Talk:Wild Horses (The Rolling Stones song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Small text

WikiProject Songs (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
WikiProject The Rolling Stones (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Rolling Stones, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Rolling Stones 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 project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


The song is possibly about Mick Jagger's destructive love affair with Marianne Faithfull, although this is only speculation.

I took this phrase out precisely because it is speculation. If a verifiable source for this can be cited, then it would be OK to include in the article. GentlemanGhost 22:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone read 'Exile on Main St.: A Season in Hell with the Rolling Stones'? It's been a year and a half, so I can't recall exactly, but I'm pretty sure the book mentioned Wild Horses being a song Keith wrote for Anita Pallenberg. Dudewhiterussian (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


I can't find a photo of the cover for the single so feel free to put one up if you got a copy. Stan weller 23:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No official version[edit]

I took out the following line because it was not only untrue but it contradicts the first line of the article: "Although popular at the Stones' live shows "Wild Horses" has never been recorded for an official release." I do believe Sticky Fingers was an official release.--Lairor 01:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone added it back. Maybe they meant a live version of the song was never recorded for an official release? Jeff schiller 18:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Mazzy Star[edit]

Mazzy Star didn't covered this song; see [1], number 7. For some reason, people mistake The Sundays version for a Mazzy Star version. Cattus 18:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Mazzy Star reference needs to be removed from this article... and I have removed it... If you look at the Mazzy Star page, there is no reference to Wild Horses in their albums. The song is from The Sundays album "Blind". The internet is full of disinformation!—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WildHorses45.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:WildHorses45.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 16:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Cover versions[edit]

I don't believe natasha bedingfield has covered this song. She has released an original song of the same name but I am not aware of a cover of the rolling stones song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle's version of Wild Horses is almost identical to the version by Charlotte Martin, which can be heard here. Charlotte Martin is fairly unknown, so its no surprise that I can't find any acknowledgement to Susan Boyle's arrangement being borrowed from Charlotte Martin, which is almost certainly the case. It would be really good if someone could find some sort of proof and include it in the Covers section. --kikumbob (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Susan's version is musically identical with Charlotte Martin's piano solo version, only Susan's has strings accompaniment addition. It's true, but unless some published critics writes about that, we cannot include such information in the article, that's the WP policy. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle version[edit]

Why does this get its own section? There is a section full of artists who have covered this song, so what makes this one so special? Riksweeney (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, its has surely only been included here due to its current radio play and being in the media. Does anyone have any good reason for this not to be removed? (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Agrred' and removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle's version of Wild Horses was included on an album which reached number one in 9 different Countries and reached the top 10 in 20 different Countries and was the fastest selling debut of all time (in the UK). As a single it reached the top 10 in the UK. That is more than enough reason for it to remain on this page. If you still wish to remove it then prove that the reasons I have given are invalid and it is not notable enough to get its own section in the article.
I hardly think a decision to remove it should be made by two anonymous users and one who doesn't even bother to sign his/her comment. If you wish for your points to be taken more seriously you should really consider creating accounts. Alexsau1991 (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
IPs are part of the "anyone" who gets to edit wikipedia. The section on the Susan Boyle version is lengthy, well sourced, and could be cut down to two sentenced and a link to its own article. The song has a long standing claim to fame outside of Susan Boyle, but her version is currently in the news, enough so to merit an article of its own. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 19:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
That said, Wikipedia states at the top of each edit an anonymous user makes adivising that they are making an edit with out an account and recommends they create an account. As I said in my text, I have nothing against anonymous users making edits (if you actually would care to read it) but these anonymous users didn't make an edit they removed a whole chunk of the article with out actually waiting to see what other users thought, creating an account costs nothing so don't start to lecture me about Wikipedia rules and regs because your addition to the discussion was completely pointless and not needed. And the fact her version is in then news does not merit it the right to have an article of its own, very few covers have there own article (if any). Alexsau1991 (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of whether they are anonymous or not you should simply deal with the points at hand instead of dismissing their suggestions, which are valid, because they chose not to create an account. I used to have a Wikipedia account but I rarely contribute here anymore so I didn’t see the point in maintaining it, plus I have my own gripe with pedantic Wikipedia patrollers who have little interest or knowledge in the subject they are editing for any other reason besides hobbyism. I agree with both the users above, if there must be a section at all it should be pared down to a paragraph with a suitable link to Boyle’s version which should have all the relevant information contained in its own page, it makes the addition here seems superfluous and curiously weasel like in promotion of Susan Boyle. Also, I thought Wikipedia was meant to be an Encyclopedia, it shouldn't matter that Susan Boyle is currently in the media enough to somehow warrant placing prominent sections in related articles, isn’t the job of linking to specific pages or other relevant articles meant to prevent pages becoming muddy? What happens in a year’s time when the song has left the public consciousness? The section will stick out like a sore thumb. Finally, the chart performance of Boyle's version doesn't seem notable enough frankly for it to encroach on other pages, if you want to create a separate page for it why don't you do it? (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC) P.B
I concur with you - the Susan Boyle cover of Wild Horses need not be covered within this article.

This article deals with the Rolling Stones version (i.e. the original) This section should be ported to it's own article. --FinalCoyote (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The Susan Boyle text belongs right here. To establish a new page for a cover is a little extreme. Even the info. regarding Rolling Stones' covers (of a song like "It's All Over Now" which is arguably more famous now than the original) is included on the original songwriter's page. That being said the Boyle section is rather long, considering the Sundays' version is likely as well known and as worthy of a mention of comparable length to Boyle's. Stan weller (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most people here. Having a huuuge paragraph that states many covers by very famous celebrities, many of whose covers DID peak the charts (many people I know weren't even aware that it wasn't Sunday that did the original version), and then having a Susan Boyle section is silly to me. Her name should be included in that list, maybe a sentence mentioning that it reached a chart if people feel it's necessary, and then that's it. Unless people intend on having each one of those covers elaborated on I don't think just because Susan is current she should have a section. All that information belongs on Susan's page. I would also like to point out that "Because of the digital downloads it did not peak as expected" is weaselly... if that's a word... It's like saying "This song peaked the charts even though it didn't" or at least "This song would certainly have peaked the charts if it wasn't for the digital downloads". Either it topped it or it didn't. Or at least find a quotation. The sentence "Susan's rendition of the song did not fair well on the charts" says the same as the "Weaselly" (still not certain that's a word...) and yet sounds completely different, so that needs to be checked. The fact that it DIDN'T do well also speaks as to why she shouldn't have her own section. (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

One more vote for deleting the section, for reasons stated above. In addition, it violates NPOV to promote Boyle's version over others—and regardless of her album sales, there is no indication that this particular track was notable. Delete. Bag of Carrots (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It's probably worth noting that exactly the same situation has arisen on other articles for popular singles such as Lean on Me (song) but, despite the fact that this was done some years ago, no action has been taken here. This is not an argument to keep the current format, however. I'm just pointing out that a descision to cut the Susan Boyle section in favour of a small sentence describing her version because it goes against wikipedia guidelines means that the same action should and should have been taken in these other articles.--kikumbob (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wild Horses (Rolling Stones song)Wild Horses (song) — Was at that title before being moved to the current one without consensus to do so. Reason given for more was "more than one song with this title." However, the Rolling Stones song is the only song called "Wild Horses" to have an article, so it goes without saying that the primary use of "Wild Horses (song)" is this page. ~DC Talk To Me 15:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC) ~DC Talk To Me 15:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction, as TPH points out, there's also a Garth Brooks song with the same which has an article. However, I still believe this is the more popular song, which would mean it's still the primary use of the title. "Wild Horses (song)" gets on average 30 times the viewers of the Brooks song (stats here (RS) and here (Brooks)). ~DC Talk To Me 16:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose There is also Wild Horses (Garth Brooks song), which is why I moved the article in the first place. At least five other songs named "Wild Horses" are also listed at the dab page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 16:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 4 of the 5 were not even mentioned in the bluelinks for their entries, so I removed them per MOS:DAB. I'm not sure if the Vanelli is original or a cover, so I left it. Station1 (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose What's wrong with specificity in a title? JTRH (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It goes against the guideline at WP:PRIME which states it should be the title, or at least redirect to it. ~DC Talk To Me 20:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't care much what it's called but moving the article and not updating the links which leave finding the article in disarray is calling for the move to be reversed. If I had to choose a primary version of Wild Horses (song) is would be the Rolling stones version. Any additional ones can be done with a hatnote. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly a better know song than the Garth Brook song, which appears not to have been released outside North America, and the cover version by Susan Boyle is widely known with many other cover versions. A link to the Garth Brooks song could be added to the start of the article. Cjc13 (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Makes no sense to me at all. Someone might be typing in "Wild Horses (song)" looking for the Garth Brooks song or maybe even some other song and huh? What the heck? They're at the Rolling Stones song! Don't you think that's gonna confuse some n00b? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 19:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that's how disambiguation works around here. We have hat notes for a reason. ~DC Talk To Me 19:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I still think it's stupid. We shouldn't have "Article name (qualifier)" and "Article name (more specific qualifier)" IMO. It's just confusing and can show favoritism. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 19:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
If you think it's stupid, bring it up there not here. ~DC Talk To Me 05:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. DS (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While the Rolling Stones song is the only one I think of when I hear the name "Wild Horses", that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should reinforce that bias. If there is an article for more than one song by that name, it's reasonable for the article title to explicitly disambiguate them. Wild Horses (Rolling Stones song) makes sense. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there are multiple songs with the same title. Considerations of primary topic does not extend to what disambiguating terms to use. Basically agree with Ten Pound Hammer. olderwiser 19:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. If for every 30 readers searching for "Wild Horses (song)", roughly 29 of them want this very famous song, why would we want to send all 30 of them to a dab page? Since there was no consensus for this move in the first place, it should be reverted. Station1 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    I hadn't that about your latter point. Since there was never a proper discussion on the first move, would a "no consensus" mean it gets moved back? ~DC Talk To Me 05:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    Consensus did not needed to be formed to move the page. TPH was just doing his part and being bold. MS (Talk|Contributions) 05:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    Agree that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the original good-faith bold move. But unlike a normal edit that anyone can revert and then discuss, this move cannot be reverted without admin intervention because the redirect was edited. In cases like this, WP:RM provides that the move can be speedily reverted by an admin and then discussed to see if there is consensus. If there is no consensus for the move, the status quo ante should prevail. I hope an experienced admin will close this, because it shouldn't be a simple case of counting !votes. Station1 (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The real issue here is that the song needs to be moved to Wild Horses (Rolling Stones song) instead of "The Rolling Stones Song". The use of "The" in this context is pedantic and annoying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but I'm not enough of a pedant to insist on moving it back to Wild Horses (Rolling Stones song) without the "the". What's done is done -- let's move on. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is more than ones song called 'Wild Horses'. Disambiguation by band name seems most appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per all the reasons above me. MS (Talk|Contributions) 05:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Contrary to the claims made by some here, the Garth Brooks song is reasonably well known, reached #7 on the Billboard Hot Country Singles & Tracks chart, and appeared on an international best selling album, which incidentally went 17 times platinum in the United States and 7 times platinum in Canada. It reached #1 on the British Country Chart, and stayed in the chart for five years!. The Rolling Stones song managed to crawl up to #28 in the United States and was not even released in the United Kingdom. A live version finally made it onto an album that peaked at #9 in both the United Kingdom and United States. Susan Boyle's cover version peaked at #9 in the United Kingdom, #11 in Ireland, and #98 in the United States. Her album containing the song was the world's best selling album of 2009. In terms of sales and chart performance, there is no primary topic, and both songs need to be disambiguated. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
All of which means nothing. Please review the states which show 20x (at least) more people viewing the RS song than the Brooks one. ~DC Talk To Me 01:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The stats might be relevant if the proposal were to make the RS song the undisambiguated primary topic, but that isn't the case. Primary topic doesn't apply to the choice of disambiguating phrase used to distinguish between two articles of the same type. olderwiser 01:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment We do not, surely, determine a primary topic by page stats in the 6 months after a new version of a song has charted. If we do that, we will be changing primary topics continually. The Rolling Stones/Susan Boyle song has been high in the page stats simply because it has been played on the radio and television over the last few months as a new release. Prior to that, the Garth Brooks song was probably the primary topic. Who knows whether there will be a primary topic out of the two in a year's time? Skinsmoke (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    No, certainly not based on 6 months. Wild Horses (Garth Brooks song) was created only last May and never got more than a few hundred hits, compared to thousands or tens of thousands for the Stones song as far back as the page stats go, so was never the primary topic and almost certainly never will be. Station1 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I have read that Gram Parsons claimed to have written or co-written this song. The Stones dismissed his claim and he never pursued it. Can some interested party find some references to this? It would be an important addition to the article. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Parsons died in 1973 and the Stones ain't talking........ Blood from a stone ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 19:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)