User talk:82.25.41.191

September 2023

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Waxworker (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm not sure which part of what I edited you didn't like? I added a new reference (about a film that had used the music), but I also ordered some of the existing information into a more readable (chronological) format, and separated different examples into different paragraphs, and added information to one example which otherwise (and again, now, currently) makes no sense.

It seems as if all of these changes have been undone. If you let me know what you objected to, I can try to give further info.

The only new information I added was the part about the use in a film. I don't know what citation you would want for that. I also note that the surrounding information, referring to uses in other films (e.g. "the 1977 Hungarian animated film Mattie the Goose-boy", "the 1982 cult film documentary The Atomic Cafe", and "the 2014 Hungarian film White God") all do not cite a source. So I'm not sure why you removed the one that I added to the list.

I think the edits I made should be reinstated. Please review again. Thanks. 82.25.41.191 (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:BURDEN, which states that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" - there already being unsourced content on the article isn't a reason to add more. Please also see MOS:POPCULT which states that "Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist ... A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item" - a reliable source discussing how it was used in the film and why it's notable would be necessary. Noting that it was replaced in later releases "possibly because its use in the original release hadn't been properly licensed" is WP:OR. Waxworker (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I wasn't suggesting that there already being unsourced content on the article was a reason to add more. I was just wondering why you removed my additions whilst allowing the other content to remain. I assume it must be because of some other aspect of the information I had provided?

The page has a section called "In popular culture" - which has existed since the page was created almost 17 years ago, and the sole purpose of which is to list the places in popular culture which this music has been used - so this was obviously the correct place for me to have provided this information.

Please let me know how it should be proved that the film contains the music? I would like to provide the proof. It is not listed in the film's credits, unfortunately, although the music is used both diagetically and non-diagetically in the film. I do agree that the speculation (about why the piece was not included in subsequent releases of the film) could be omitted. Perhaps if I resubmit the edit without this information you may like it better?

Thanks again. 82.25.41.191 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources must be cited that discuss the film using it and its cultural impact - even if it was noted in the credits that wouldn't demonstrate that the appearance is notable as that would be a primary source, and again MOS:POPCULT states that the "source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item". If no reliable sources have discussed this, then it shouldn't be on the article. Waxworker (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.

Please could you delete all the other references in the "Popular Culture" section which you feel shouldn't be there.

Then I shall review all the deleted material properly, and restore - with references - the ones that meet the site's criteria.

I don't want to start this job while you may still consider the other material currently there to be invalid.

Meanwhile, as I referred to above, should I take it that the other changes I had made in that edit, all of which got got undone when you undid my amendment, are acceptable? (It's only the unsourced reference to the film which you don't like, is that right?) 82.25.41.191 (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed all unsourced entries from the section, the wording changes made seem fine as long as sources are found to verify the appearance and touch upon the cultural impact of using the rhapsody in the piece of media. The existing examples on the article demonstrate cultural impact, with 'The Cat Concerto' winning an academy award and 'The Opry House' being an early example of its use - if a source just says 'it was in this film', it shouldn't be added. Waxworker (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll see if I can find some sources for the material that's now gone. It's a pity that the info has disappeared, and that it probably can't be supported by citable sources. Ironically, it was a search for this very information which led me to the page in the first place: I already knew about the "Bugs Bunny" and "Tom & Jerry" cartoons, but I wanted to see where else this music had been used. I found a few other mentions on the page, which were very interesting (all of which you've now deleted, of course), and I added one that I knew of which wasn't already mentioned. But now all of this info is gone, and I don't think the article is the better for it. Wikipedia is a very useful repository for this kind of information, and its presence, in its own section at the bottom, doesn't clutter the article for users who aren't seeking this information. Anyway, I'll see if I can find citable sources and demonstrations of cultural significance so that you may be less anxious about the inclusion of the deleted information. 82.25.41.191 (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Freaks (1932 film), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I have added the source. 82.25.41.191 (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---