Talk:Body and Soul (1930 song)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

United States: Music Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Music portal This article is supported by WikiProject American music.

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Jazz Top‑importance

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hawkins focus

There is an undue focus on Coleman Hawkins in this article. While, yes, his recording is undeniably one of the most famous in Jazz history, there are many others worthy of note, and the coverage, even after my slight cleanup, is still really too in-depth for the scope of this article. Perhaps it belongs in an article on the recording, or in Coleman's article itself. Essentially this is an NPOV problem.

A note to all editors. The sentence:

Hawkins' solo on this take is considered to be "one of the finest examples of pure, spontaneous creative artistry in the history of jazz."

had ^{[citation needed]} on it for over two-and-a-half years, yet I can find no source for the statement, even in an industry where such praise is commonplace. As a result, the only citations for the sentence are from Wikipedia itself. This kind of empty quotation is unacceptable; it gives the initial impression that it is the opinion of a notable person, when upon a little further inspection - which most would not take upon themselves - it looks more like the work of an overzealous Wikipedian. This isn't just harmful to Wikipedia and its reputation, it's also harmful to anybody who relies on Wikipedia as a source of, well, reliable information. There is now a host of reproductions of this unsourcable laudatory which will never go away.

The community has an unfortunate habit of letting these things happen which we should strive to avoid in the future. One thing you can do to help is not let uncited but highly-opinionated statements go so long without being cited - check their citation request dates and be bold about removing them, particularly quotations which cannot be found on e.g. Google. Remember: people don't just read this stuff, they copy it too! Greg Ravn (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

`````````````

As for opinionated statements made without citations, if statements are generally accepted as truth by jazz musicians and aficionados, I'd be more likely to let them slide without ambition for a hyper-orderly Wikipedia which is never going to happen. Many "writers" (critics) are found on blogs now, without "published" paper materials. Also, so many knowledgeable jazz musicians have equal or often more credibility, insight and wisdom than some critics. Citation to a web page may be a dead link, or it may not fit someone's definition of a "notable person" to quote.

On another note, I heard a radio version of Body and Soul with completely different lyrics -- a female vocalist on a recording probably from the 1930's. Does anyone know who this is, and who composed which lyrics? The song itself deserves a better article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.177.161 (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sheet

There are many contentious copyright issues surrounding the propagation of lead sheets, and as such, pending confirmation that this song is in the public domain, I've removed its link from the article. I confess I don't know Wikipedia's policy on the subject. In addition, there are many, many different lead sheets to this tune, and one could argue that it would be unencyclopedic to reference one person's interpretation of it without sourcing the original chord progression. Greg Ravn (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short

For one of the most popular jazz standards ever, this article is remarkably short. There is no mention of hit versions (other than Coleman Hawkins) like benny goodman's 1935 trio take. Bts.smith (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 January 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that Body and Soul (1930 song) be renamed and moved to Body and Soul.

decision:
Withdrawn by nom. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) PI Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 17:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links: current log • target log

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Body and Soul (1930 song) → Body and Soul – Body and Soul is in the top five of most famous jazz standards, one of the most covered songs, a giant in the jazz world. Most of the articles listed on the dab page are albums or films named after this song. This should be on the main Body and Soul page per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the rest moved to a dab.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support As nominator.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, assuming you mean "delete the (1930 song) part from the title." I think the existing DAB page would also need some adjustment. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. AFAIK Body and Soul is then moved to Body and Soul (disambiguation) though I could be wrong. MarnetteD|Talk 23:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly that. Somebody has gone overkill on the dabbing and there's a lot of top standards which are really PRIMARYTOPIC like this. But Not For Me another which should be put back.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Body and Soul (1947 film) receives twice as many page views as this song. I am a jazz fan, but inclined to oppose. Also, please do fill out a multimove request whenever more than one page needs to be moved. Dekimasuよ! 07:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a film buff too and know that film well, but I would never consider it more notable than the jazz standard. Body and Soul is one of the most famous songs of the 20th century. But if it gets a lot more views then I can't argue PRIMARY. Please close it then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - there are simply too many popular pages to make any single one of them primary over the others, and so fails against the standard of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE because it is not more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. In fact, the 1930 song gets fewer (153k) views than only the next two combined (171k). -- Netoholic @ 08:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as Netoholic pointed out, PageViews shows that this does satisfy the criteria. --Gonnym (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Dekimasu, Netoholic, and Gonnym. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw this My mistake on the page views and PRIMARY. I forgot Wikipedia is visited by a lot of kids who watch films on Amazon Prime and Netflix and don't like jazz...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And there's no point in waiting a fortnight in the hope of a !vote from all those teenage Johnnies. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2020 (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.