Talk:In the Air Tonight

Meaning

Hi All, I want to know what is the inspiration of the song "in the air to night". Who wrote the song and what is the meaning of the lyrics. Thanks --Swati Mridu 05:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Video

sorry about the video part, I've only seen the video 3 or 4 times so my memory is a bit blurry on the subject... --Skully Collins 19:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Urban Legend

The section is getting bloated with real and jokey variations on the legend, none of which add much beyond what the section lead paragraph conveys, and none of which are referenced. I'm taking all the examples out, any that are re-established should include references. Jgm 13:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Urban Legend

Here's the one I heard, from Triple-M (Australia) in 2006 IIRC. The song was indeed written when Collins was going through a messy divorce, as quoted. The lyrics (and the divorce, presumably) was based on Collins walking in on his wife in bed with the guy hired to paint their home. Thus "I saw it with my own two eyes" yadda yadda. --Jquarry 02:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that one, too ... you think "I know where you been ... it's all been a pack of lies!" and "I've seen your face before my friend/But I don't know if you know who I am" support that too? Daniel Case 03:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it sounds more like he walked in, saw them going at it but they didn't see him, and he went somewhere else ("I went to the places that we always go ... I thought that maybe we could see a show") and when he came home again, "I couldn't believe it ... he was just leaving!", to borrow from another song he wrote around the same time. Daniel Case 04:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

But that's from "Misunderstanding"...that song concentrates on the sad side of getting a divorce...This song is about the angry side of a divorce... --Skully Collins 06:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The story about the drowning was one I remember from my teens. Its definately not true, but goddamn its a cool urban myth. 121.45.239.191 (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Biko ripoff?

I don't really have a source for this right now other than old letters to the editor by angry Peter Gabriel fans, but some of the latter always used to belittle this song by suggesting it's a ripoff of the sound and feel of "Biko", which Collins had produced.

I doubt it was anything but friendly since the two of them were and are good friends and played on each others' records (as opposed to some of Gabriel's fans, who never forgave Collins for moving Genesis in different directions, but you can see (OK, hear) where they got the idea: a stark repeated drum-machine pattern and long guitar drones.

Is this obvious enough that we should put this in before getting a source? Daniel Case 04:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't rip off a "sound". You can't even rip off chords. Only melodies and lyrics. At least, in teh U.S. Anybody know what U.K. court precedence there is? 68.123.140.26 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

John Cougar

Another I'm tempted to do without a source (although I do remember reading this): Improbable as it sounds (but that's the record business), John Cougar Mellencamp (or however he was known at that time) and his producer were working on American Fool around the same time in the same studio. As recording artists will do in that situation, they got to chatting and Collins and Padgham let them hear an early master of ItaT. They were so blown away by it they completely redid the arrangement they'd already done for "Jack & Diane" and stripped it down to produce it in the same stark way (you can tell this most clearly in the sections, particularly at the end, where it's just percussion and electric guitar. Daniel Case 04:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have read an interview with Mellencamp in which he stated that the production and overall sound of that album were indeed influenced by the Collins song and album. He talked about giving the band copies of the album to listen to prior to coming to the studio. Therefore I don't think they could have been recorded concurrently, but there is a relationship. If I had a firm reference (beyond memory) I'd mention it in the American Fool article, but I don't. Jgm 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Guitar sound

Don't forget also, that in addition to the drums a lot of guitarists were (as guitarists will) wondering how to copy the guitar sound. When Darryl Stuermer sat for his Guitar Player interview in 1986 or so, that was about the first thing they asked him and he explained the delay setup. Daniel Case 04:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Michelob ad

I'm pretty sure the Michelob ad mentioned used Genesis' "Tonight, Tonight, Tonight" rather than Collins' "In The Air Tonight." Perhaps someone can confirm? Jerry Kindall 17:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Michelob used both. Sorry, that's as much as I know, I'm afraid :(. --Skully Collins 12:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's more than I knew. I don't remember the "In the Air" spot at all. Jerry Kindall 06:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't there a movie where I guy get's hurt in an accident while driving his Porsche into a semi that had that song as the soundtrack

Football

Does anyone know about how this song is often used as a warmup song for many NFL teams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.240.104.159 (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I do now! Thanks for saying so!! 68.123.140.26 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It was also used by Jermaine Taylor as his introductory song to the ring before his championship fight against Bernard Hopkins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.124.234 (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

At present, the article makes the claim that "the song's popularity in the 1980s increased after a nearly complete recording of it was featured in the pilot episode of the American television show Miami Vice." I would like to see a source for this claim. As far as I know, the popularity of the song increased after the film Risky Business was released in 1983 (allegedly one of the top performing films of the year, need stats), with the soundtrack becoming quite successful (there's some question whether it was released in the USA, available only as an import, need confirmation). Miami Vice didn't even begin broadcasting until 1984. —Viriditas | Talk 04:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That does not mean it wasn't used. Your argument is like one where someone says "It can't be true because the song didn't come out until 1990!!!!" in which case everybody could see the factual impossibility. However the Miami Vice pilot was LATER than the event you're talking about. You know, they used "The Ride Of The Valkyries" in "Apocalypse Now" even though it was 100 years later.
Anyway, the Miami Vice article talks about this and has lots of citations. I'm sure if you followed some a' them links you could get to the bottom of it. 68.123.140.26 22:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't read it correctly the first time around. Good work. —Viriditas | Talk 13:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Cover artist information should be paired down in the lead (it has plenty of representation in the article), and the non-lyric parts of "The Song" section should merged into the lead in its place. —Viriditas | Talk 04:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Intheairtonight Video1.jpg

Image:Intheairtonight Video1.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 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 07:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lilkimandphilcollinsintheairtonite.jpg

Image:Lilkimandphilcollinsintheairtonite.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 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 00:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dairy Milk Advert

Should there be a section for the dairy milk advert? It has gained cult popularity very quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayboy-ds (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, i believe we should seeing as it has helped boost this song back into the UK Top-100 singles UkNegative 10:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also surprised there's no reference to the famous Cadburys advert here given that the advert itself has its own page which is bigger than this one! Lol. Gorilla (advertisement) Fig (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Unlockable extra

I'm not too confident in my editing/formatting skills, but should a note be added regarding the recent usage/appearance of the song as an unlockable extra in GTA: vice city stories? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HprVBFYP70M —Preceding unsigned comment added by D.C.Rigate (talk • contribs) 11:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Information

Though none of the entire section contains a citation, the part where it says:

Most fans understand the real meaning of the lyrics as: Phil was involved in a separation with his wife Andy. Its almost universally accepted that this was the emotional catalyst for the lyrics in this track and others in later songs and albums including his work within Genesis. Most fans agree that some lyrics are purely metaphorical and not fact as the urban legends espouse. eg "drowning". Most fans see this as saying there was a lack of support within the relationship. Other parts of the song are interpreted as anger, guilt, regret and marital infidelity. The discovery of lies and feelings of foreboding eg. "I can feel it coming in the air tonight". It's believed that Phil simply penned his experiences into a set of lyrics explaining events and actions that took place in a difficult period of his life. No hidden meanings, just an outpouring of emotions; a collection of genuine thoughts and feelings. So yes, a song written while messing around for fun, but generated by strong emotions caused by what most fans believe as real emotional hurt caused by the breakdown of his marriage, leading up to the unfortunate separation and divorce from his first wife Andy.

sounds pretty darn NPOV to me. It also sounds like somebody just made this up to give their opinion as to the song's meaning with no regard to what others have verifiably said. I'm not disagreeing, simply stating that the inclusion might be inappropriate without sources. Either way, some of the language in it is informal.

Also, I think the part about the talkback loop accident on the drums is odd. It's not like this is the first song to use heavily compressed drum tracks, and I doubt the producer was surprised by the result.71.61.64.113 16:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that wording such as "most fans understand" can't be verified. I think some of the biographical details related to the time period the song was written could be apppopriately used in the Song section, particularly if there is a citable interview or article where Collins makes the connection between his personal life and the song. This paragraph can't really stay as it is, though. Jgm 20:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:In the air tonite.jpg

Image:In the air tonite.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 02:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:In The Air Tonight, Sleeve.jpg

Image:In The Air Tonight, Sleeve.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 ensure 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) 23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote - need citation

Can anyone provide a citation for the BBC World Service quote? Wikipedia rules require cites for all quotations. I have no doubt this is real, and would hate to lose it since it is valuable to the article, but we need a documentable source. (Note that it would not have to be an on-line source, a title and date of a radio program would suffice I think). Jgm (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This page needs clean-up

I've tagged this page as needing clean-up. I don't know about anyone else, but this article looks very messy to me, and looks very un-organized. It also doesn't help that we have two reference sections, where the sources should be turned into cite references, and combined into the references section. I'll certainly do my best to fix this article up, but would like to encourage anyone else to help out, if they can. Thanks! CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Banned by the BBC?

Am currently tidying up List of songs banned by the BBC where a reference states that "Something in the Air" (sic) by Collins was banned by the BBC at the outbreak of the Gulf War. No mention is here of this - can anyone confirm it - and reference it? Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

'In The Air Tonight' was one of a list of songs that BBC Radio 1 (the main 18-30 pop/rock station from the BBC) decided it would not play during the first Gulf War,as the lyrics were deemed inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.77.3 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold on?!?!

Why is the article claiming Phil is singing "I can't feel it coming in the air tonight, hold on", when he's clearly saying "oh lord". # Ido50 (talk to me), at 00:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This song wasen't in Bravo Two Zero

I've seen that movie half a doaen times, and dont remember this song being in it. If It is please specify the scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.239.198 (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Quoted lyrics are wrong

The text:

"I was there and I saw what you did

Saw it with my own two eyes

I can feel it coming in the air tonight

Oh Lord"

is wrong. It should be:

"Well I was there and I saw what you did, I saw it with my own two eyes

So you can wipe off that grin, I know where you´ve been

Its all been a pack of lies

And I can feel it coming in the air tonight, Oh Lord ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquaman60 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate Sexist Language

Under Use in Advertising: "Once the section begins, the Wonderbra-clad model begins playing which, of course, causes a significant amount of breast bounce to occur."

Please tell me you are joking. Is this statement encyclopedic in nature? What does it add to our understanding of the history of the song or its use in advertising? And notability?

I vote to delete this particular statement. Opinions?

Makingstrange (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Xbox 360

A line in this article says "Microsoft sampled the song's 'pinging' noise for use in the Xbox 360 Slim, released in 2010. The sound effect plays whenever a user activates the console's newly touch sensitive power button or inserts a disk."

I don't remember ever hearing a beeping noise like that anywhere in the song, and I can't find evidence on this on the internet. Is this true? Fuzy2K (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It's said it's an urban legend, but during my freshmen year {1984-1985) I heard on the Westwood One Radio Network an interview with Phil saying what he saw. He described the drowning while camping, and this guy who didn't do anything to help. Later Phil found out who he was. Doing a concert where this guy lived, and sent him tickets to the concert telling him he won a contest, had him picked up in a limo, gave him front row center seats, and when he played the song, had a spotlight put on this guy! This came from Phil Collins himself. So i'm a little confused. If I had to gess, I'd say he probably got sued for it, and that's why it's now an "urban legend".97.201.81.7 (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Made popular by?

This song was made popular by the show Miami Vice? Are you kidding me? It was made popular by being an awesome song. This comment at the beginning is not sourced. I will be taking that part out. I will wait to hear if anyone has any objections first.Zdawg1029 (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point. No objections here. Piriczki (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Source for genre

OK Dan56, please explain how the military writer for Space News is a reliable source for a music article? Piriczki (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

a) That's not the concern you originally brought up ([1]).

b) Of course it's not an ideal source, but reliability is relative, especially when it was difficult for me to find one to begin with in order to have a sourced genre in the infobox. And this article has bigger concerns with sourcing and unverified material, so I don't understand why scrutinizing the genre parameter of the infobox. You're free to find a better source for this material if one exists, but not to remove sourced material and replace it with unsourced material. Dan56 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Very well, I will blindly google the the terms "in the air tonight" and "soft rock" and take whatever passing reference to the terms I find on the internet and slap them on Wikipedia claiming they are a reliable source and expect knowledgeable editors to accept it without question. Or we could aim for generality as the guidelines suggest and go with a genre, Rock music, which most readers and editors would assume to be so obvious as to not require a source, unless you consider Rock music to be a dubious genre for this song. Piriczki (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not leaning on opinion, Piriczki, and if your underlying concern with all this is disagreeing with the source currently cited, then I won't indulge in that kind of discussion. Template:Infobox album#Genre doesn't suggest anything about "generality", and even if it did, WikiProject and Template guidelines do not supersede Wikipedia's guidelines and policies like WP:BURDEN or WP:UNDUE. If "Rock" is a more common interpretation of the song by relevant sources, then it shouldn't be difficult to cite them. Dan56 (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It is odd though that such a popular soft rock song didn't make the Adult Contemporary chart. Unless it wasn't a soft rock song. Strange. Piriczki (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, about as strange as the current number one on that chart, John Legend's "All of Me", not being a soft rock song. Dan56 (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on In the Air Tonight. 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 http://www.radioscope.net.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=77&Itemid=61

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 11:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on In the Air Tonight. 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/20110724195729/http://www.radioscope.net.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=77&Itemid=63 to http://www.radioscope.net.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=77&Itemid=63
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120112709/http://www.infodisc.fr:80/Number1_80.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/Number1_80.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on In the Air Tonight. 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/20070317065230/http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_phil_collins_air/index.html to http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_phil_collins_air/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160229095134/http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Phil+Collins to http://australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Phil+Collins
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070317065230/http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_phil_collins_air/index.html to http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_phil_collins_air/index.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

question about video reaction

I tried to add a sentence to the page for In The Air Tonight that states:

The song received renewed attention in 2020, when twins Tim and Fred Williams published a video on YouTube that shows their initial reaction to the song.

I do not know these twins. I am simply a professor who is interested in music and reads the news.

Keckel removed the edit without any feedback, and then 78.26 reinstated the edit because it had been removed without justification.

Then these two users removed the edit and restored it, several more times, over the course of just one day.

I am relatively new to Wikipedia. Even though I am mid-career and have a Ph.D., I admit that I am naive about Wikipedia.

I created this addition to the page because: 1. It demonstrates that this song is getting a lot of attention in August 2020 on social media. 2. It explains why there is new attention, namely, that there is a popular "reaction video" about the song. 3. Documenting such actions is a new concept, and the New York Times wrote an article about reaction videos, which heavily emphasizes this song. The twins in the video have a LOT of comments about the song In The Air Tonight itself. 4. Other news media covered this same story too. I almost added other links to the media, about this specific song and the reaction to the song.

I do not want to fight. I simply emphasize that there is a lot of news media about this song getting renewed interest, and also about the 6 million views of the reaction to this song, which all occurred within (roughly) a 2 week period.

I would love some guidance, please, about this edit. Thank you very much.

MDW333 (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO this is borderline for inclusion and I'd lean slightly against it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

North8000 thank you for the comment. I hope that you can help me to understand why. I am learning a lot from the discussion related to this posting. (Certainly there are many topics of interest that get included in Wikipedia.) How do you justify whether it is important enough to be included? I want to learn. For instance, I figured that since many news outlets had similar stories to the New York Times story, that it is important to document when a song gets a lot of renewed attention from (say) a reaction video, especially when the song is 40 years old, like this one. I am simply curious what evidence that you use to make such a decision. I'm trying not to rely on feelings here, but rather, on comparisons with other Wikipedia contributions, and on evidence about things documented in the media. Does it help (for comparison) if I list news articles from CNN, LA Times, people.com, today.com, NBC News, Good Morning America, from media outlets in the UK, etc.? This specific song and this specific reaction video is the reason for all of these news articles. (It is not just the Associated Press copying the same article.) In other words, does it help the case for including an article if we list (say) 6 news articles or 10 news articles about the event? I welcome your advice. If you Google, for instance, this phrase:

      "in the air tonight" twin reaction

then you will see many of the same news results among the first pages of results from Google. Seems very clear to me that this is something important to document. MDW333 (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, second question: Suppose that we document this (instead) on the Wikipedia page for Reaction video? That would seem to be appropriate, and I can certainly do that.... BUT here is my follow-up question! How would a person who is reading the page for In the Air Tonight know that a reaction video was created, and was very popular? Would we make (in that case) some kind of link from the page for In the Air Tonight to the page for Reaction video, and if so, then how should this work?

Thanks again (in advance) for your constructive advice and help. I am learning here. (I also reiterate that I am really just learning from the discussion!) Many thanks! MDW333 (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello @MDW333:. Well, to start with, there are no policies or guidelines that weigh in significantly on either side of the question. So then you just sort of have norms plus opinions of editors. I'm sort of hurried at the moment so I'll just put down some things and be direct (apologies if it sounds short or rude.....not intended) and would be happy to discuss more later. One factor is degree of relevance. While the linked item is just an essay (not a policy or guideline) it does spell out a common consideration. Somebody's reaction to the song is not about the song, it's about somebody's reaction to it so there's one mark in the minus column. Next, editors are pretty skeptical about people or their fans trying to ride the coattails of a prominent subject like like this by getting mentions in the article by e.g. having made a cover of the song, and in an article like this they will let in only an extremely prominent e.g. cover. In conjunction with that it appears that the duo that you mention does not have a Wikipedia article and this is often an indicator that they are not wp:notable. WP:Coatrack covers the general skepticism for additions for purposes other than article quality. It's just an essay (not a policy or guideline) but a prominent essay.

BTW significant coverage in significant sources matters a lot in Wikipedia. I think that this has the latter which is one in the plus column. Hit count on Youtube generally carries near-zero weight in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia creates articles on wp:notable topics, and then it's a question of building that article. The argument for "this should be in Wikipedia somewhere" is not considered an argument in that framework.

Hopefully that wasn't too abrupt. I'd be happy to help you further on your quest to figure out the alternate universe (Wikipedia editing) that you jumped into. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks to you, North8000, for your helpful guidance. I learned a LOT from your posting. Thank you!

This makes perfect sense. It reminds me of when I was first learning how to review journal articles as a referee, or learning how to review grant proposals. I'm learning a lot here. Thank you again for your guidance and helpful insights! I appreciate you very much! Warmest regards! MDW333 (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm rather slammed right now, but I do intend to weigh in on this. I agree with North8000 that YouTube viewership numbers are not at all an indication that something is encyclopedically important. However, the fact that so many highly reliable news sources have commented on the resurgence of popularity of the song in 2020 is worthy of mention, I believe. It has become part of the song's legacy, in the long run, not just the immediate now. Not a huge section, maybe not even an in-depth paragraph (unless the song re-enters high in Billboard's charts), but a descriptive sentence seems apt, taking into consideration due weight. The sources on this are too exceptional to ignore, though. It should be restored. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you, 78.26. I am slammed right now too, because I'm a professor and our classes start on Monday! Thank you for the continued guidance. Maybe I will consider gathering the many news sources and will try to re-post again later, perhaps lower on the page, in its own section. MDW333 (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Before you do that, let's gain consensus here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, and I am not in a hurry! We will figure this out. Perhaps some more users might chime in too. Thank you! MDW333 (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow, OK, Fuzheado created a page about those twins who made the reaction video. Then Fuzheado reinstated my edit, with a link to the new Wikipedia page about the TwinsthenewTrend. It is so interesting to see how this process evolves in a natural way! MDW333 (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@MDW333: - Thanks for the ping, and there is no doubt in my mind that this is a notable phenomenon that merits inclusion on this page. As you mentioned above and helped edit on the TwinsthenewTrend page, the Youtube reaction video caused the Phil Collins song to reach "#2 on the iTunes top songs sales for August 18 and 19, almost 40 years after its release." That's highly significant. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Very nice to meet you, Fuzheado, and thank you for creating that page about TwinsthenewTrend. I agree with you that it is significant for In the Air Tonight to reach number 2 in iTunes. Many thanks! MDW333 (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Release and chart performance

Collins's description of the chart rise of the song being interrupted by John Lennon's murder (presumably because everyone then bought Lennon's records) makes no sense: "In the Air Tonight" was not released until January 1981, and Lennon was shot on December 8, 1980.

He must be misremembering. Spanghew2fs (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)