced material that cannot be tracked to reliable sources.
In short, if you want to take me to a dispute resolution process, feel free: I'll prevail. You'd be better off spending your time finding reliable sources if you want to have this information included.—Kww(talk) 04:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, the material was recently added. I didn't catch that. That might make a difference. Sorry for missing that point. Yes in that case WP:BRD doesn't apply -- or rather, favors the removal of the material, I guess, although it's not quite that simple because I'm suggesting a third option...
But anyway, well, you make some good points. And the material is not pressingly important. I'll cogitate on this some more and perhaps return to the discussion when able. Herostratus (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Speedy Gonzales (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) 19:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BiHaley and His Comets

[edit]

they sang a song called "Speedy Gonzalez" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.79.240.240 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Speedy_Gonzales_(song)&oldid=1203741365"