Talk:I Don't Like Mondays

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Songs (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:Idontlikemondays.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Idontlikemondays.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 17:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Phil Wainman produced this single, not Robert John "Mutt" Lange. He did however produce the rest of The Fine Art of Surfacing. It is clearly stated on the 7" single as well as on the LP. – IbLeo (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Single released in 21/7/79 No1 for 4 weeks so would have been No1 during July and August. Not Just July.Charlie52 (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Atlanta Tale[edit]

The whole story about the telex machine in Atlanta in fabricated in the Geldof autobiography. The ghostwriter created this story. It is very inaccurate as the writer refers to the event taking place four months prior to the first performance of the song in San Diego (it was actually one month).

On the two performances of the songs in San Diego (both on Wolfgang's Vault), Geldof can clearly be heard saying that he read about the incident and saw it on the television a month previously. This is the ONLY time that Geldof stated the source of the story. (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC) ArrGee —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Given that the story in the article is Geldof's version of events as he stated himself in a 1979 interview, and that his autobiography wasn't published until 1987, the idea that this was made up by a ghostwriter in 1987 is clearly nonsense. I also see no reason to assume that the book was written by a ghostwriter - Geldof is a former journalist - he doesn't need to employ someone to string words together for him.--Michig (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC) "ghost-wrote Geldof's autobiography, Is That It? in 1985" Paul Vallely wrote the book. It is inside the dust cover. It is not an assumption it is a fact. Geldof clearly stated in the San Diego concert he heard the story in LONDON. Listen to the introduction to Mondays on 27th and 28th February on Wolfgang's Vault. The story about the telex was invented. Now whether Geldof or Vallely made it up is not the question. The problem is there is considerable doubt about the Atlanta Telex. Also Geldof was in London in late January 1979. The tour of US radio stations with Johnnie Fingers was extensively reported at the time in Melody Maker and they had returned to London before 29th January 1979. (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC) ArrGee —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: (cur | prev) 04:36, 10 September 2010 IbLeo (talk | contribs) (7,955 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by; Per WP:CONS, once reverted you should seek compromise before going further; this is not settled yet. (TW)) (undo)

How do I seek compromise? There are two performances in February 1979 where Geldof clearly states he heard the story in London. Then in October after the story has probably been embellised by numerous interviews he is in Atlanta by a telex machine. There is no evidence that Geldof was in Atlanta on 29th January 1979. There was a tour of radio stations in January 1979 that was widely reported and it is very likely that Geldof was in Atlanta at the radio station and there was a telex machine, but not on the 29th January 1979. The facts are: i) Geldof saw/read a report on the incident ii) He wrote the song based on that iii) It was performed a month later in San Diego These are all verifyable. Whether he heard about this in Atlanta or London is unknown as his quote contracdict each other, so that part of the entry should be removed. In all likelihood the February explanation is correct, but as it was not as interesting a story. (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC) ArrGee

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. This isn't and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this is Geldof's account of how he came to wrote it is verifiable and properly sourced and should not therefore be removed. If you want alternative theories to be included you'll need to come up with some reliable sources to back them up. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.--Michig (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact is he said that he read about the incident and saw the story in London. He said that clearly. How can I find a better source than him actually saying it twice in San Diego within a month of the event? Geldof has given a number of accounts of events (particularly with regards to his time in the USA) which have since been proven to be embellished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

So find some reliable sources. Books, newspapers, reputable magazines. Not bootleg download sites.--Michig (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To quote Geldof addressing the audience at the start off I Don't Like Mondays

27-Feb-1979 "Is there anybody here who goes to the sierra macer gray school ? about a month ago we read in the paper in England about Debbie Spencer, I think it was, Linda? who took a gun and went down to the school and shot up her friends..."

28-Feb-1979 "What happened was we were watching the box in London and next minute san diego came on the TV screen and there was a picture of this girl, I think it was Brenda Spencer who decided one day that she'd get up take her Christmas present, go down to the school where she was and kill or try and kill a lot of her friends."

You can actually hear this. What more do you want? (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC) ArrGee —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this acceptable as a source?

Also, How is Smash Hits, which was a music magazine of no stature at all in the UK, a reputable source? The journalist would not investigate the story at all. Had it been in Sounds, NME, Melody Maker or even Record Mirror, then it may have had some substance, but Smash Hits contained little more than gossip and trivia.

[1] NOTE : The Concert Vault is fully licensed by BMI, ASCAP and SESAC, and we pay these performance rights organizations every time you listen to a concert. It is not a bootleg download site. (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC) ArrGee (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)ArrGee

It has already been spelled out what would be considered a reliable source. You obviously haven't read any issues of Smash Hits from that era - this was a substantial interview, and while it covered primarily mainstream pop music artists, it was no less a reliable source than the other publications you mentioned. Do not remove this again. You do not have consensus to do so and you are still yet to present reliable sources that back up your preferred version.--Michig (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked if King Buscuit was acceptable.

Why is an audio recording of a syndicated broadcast not a reliable source? You can hear him say it. What sould be more reliable than that? Have you listened to it? I have read Smash Hits from that era.

I don't even see why the Atlanta tale is part of the article. Where he was or wasn't is not really relevant. It should be removed as it is not true. I'm not arguing that the quotes on stage in San Diego are included. It may even be possible Geldof was in Atlanta. I know he wasn't as he was rehearsing in London that day for the US tour, but I don't have the proof.

Is there anyone who can mediate in this? I don't use wikipedia much but I thought it was meant to contain the truth. (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)ArrGee

The article states that this is Geldof's explanation of how he wrote the song, and it is properly sourced. Even if he wasn't telling the truth, this is still Geldof's account of how he wrote the song, so it stays in the article.--Michig (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It says -

Geldof wrote the song after reading a telex report at Georgia State University's campus radio station, WRAS, on the shooting spree of 16-year-old Brenda Ann Spencer,

This is presented as a fact as the opening sentence. The article does not state it is his explanation in that sentence. So can I change the article to say Geldof gave this explanation in October 1979 that contradicts what he said on stage in February 1979 ? (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC) ArrGee

I've edited the article to make it clear that this is Geldof's explanation. You'll need a reliable source that states that he contradicted this in a concert before the article is changed to state that. Download sites that require registration are not suitable for citing in articles, so so you'll need a verifiable reliable source before changing the article to indicate an alternative explanation.--Michig (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The concert was syndicated. It was broadcast. Will a broadcast date and station suffice? I am still puzzled as to how hearing someone say something on a recording is not verifiable. (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC) ArrGee

Does this count?

DIR Radio Network Show broadcast April 1, 1979 - Boomtown Rats (talk)ArrGee —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC).

We need to be able to verify that he said what you say he said, and therefore need a source that can be checked. The source needs to be reliable and what he said needs to be clear and unambiguous. Sources that require payment to view/listen are unsuitable, but if you can find a written source that confirms that he says this that would be best. If Geldof had changed his story I feel sure this would have been covered somewhere. This book confirms the Atlanta story, as he does in this SPIN interview ("I happened to be there at the time").--Michig (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No payment is required to hear Geldof saying what he said twice on stage in San Diego. OK, there is a requirement to register but that is free. I don't see it as any different to registering for access to Hot Press nor The Times (which both charge a subscription). That the source is audio rather than written should be preferable as there is no possibility of a ghost writer nor journalist interpreting it. (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)ArrGee

No subscription is required anymore to hear Geldof saying what he said twice on stage in San Diego. (talk) 15:34, 03 August 2011 (UTC)ArrGee — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Please explain why a quoted audio source is not reliable..

"We need to be able to verify that he said what you say he said, and therefore need a source that can be checked. The source needs to be reliable and what he said needs to be clear and unambiguous"

Listen and check it.

Reliable sources

What counts as a reliable source The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability. Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArrGee (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

More information about the reaction to the song…[edit]

There is a portion of an interview with Geldof and the director of the video on YouTube (BOB GELDOF reveals the TRUTH of "I Don't Like Mondays"!), which might be worth sourcing to its original; in it Geldof says that it was The Mirror newspaper which provoked the father of the girl in question to try and pursue him legally, but it was for compensation, not to have the song blocked, as the article here states. He goes on to suggest that as he didn’t mention her name or otherwise identify her in the song that the action failed. However, he says that the girl wrote to him and thanked him for making her famous, which he finds difficult to live with… There may also be information which could be added about the sources for the video, which seems strangely lacking in the article, as it was a strong reason for the success of the song (as the director says, people at the time were saying “Have you seen it…?” rather than “Have you heard it…?” It could also be noted that the album track and the single version have very different endings. Jock123 (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Don't Like Mondays. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 06:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Fourth or sixth?[edit]

This article says that the song was the sixth biggest hit in the United Kingdom in 1979, but in the end-of-the year charts later on in the article, the article says the article was fourth. Can anybdy clarify things here, please?Vorbee (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)