Talk:Alone yet Not Alone

Alone Yet Not Alone (song) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 April 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Alone yet Not Alone. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Improving the Article/page

For our wedding anniversary, we just enjoyed this movie and will be 'watching' this page to improve it as we can (which is the objective of TALK pages). I'll read through the Article here in the morning. Thanks for the work of good editors--I join you. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AMPAS controversy

Hello, Charles Edwin Shipp,

I know that the good folks at Wikipedia strive for accuracy and unbiased information. An incorrect statement appears on this and related pages. The statement is that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences found that Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had improperly contacted other branch members for support.[9]

In fact, Broughton never asked anyone for their vote or their support. He asked "For Your Consideration". This is a critical distinction. He was never accused of doing anything illegal because he never did anything illegal. :For Your Consideration" is the neutral phrase used by everyone. Here is the transcript and video from the nationally broadcast CBS This Morning. If you scroll down on the transcript you can see Bruce Broughton's entire e-mail to his friends. It concludes with "This is merely a request 'For Your Consideration'." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/academy-award-rescinds-nomination-for-songwriter-bruce-broughton/

These words make a difference. Broughton merely asks that people find the song and consider it. Bruce was more familiar with every Academy rule than most folks. He is also one of the most ethical people in the entertainment industry.

Here is the Academy's stated reason for their action.. “No matter how well-intentioned the communication, using one’s position as a former governor and current executive committee member to personally promote one’s own Oscar submission creates the appearance of an unfair advantage,” said Cheryl Boone Isaacs, president of the Academy.

Here is a link to the coverage by National Public Radio (NPR) in an interview with Scott Feinberg of The Hollywood Reporter. in it Feinberg addresses the issue of whether any rules were broken. http://www.npr.org/2014/02/01/269925008/a-major-oscar-dust-up-over-a-song-from-a-minor-movie

Here is also a link to a piece written by Scott Feinberg in The Hollywood Reporter. It addresses the entire matter in detail. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/was-academys-disqualification-song-contender-675582

And finally here is a piece from Entertainment Weekly which lays out what was done by The Academy. http://www.ew.com/article/2014/01/29/oscars-kill-original-song-nomination-for-alone-yet-not-alone-breaking

Here is the relevant Academy rule...

• Mailings and email may incorporate a basic “for your consideration” listing of the artists who worked on the film. They may include a brief, unembellished synopsis of the film. Once Oscar nominations are announced, subsequent letters and screening schedules may refer to any current Academy nominations received by a film.

This rule can be found at.... http://www.oscars.org/oscars/regulations-concerning-promotion-films-eligible-87th-academy-awardsr 3. Member Outreach Including Mailers, Screening Schedules and Email.

I don't want to inundate you with material but simply to establish the facts. The erroneous statement which repeatedly attaches to my Wikipedia page and to the pages about the song and movie "Alone Yet Not Alone" is contrary to the facts.

I appreciate your efforts to ensure unbiased material. Words matter.

Dennis Spiegel Lyricist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:41F9:B1C9:A5FE:B6BE (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, can you explain how the information you have just provided contradicts "had improperly contacted other branch members for support." What he specifically said in the email is not mentioned in this article, so what would you suggest changing? Spidey104 14:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Feinberg article you linked is already included in the article, and I just added the Entertainment Weekly article you included. Spidey104 14:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Spidey.

The statement is not accurate. Bruce’s e-mail never violated any rules. Usually an impropriety involves a violation of rules.

I assume you’ve listened to Scott Feinberg’s NPR interview. As you know, Mr Feinberg is the awards expert working for The Hollywood Reporter. He states how he carefully examined all the rules and could find no violation.

Just because the statement you cite appears over and over again on Wikipedia does not make it true. Anyone can repeat a falsehood a hundred times and it doesn’t make it any less false.

The word “support” is the critical issue here. The Academy does not want anybody blatantly asking people for support. They approve only the neutral term “For Your Consideration”. Offering your work up to be considered is different than asking someone to vote for your work or support your work.

To say that Bruce Broughton asked for support is neither factual nor neutral. To say that Bruce Broughton asked “For Your Consideration” is accurate. I have cited the relevant Academy rule.

Here’s a detailed posting which may help with an appraisal of this matter. While I do not offer it as a reference for inclusion on Wikipedia, it is perhaps the most in depth look at the issue to date. I think it is well worth reading for people who wish to understand all sides. http://badalanews.blogspot.com/2015/02/taking-bruce-broughton-side-in-yet-not.html

Respectfully, Dennis Spiegel Lyricist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:9898:EED6:D31B:FADB (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off I would like to point out that your comment: "Just because the statement you cite appears over and over again on Wikipedia does not make it true." is out of line because that is not what I said. Please do not put words in my mouth. I incorrectly believed that the statement on Wikipedia was supported by the references listed and I now see what your problem is with the statement. I have now corrected the statement. Spidey104 00:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was already dealt with at WP:BLP/N. Having been unsuccessful there, Mr. Spiegel is apparently WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Since Mr. Spiegel seems determined to have us mischaracterize the Academy's statement concerning the matter, I have added verbatim the section of the AMPAS release (with source) that explains its conclusion as to the effect of Mr. Broughton's email, whether or not intentional. General Ization ^Talk 01:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Spiegel is determined to have things characterized correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:4C03:E8DE:2468:B87 (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll agree then that the Academy's response can't be characterized any more correctly than it is now, since AMPAS' own words appear in the article. General Ization ^Talk 20:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:489B:59BC:56A5:BC08 (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alone Yet Not Alone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140404005516/http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctentertainment/2010/09/the-power-of-a-hymn-1.html to http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctentertainment/2010/09/the-power-of-a-hymn-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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} 13:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No apparent controversy here after a three-week listing with a two-week relisting. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alone Yet Not Alone → Alone yet Not Alone – Despite multiple sources uppercasing "yet", "yet" is used as a coordinating conjunction. Multiple manuals mentioned in WP:NCCAPS say lowercase "yet", even when MOS:CT does not require lowercasing one of FANBOYS. George Ho (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question – what sources do as you suggest? I'm not finding any. Dicklyon (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George, if you go to the trouble of relisting your own RM, why not go to the trouble of providing the requested information to help people support it? Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - MOS:CT is clear on this point. "Yet" should be lowercased, just as "and" or "but" would be. — Amakuru (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS (and the derived NCCAPS). "Yet" in this construction is exactly synonymous with "but"; it is not the same as the non-conjunctive "yet" in "Are We There Yet?". The fact that music journalism tends to capitalize this fairly often is no concern to MOS, AT, or WP, per WP:NOT#NEWS. WP is written in encyclopedic style, not low-end news style. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alone yet Not Alone. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6DZOQ92zN?url=http://oscar.go.com/nominees to http://oscar.go.com/nominees

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) 17:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]