Talk:The Man I Love (song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Jazz (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-Class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject Songs (Rated Stub-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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Page content[edit]

I feel with this article there is loads of information about who sang/performed The Man I Love with no real information about it - date of composition? style?

It needs some media as well and perhaps an image or two —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnie268 (talkcontribs) 11:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that this song was used in Queer as Folk's 2nd Season in the 8th Episode. The version was by John Alcorn.


Is there a scheme to the order of artists that covered the song? I think it should be in alphabetical order, as seen in other pages StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Wilshier cover version[edit]

This song was covered by a male Australian singer in 2008, but my edit including the reference to this cover keeps being removed by another editor. I have been accused of disruptive editing and promoting this work but this is not the case. Wikipedia is a reference work to educate and inform and it is a completely valid entry to include the tracks from this 2008 album when they have been released specifically for the gay community, especially where mainstream music for a gay audience is almost absent. It is historically and culturally significant for any gay reader doing social research. The references to the released covers of these songs are not intended to promote anything, they are intended to show that these tracks have been openly recorded for a gay audience in a 2008 album, something which is of notable social importance. There is no commentary on the work, no promotion of the work, no external links, no adjectives of any kind, simply a reference that the work was recorded and released in the public domain in 2008. [1] The artist is not notable but the fact these songs were done for a gay audience is and these entries should be left in for those tracks which have dedicated pages for the song. I changed the edit back a couple of times but the other editor keeps removing the reference, I have replied to his message on my talk page (which was a simple statement to stop) and also pasted the same message to his talk page but he is remaining silent and refuses to engage in dialogue other than to initially threaten me with a ban if I keep putting the reference back in. He is making it impossible to discuss it any further by not engaging so I am opening a dispute resolution and will temporarily pause with edits to this and other relevant pages until the issue is resolved as I do not wish to be artificially forced into an editing war by reverting the edits any more. Taurusthecat (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia is not a record of everything that exists. It is instead a summary of the important and significant things. Showing that a musical product exists does not satisfy the requirement that it be important, significant or "notable", per WP:Notability. So Wilshier needs to have been written up in magazines, newspapers, books, etc., and it would help quite a lot if a biography was written about him, a well-referenced biography that can stand against attempts at deletion.
Secondly, the guideline at WP:SONGCOVER greatly limits the kinds of cover songs that can be listed. Did Wilshier gain wide public notice with one of the songs? If so, that one cover song can be listed, while the others cannot.
Finally, you are the only person who has been putting Wilshier into the encyclopedia, so it appears that you are promoting him. Promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Important and significant according to who? Maybe not to you, but certainly it is significant to the gay community. I can cite references not only to the Australian Government's State library having the recording in it's collection (which in itself shows that the Australian Government thought the release was of large enough importance to obtain it for their collection), I can also source references to publicly available magazine articles writing about the release just after it came out (not written by the label or producer or anyone connected with the recording, as in line with Wikipedia guidelines), however for the formatting of "other" versions of famous/well-known songs on Wikipedia, it is not usual to cite external references next to the covers and to do so would look out of place and like it WAS being promoted which was never the intention of the entry. No, Wikipedia is not a record of everything that exists, but it should be an accurate reference of fact for those seeking to find information and be as complete as possible - for a gay person doing research on gay music released publicly it is very much a valid entry (particularly as there is so little in the public domain), maybe not in your view, but you are only one person and do not maybe understand the gay community and the need to have accurate reference information available. By removing this reference you are leading a reader to assume by omission that no gay version of the song has ever been released which is not factual. I cannot stress enough that for gay media and social studies this reference is extremely important to have in the public domain and as Wikipedia is the first port of call for many people doing research it is remiss and even misleading to not include this release. I see that when I responded on your talk page you deleted my entry, citing in your own notes that the reason you deleted the original cover entry was that the artist does not have a Wikipedia page, but this in itself is not a requirement for an artists inclusion, and many artists through the ages do not have a Wikipedia page and never will, yet they are still mentioned where relevant so this argument does not constitute a reason for removal. You're making it all about the artist but it's not about the artist, it's all about the release itself and how it contributes to gay culture and history. Taurusthecat (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your scattershot approach is not going to yield a point-by-point answer from me. The only thing that is necessary here is for you to prove that the cover version is widely known and significant, for instance, to show that it charted, or that it was commented upon by sources discussing the song "The Main I Love", per WP:SONGCOVER. The SONGCOVER requirement is greatly limiting as I said before; consensus among music editors at Wikipedia is that the artist must have a biography on Wikipedia for the cover version to be listed. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe your treatment of this issue is discussed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias #Selection based on notability of article topics Taurusthecat (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Searchtool-80%.png Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on The Man I Love (song) and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which was of a nature which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." I agree with Binksternet on the proper result in this matter at this point in time, but I disagree that either SONGCOVER (which is not a "guideline" as defined by Wikipedia) or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias #Selection based on notability of article topics controls in this matter. Both of those are statements at WikiProjects which have no weight as "rules" and WikiProjects do not have the right to set standards for articles, unless those standards are approved as "true" policies or guidelines via the process set out in the Policy policy; see this section of the Consensus policy. What does cause Binksternet's removal of this entry to be correct is BLPPRIMARY which prohibits the use of governmental records, such as this National Library of Australia listing, from being used to support assertions about a living person, in this case that this individual recorded a particular song. Per this section of the Verifiability policy, any information which has been challenged, as Binksternet has done here, must have a inline citation to a reliable source. At this point, this list item does not have one and its omission is proper. Finally, the reference to the urgency of this being included because of its importance to a particular community is of no avail because policy makes clear that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and importance, standing alone, is not sufficient for inclusion: information must be verifiable through reliable sources to be included.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 18:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)