Talk:Clear Channel memorandum/Archive 1

Archive 1

To all contributors to this article

Thank you! This is comedy gold! Pozole 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I find it funny how the majority of songs on the list are anti-war.

POV title

I don't think the term "banned" is appropriate in describing the list. See Clear Channel Communications for more on that. I think the article should be renamed with a more npov title.

Acegikmo1 21:43, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

When a song isn't allowed to be played on the radio, it is technically banned. The name reflects Clear Channel's actions appropriately. -- LGagnon

According to snopes this whole banning business never happened, some DJs compiled a list of songs and it got blown out of proportion. http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/radio.htm

--JohnJarvis 22:01, 10 May 2004 (UTC)JohnJarvis

Agreed. A quote from that page from the New York Times states, "The move by Clear Channel, whose collective broadcasts reach more than 110 million listeners in the nation weekly, was voluntary. Many stations, including some in the New York area, said they were disregarding the list, which was distributed internally."

Acegikmo1 22:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, if this is so then this article needs to be renamed. Feel free to change it to a more appropriate name. -- LGagnon

---

Shouldn't the title say something like "September 11th Attacks" or "Sept. 11, 2001" rather than just "Sept. 11"? Bonalaw 08:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I was trying to keep the title short by using "Sept 11." when I renamed the page, but it's not really appropriate. How does "List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks" sound? It's much longer, but it's also clearer and more formal.

Acegikmo1 09:14, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

How about ""List of songs deemed inappropriate following 9/11"" - If you must know who deemed them inappropriate you can read the article. Also, the '9/11' has become synonymous with the attacks that happened on that tragic morning. user —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikebritt (talk • contribs) 10:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

In the US yes, in the rest of world, no. The current title seems fine to me. Slipzen 18:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So when were they deemed appropriate again?

I miss something about when channels started playing the songs again. I assume that it is not in effect anymore?--Dittaeva 17:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I started out trying to address this question and fix the massive run-on first sentence and wound up rewriting nearly the entire introductory section. I think this version is clear and reflects the actual circumstances of the situation better: it's interesting as much for the social reaction as for the existence of the list itself. Jgm 23:28, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Imagine

In his song, Lennon asks us to imagine that there is no heaven and no religion, among other things. I guess it could have been deemed offensive to Christians in the USA at that particular time. (Not that I'm any way endorsing its inclusion in 'the list'!!) 134.36.112.136 18:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jewel - Hands is a pretty sad song. Clips of the music video were played on CNN after the attack. Her video which depicted the results of an earthquake (or some other natural disaster).--x1987x 17:59, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

If this is true, then I'm surprised "Imagine" isn't permanently banned in the USA, the world's only free theocracy. — JIP | Talk 11:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the point was that it would upset people who were religious and knew or had family members killed during the attacks. If your son just died, hearing "Imagine there's no heaven" isn't exactly heartening. 69.162.59.13

• I can't help but think that it was Lennon's blunt, brow-raising message still voicing itself loud and clearly that caused them to ban it. It's an anti-war, anti-religion, anti-government song. Our government, in its typical Christian manner, can't let you think about a message like that, because it speaks against everything their methods of running blood money are predicated upon. So they make you ignore it. That's always their solution when it comes to dealing with free-thinking "extremists" like Lennon. If there were never any religion, or borders of any kind; no "Allah", no "Americans", those attacks wouldn't have happened. Too much for people to think about at such a time. When the masses don't think for themselves and instead believe everything they learn in the mainstream media, of course you'd rather just wave a flag. I'm not trying to be insensitive to those who lost loved ones. A loss of life of any human life is a tragedy, and that combined with the idea that we're all one and never had any control over where we were born, is Lennon's message. Definitely too deep for the ignorant to truly comprehend, so just mute that, and tell people to wave flags everywhere they go.

This doesn't surprise me. Look at the songs on that list -- a good number of them were banned because they expressed a leftist view; ALL of RatM's songs?! Me2NiK 04:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

New additions

Multiple additions have been made to this list recently. Given the nature of what happened, it's understandable that there is no "canonical" list, but many of these seem not to appear on any published version of the list; what supporting evidence is there? Jgm 13:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've gone through the whole published list and added all songs from it. There really shouldn't be any more additions made unless more proof can be found as to what songs were on the list. -- LGagnon 23:37, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

The entry for the letter "Q"

"All songs by artists beginning with the letter Q are banned!"

That does not sound right. If this was inserted as a joke/vandalism could someone who can edit it? JeroenHoek 10:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That was vandalism that slipped by. Many users have been vandalizing the page recently, so it will have to be fixed either by an admin or after the protection is removed. -- LGagnon 01:20, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well the vandalism does show how outlandish some of those 'inappropriate' songs are. Vandalism = Bad! --x1987x 17:52, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC).

Explanations/background

May we should add some background as the rational behind the banning of specific songs, and a more in-depth overview of the cultural, social and political/ideology underpinnings of these actions? ~ Dpr 07:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I sure would like these additions. But are there explanations in the original list? Or do we interpret by ourselves? -DePiep 11:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The original list gave no explainations at all; it was just a list. -- LGagnon 12:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected the article, hopefully the vandal(s) have gone away by now. If they haven't please re-list it at WP:RFPP. Thryduulf 14:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Bleed American

The song was pulled from many radio stations, including clear channel ones [1] --Fallout boy 03:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Article or List?

Shouldn't the list itself be removed and this entry limited to an article about the list, with just a link to the list at an external site? The Literate Engineer 22:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that this list was sent out is more important than the actual list. Mikebritt

Deranged

I certainly hope this list belongs to the realm of rumour and speculation, and that it was not actually an authentic decree. The very idea of blacklisting certain songs because their lyrics can be associated to a traumatic terrorist attack (usually extremely vaguely and unintentionally) seems downright psychotic to me. Jonas Liljeström 11:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but that is the sick extreme moralistic world (of USA) we live in today. Help us return to normal non-destructive moralism! Ran4 18:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No new additions, please

As I said before, I went through the entire list when I first created this article. There should be no more new songs added to the list unless someone can actually prove there's more. Please stop adding random songs to this list and show some proof. -- LGagnon 23:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Rage Against the Machine

The list says all of RATM's songs are on the list. Can we get some verification from the original author of this article? I certainly wouldn't be surprised if in fact all of their songs were on this list, but that also kind of sounds like something that some smartass might have put there because it's humorous.

I'm the original author. The link at the bottom of the article says that. -- LGagnon 04:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?!?!?

I can't believe this!! They banned songs like: "What a wonderful world"!! WHY!!?!?!?!?!????!?!??!?????????????????1!!!!!?!?!?! Legendary songs like Queen's "Another one bites the dust... I don't understand... explanation please... and don't say: "Lyrics bla bla bla..." tell me what is wrong with these lyrics... --Aviv Maliniak 17:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's paranoia, plain and simple. But this isn't the place to discuss the article's subject; talk pages are for discussing the article itself. -- LGagnon 18:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hearing "wonderful world" while you're grieving is no fun. I think that's one of the few entries on the list that were actually sensible. Peter S. 13:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

duh no. it make u feel happy. (wonderfullife. uh hello. its not "terrible,crapy, everyone i know is dead life",its wonderful life.24.144.137.244 02:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think people can turn down the radio if they don't wanna hear that song but in the end accept that it is a wonderful world with equanimity lol

I'm Confused

ClearChannel manages "System of a Down" rock group, then bans their songs from their own radio stations after 9-11?. Their album being number1 that terrible week the TERRORISTS struck. Why would any corporation manage a band one day then ban them the next? You're either "promoting" them, or to quote a RockStar making them "more popular than Jesus" because you think they'll appeal to a target audience (teenagers) where they can carry their message and make vast sums of cash. Then banning them from the airwaves when TERRORISTS strike the world trade centre. Weird. What isn't weird though is seeing Rush Limbaugh and other negative persons who brag they have "gifts on loan from God" somehow connected to the Patriotic ClearChannel Corporation.

Isaiah 40:8

[Feb 25th, 2006]

This is not a message board

If you are not going to talk about how to improve the article, don't bother writing on any talk page. These things are meant to facilitate editing, not give you a soapbox. -- LGagnon 22:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. Thorns Among Our Leaves 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported

This article is clearly a hoax. No reputable source has reported this story as fact. Morton devonshire 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the snopes link at the bottom? They have sources, and this article fits their claims. Maybe the event is a hoax, but the article is not. Might I add, we do have a category for hoaxes which are legit Wikipedia entries, so if you want to add that go ahead. However, the article itself is not a hoax. -- LGagnon 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:HOAX says: "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. Since Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit", it is sometimes abused to perpetrate a hoax. . . . Verifiability. Wikipedia requires articles to be verifiable. The burden is on the article author to prove the claims in the article. . . . Hoaxes vs. articles about hoaxes. Wikipedia does have articles about notable hoaxes describing them as hoaxes. That is completely different than an article presenting the subject as truth. Hoaxes must be notable to be described by Wikipedia – for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day." Morton devonshire 20:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And this is not notable? I've seen this mentioned in a college music class as part of the regular lecture.

And again, re-read the intro. You clearly haven't yet noticed that the article doesn't try to perpetrate the hoax (if it is a hoax); it merely states the situation as dubious without saying it is definitely true. -- LGagnon 21:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at the Snopes article, and others. It's a notable hoax, but still a hoax. I don't know how to rename and redirect articles -- do you? My suggestion is that it be re-titled so that it is clearly identifiable as a hoax, and not something that really happened. That way, there's no confusion for the casual reader (and future editors for that matter). You mention that there are other notable hoax articles on Wikipedia -- how are they named? Suggestions? Morton devonshire 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the hoax category (linked to in one of my previous statements). Few of the articles have the fact that it was a hoax mentioned in its name; usually, it was mentioned because it couldn't be described otherwise. As long as we make it clear in the text that this is a dubious situation, we don't really need to rename it. The most that we need to change is to add the hoax category to the article (although I'd recommend against that; it hasn't been proven to be either true or a hoax); otherwise, it's fine for now. -- LGagnon 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved back

The page was improperly moved (moving is not supposed to be done by copying and pasting; we have a specific procedure for moving), so it is back here. Also, there was no consensus on moving it; Morton devonshire moved it based on his still disputed point of view. Thus, it should remain here until a consensus is reached. -- LGagnon 14:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What is it that you object to in renaming the article? The current title is misleading.Morton devonshire 01:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the names of other hoax articles. Paul is dead is "misleading", but that is not a problem because it is explained in the article that it is a hoax. We don't need the words "hoax", "supposed", or "urban legend" in every hoax article's name. That would make article names overly descriptive and longer than they really need to be, especially in this case. All we need is the article to be accurate and it should be fine. -- LGagnon 03:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Morton devonshire 03:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Title

Given the number of internet users who only read titles, this title is way off. If mention an urban legend that never happened belongs in an encyclopedia on the basis of social curiosity, then it should be flagged as such. The title should include "Falsely Rumoured" or similar phrasing.

For evidnece of morons only reading titles see: http://digg.com/links/Wikipedia:_List_of_songs_deemed_inappropriate_by_Clear_Channel_after_9_11 -- 210.9.182.38

We've been over this already. Read the rest of this talk page. -- LGagnon 12:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Editors have jumped to conclusions

The Snopes link says that Clear Channel did not deny creating the list, nor the existence of it.[2] Thus, the list is not a hoax. There was a hoax in relation to it, but the list does not count as one. I'm changing the article around to fix this problem. The rest of you can actually read up on your claims before jumping to conclusions. -- LGagnon 12:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Gag -- I know you really want this to be true, but it's not. The anon editor is right -- it's just an urban legend. If you insist on calling it otherwise and changing the intro language to reflect that it might be true, then I will insist that we rename the article. You seem to be the only editor that actually believes that this was not a hoax. Morton devonshire 18:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read the Snopes article? I'm the only one here who has supplied a reference, and I have provided info based on it. By Wikipedia's rules on referencing, my claims hold as the truth unless you can cite a reference proving otherwise. There was no hoax, just a rumor as to what the list was meant for. I'm reverting the article; don't revert it again unless you can cite some sources. -- LGagnon 21:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now also added a reference proving that Clear Channel made the list themselves. Again, don't change it unless you can prove it wrong with a source. -- LGagnon 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course I read the Snopes article. It's part of the reason I came to the legend conclusion, because the Snopes citations indicate that the list was a fabrication. Snopes says that the urban legend was false. Your second citation says "reportedly" -- it doesn't assert that CC actually has such a list. Morton devonshire 22:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't read it well enough. Snopes says it's false that it was a ban list; it does not say the list is false, nor does it say that Clear Channel didn't write it (from the article: "Clear Channel did not deny that such a list existed."). Now, I have cited two references and you have not cited even one. Again, I will reiterate that unless you can cite a source proving my sources wrong you have no right or reason to revert the article. I am going to revert it again. You have reverted twice already, and I suggest you do not violate the 3 revert rule afterwards. -- LGagnon 02:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight -- the only support for this theory comes from a website that says that the ban list is an urban legend, but doesn't deny that there maybe kinda sorta was some list that somebody, we don't know who it is, might have done a list. Violates WP:RS. Please provide the following: (1) support, other than Snopes (which is not a news site), for the assertion that Clear Channel had a corporate policy to ban certain songs after 9/11; (2) a list of those songs. Support that mentions the rumor, but offers no support that the corporate policy actually existed is not acceptable. Morton devonshire 18:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Snopes is a reliable source, given that they cited 4 sources in their article (in any case, Snopes almost always, if not always, cites sources). Also, Wikipedia's article on Snopes makes no assertion that they are unreliable (and you yourself were in favor of them a little while ago). And at no point did I assert that CC banned the songs. I stated that the list's purpose (as mentioned in both my sources) was to advise stations as to what songs may be offensive to listeners; that is not an enforced ban, but mere advice that was only enforced voluntarily (and probably not often). Thus, I will not provide support for #1 as I never argued for that in the first place. As for the actual list, there is a link at the end of the article, as well as the Snopes list.

Both my sources claim that the list was not a ban list. The list does exist in one form or another, even if CC didn't create it. Snopes claims that CC never denied creating the list, and my other source states specifically how CC distributed it. This is all more cited info than what you have presented. For the third time, don't use truthiness as your source; use real outside sources to back your claims or quit pushing for something you can't prove. -- LGagnon 19:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Snopes was okay as a source when this article clearly indicated that it was about an urban legend -- Snopes is probably more reliable on what is or isn't an urban legend than almost any other source, because it's heavily edited by those who have an acute interest in such things. But Snopes is not reliable to source the concept that this was a real list promulgated by CC corporate. Morton devonshire 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

So it's not OK when it doesn't back your claim? It's a source, and it serves its purpose; thus, it stays. And the other source in the article says CC distributed it; that's one more source than you have. Now if you don't have any outside sources to present, quit complaining. This article isn't here to serve your unfounded, unsourced POV. -- LGagnon 02:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And I just added another source in which CC admits to creating the list. -- LGagnon 03:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Senior Editor at High Times -- you've got to be kidding. Morton devonshire 18:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What? That made no sense at all, even after checking the link. -- LGagnon 20:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Take another look at the cited piece. Also, the cited piece does not say that Clear Channel had a banned songs list, so this Wiki article title is still misleading, as is the text.Morton devonshire 20:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

So what if he writes for High Times? You do know that personal attacks are a fallacy, right? If anything, it proves that he's a real journalist, legitimatizing him as a source.

And I've said it over and over again: My version of the article does not say that it is a ban list. It says that CC made the list as an advisory. No ban, just an advisory; those are two totally different things. Again, you are employing truthiness rather than any real facts. Get a real source, not your POV, or quit vandalizing the article to support your unproven POV. -- LGagnon 01:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a personal attack. He's just not a credible source. Truthiness is not a real word, unless you live on the set of Colbert's show. Your version of the article still has no reliable sources, except Clear Channel. Snopes says it's an urban legend. Morton devonshire 18:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is still flawed, and since you don't seem to understand anything I say, I'll break it down slowly:

1. You have not presented a single source of your own.
2. You have not given a single reason outside of a personal attack for discrediting my source.
3. It doesn't matter if truthiness is a neologism or not; you are still doing it.
4. Snopes says the ban is an urban legend. The list is not referred to as an urban legend. Did you even read the article, or did you just look at the fact that this situation is mentioned and the word "False" is used? You might as well claim that CC's existence is an urban legend just because they are mentioned in the article.
5. You have not presented a single source of your own. Find something that you can quote saying something to the effect of "the list (not just the ban, but the list) is an urban legend" or quit reverting the article.

All that said, read Wikipedia:Verifiability and don't come back until you understand why your sourceless POV is doing nothing to improve the article. -- LGagnon 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

reading is fundamental

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/radio.htm Now, someone nominate this for speedy deletion and let's move on. --NEMT 21:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We've gone over this already. And you didn't read it correctly. Snopes didn't just make a blanket "false" statement; they said that the ban is false. -- LGagnon 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Cut the POV

Hey, how about the pro-urban legend people point at some source other than Snopes? None of you have done it yet, and it's likely because you can't find one. I, on the other hand, cited Snopes myself (and actually read the whole article) and cited 2 more sources that further back my argument. Thus the score is as follows:

• anti-urban legend/Me: 3
• pro-urban legend/Morton: 0

Don't cheat; compete. Show proof that you're right instead of claiming my source says the opposite. If you are right, there has to be another source out there. Find it or quit pushing your POV. -- LGagnon 21:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's your version that has no support. Snopes says the list didn't exist. Morton devonshire 02:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Cut the childishness and come up with your own source that you actually read. I'm reverting the article again, and I'm ignoring your baseless pleas until you can find evidence for your claims other than lies about the Snopes article. -- LGagnon 02:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If Snopes did indeed lead you to sources that prove it existed, link away. Don't say you have a cow, and then not let us taste the milk. -- Zanimum 23:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: [3]. They're right in the article's References section, like I said. -- LGagnon 01:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Hits Daily Double is owned by © 2006 HITS Digital Ventures, not Clear Channel. Hits Daily Double is an independent website about the music industry. The references you cite are not reliable. Morton devonshire 03:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that? -- LGagnon 03:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Take at look at http://www.hitsdailydouble.com Cheers. Morton devonshire 00:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything about ownership, and I don't have an account with them so I can't enter the site. Please provide some other source. -- LGagnon 02:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You can obtain a free account from them. Morton devonshire 16:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not giving my e-mail address to them. -- LGagnon 19:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Try http://www.bugmenot.com to avoid this issue. Morton devonshire 18:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It won't let me into the log-in form; it only lets me get to the registration form. -- LGagnon 00:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Suicide Is Painless

I don't know if this list is an urban legend, but if it isn't it should be. :) It is totally absurd. There are some songs on it of which I know the lyrics quite well, which I can't possibly link with the attacks. However, one song I completely expected to be on this list isn't. The MASH theme. "Suicide is painless, it brings on many changes". Exactly what the attackers wanted, to bring on changes through a suicide action. Not what the songwriter had in mind, I assume, but that's not the issue here (obviously, considering the songs on the list). DirkvdM 11:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

One point to add

I think the point should be included that (according to Clear Channel) this originally started as a smaller list, but was added to after being circulated through e-mail. From Snopes:

Note that The New York Times posits a smaller, earlier version of the list did originate in Clear Channel's corporate offices:

Others in the Clear Channel network . . . said that a smaller list of questionable songs was originally generated by the corporate office, but an overzealous regional executive began contributing suggestions and circulating the list via e-mail, where it continued to grow. (emphasis added)

When drawing my own conclusions, I have to admit this sounds believable. We all know how e-mail lists can grow. (That is, of course, strictly my own POV.) -DejahThoris 18:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Killer Queen in the UK

I found myself puzzled by this and added a [citation needed]:

In Britain, many people expressed rage at the supposed exclusion of the song "Killer Queen" from the UK airwaves.

Eh? I don't remember it really ever being mentioned. Why just that one song? Why rage? I'd like to see a source. Sum0 19:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert war needs to stop

This is obviously getting out of hand. I notice it's still going on, but the parties involved aren't even arguing about it on this talk page anymore - they're just reverting one another every few days. Morton devonshire also misused the word "truthiness" in what looks to me like an attempt to mock LGagnon. So much for civility. Morton asserts many times that Snopes says the very existence of the list is false, an urban legend, or hoax, even though his own edits show this isn't true:

* Claim: Clear Channel Communications banned their American radio stations from playing specified songs in order to avoid offending listeners.
* Status: False.

The very fact that we have a list here means that the list exists. (Duh?) Snopes does not say that the list didn't exist - they say the list isn't one of songs that were banned in the days and weeks following 9/11. The fact that Hits Daily Double isn't owned by Clear Channel (which is likely but still not proven with a reliable source) is a moot point: they aren't even a radio station, are they? Also, I went to the Hits Daily Double website, entered some random text when it asked me for my name and e-mail (it let me right in after that), then searched the site for "clear channel". I found this, which kind of alludes to the sentiments being felt by many people at that particular time and references a few songs that are on this list; and then this article, which references this list specifically. --SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 06:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Morton doesn't rely on sources, but truthiness. When he does use a source (Snopes being his only one), he makes claims contrary to what it says, assuming that just because he can point at the existence of a source that he can make up whatever it says. He's nothing more than a vandal pretending to be legit, and his vandalism should be reverted when it happens. If needs be, we can get an admin involved to stop him. -- LGagnon 14:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Morton, I did not declare ownership over the article. I don't know where you're getting that from. What I did say is that you need to cite sources for your claims, which you never do. Now, you are trying to include redundant info from Snopes, which has been cited already and does not need to be in the article verbatim in addition to the info that is cited from it in the first paragraph. You also misuse the term "truthiness" in the headline (which, as Sean said, looks like a thinly-veiled attack on me - something that does not belong in the article). Stop making frivolous edits and talk it over here. -- LGagnon 19:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the dispute. You assert that the ban is real, Snopes.com says that the Urban Legend is false. Including the Snopes.com information in the article is not POV, it's relevant and verifiable. Yes, I do believe that you are violating Wikipedia policy on WP:OWN and WP:NPOV, as you revert almost everyone else's edits of this article, and you refuse to allow verifiable information to be included. I would welcome the presence of a neutral Admin to resolve this dispute. Morton devonshire 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Snopes article is cited; look at the citations for the opening paragraph. There, it is specifically mentioned that CC didn't ban any songs, and Snopes is given as the source. The problem is that you claim that Snopes is calling the list the urban legend, when in fact they call the ban the urban legend. Snopes does not deny the existence of the list - only you do. And for the most part I am only reverting vandalism, which is supposed to be reverted. In your case, it's both vandalism and poorly done edits. The latter is what you were doing by adding redundant info on the Snopes article, on top of misusing the word "truthiness". -- LGagnon 22:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are saying that the list exists on Fucked Company, or some other site, then that's correct. If you are saying that Clear Channel banned this list of songs, that's an Urban Legend. Snopes says that it is false that Clear Channel Communications banned their American radio stations from playing specified songs in order to avoid offending listeners. I apologize for using the word Truthiness -- you should know that Colbert's use of the word is for the purpose of humor. Morton devonshire 06:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The ban was an urban legend, not the list. So far, there's no proof that CC didn't make the list themselves, and there is some proof that they did. Thus, we will not call the list an urban legend, only the ban. I hope that's clear now. -- LGagnon 12:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the article title, because it asserts that Clear Channel produced such a list, which Snopes clearly says it did not. Morton devonshire 21:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you ever going to actually read the article? Let me repeat this again: Snopes says THE BAN is an urban legend. It does NOT say that THE LIST is, nor does it say that CC didn't make it. If you can not find any proof to the contrary, quit making an unproven argument. The rest of us editors can easily read the Snopes article and realize you're lying. -- LGagnon 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the article title,

I agree that the article's title might could be worded a little bit better. But how? It's one thing to say "this article's title is misleading and should be changed," quite another to say this and actually offer a better suggestion.--SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 00:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the title. Morton has never given any proof that there is. He claims Snopes says it's wrong, but if you read the Snopes article it says nothing of the sort. -- LGagnon 01:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what Snopes says:

• Claim: Clear Channel Communications banned their American radio stations from playing specified songs in order to avoid offending listeners.
• Status: False.

Case Closed. Morton devonshire 07:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Where in that does it say that CC did not make THE LIST? It says they did not make THE BAN, not the list. I don't know how you can not understand what I'm talking about. The fact remains that CC made the list, but did not make the ban. You can cite that line over and over again, and it will not change the article because it says exactly what I'm saying. -- LGagnon 15:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Question. This title is horrible, considering this is a list, do we have a copy of the original? This seems like something more appropriate in WikiSource instead of as a complete article. The article itself seems to be eluding to a conspiracy, yet its later refuted as not a conspiracy. So the question I have is, is this article worthy? If so on what grounds? The article states simply people thought a ban existed, then states one did not. Perhaps if the article is kept it should be changed to "Alleged Clear Channel Conspiracy" or something of that sort, as the titled above seems like something you would call the source itself, not an article about the source. Maybe even "Clear Channel Communications post 9/11 song list." There is an arguement being refuted in the title that seems to over extend it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That would only make the title POV. There's no conspiracy, not even an alleged one. There was a rumor that they were going to ban the songs on the list, but that turned out to be false; it was just an advisory list. -- LGagnon 14:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, perhaps then "Clear Channel Communications misunderstood 9/11 song list." I think we as editors need to start coming up with a new name as this obviously is not a valid one. Do you have a particular opinion about the validity of this as an article? It seems to state some people thought it was a ban, then say it wasn't. Kind of lacking as an article in general, no? Perhaps this should be merged into the Clear Channel article and have the song list added to WikiSource as a reference. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the title. They deemed the songs inappropriate, which does not mean they banned them. As for the info on the ban, I don't see what the problem is. A rumor got started, and CC denied the rumor. That's how it happened. There's nothing confusing about that. As for WikiSource, are we even supposed to have lists there? And besides, this thing links to a lot of Wikipedia articles, which probably makes it more appropriate for being in this project. -- LGagnon 15:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not state anything was confusing. The fact that this is a list is probably the biggest problem, most of the top portion is not even sourced and should probably be removed, that really only leaves 3 paragraph about the actual list. The question I am asking is what makes it worthy of being an article? Could you imagine if we put every list on the internet here and then stated a paragraph about it? The problem I am having is discerning what the importance is of this list considering its been established that Clear Channel did not make this as a ban list. The other portion is the title is obscenely long, I am not sure how it is you cannot see this from looking at it alone. I was just reccomending ways to shorten it. Also was this a list Clear Channel stated was of "inappropriate songs" or just one of "questionable lyrics" there should be a uniform use as the article states both and I have yet to see a copy of the actual memo presented. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've cited the actual memo, which we had an external link for already. It's worthy of being an article because this caused a big controversy at the time that it happened. It was a significant event in the history of CC, and one of the reasons why they are considered a dangerous monopoly by their opponents. As for the title's length, we've tried to shorten it before but have been unsuccessful in the past. This was the best we could do to fix percieved POV problems with a shorter name. -- LGagnon 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand now regarding the name, the ability to come to a concensus can be daunting. As for the original memo I do not see it. I look at the two sources for the memo and neither even appear to be genuine, lacking headers of an email or even the companies info if it was a memo.--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you sourced the memo's comment with a link to internalmemos.com, however I don't think it takes much looking to see that what they have on there is a far cry from a memo, it doesnt even have a header ... I doubt Clear Channel sent out this list on white paper with no identifying marks such as their own letter head. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Title Change

The title is misleading because it asserts that Clear Channel produced this list, and that it deemed the songs to be inappropriate. What the article says is that "a" list existed, but doesn't attribute the list to Clear Channel. So, my suggestion is that the title of the article be changed to: "List of songs deemed inappropriate by some radio programming directors following the September 11 attacks" Please consider the change so we can put this matter to bed. Morton devonshire 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

We are not considering this change, as I have cited sources in the article attributing the list to CC. I've said this over and over again, and you continue on with your truthiness ad nauseam. If you are not going to cite sources (and no, snopes is not on your side), then quit this at once. -- LGagnon 20:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So much for consensus building. See WP:OWN. Morton devonshire 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you cut out the unfounded personal attacks and be reasonable? Yes, we are supposed to build consensus, but there is no consensus here, only you arguing against the facts. And no matter what, you can not change the facts to suit your interests. -- LGagnon 23:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make a personal attack. I would like you to read the Wikipedia policy WP:OWN. I'm not trying to change any facts -- I am opposed to soapboxing on Wikipedia, and so is Wikipedia. WP has a policy called WP:V, and it requires that the editor who adds information has the burden of demonstrating it through the use of reputable sources (see WP:RS). You have not done this with the assertion that there was a "List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks." That's my complaint. Morton devonshire 23:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, yes, you are making a personal attack. You're accusing me of something I haven't done, which is attempting to own the article. Never once did I say I own it. So cut out your false, unproductive accusations.

Second of all, I have cited sources. They're right there in the article! You, on the other hand, have cited nothing at all. All you ever do is point at the Snopes article and claim it backs your claims when it does not. All I can assert from this is either A) you have a serious lack of reading comprehension and can not understand either me or the Snopes article, or B) you're extremely bias and deciding how to edit the article based on truthiness. Either way, you're not getting your way until you realize what the problem is with your claims.

And when you have actually learned how to edit right, quit trying to put the burden of proof on me, because it's really on you. Find some sources that back your claim, and make sure you've read them entirely instead of a small snippet in the intro. -- LGagnon 03:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The sources you cite don't meet the requirements of WP:RS. I know you really want this stuff to be true, but it just isn't. It's just a very popular Urban Legend. Morton devonshire 19:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem I am running into is not that I don't believe that Clear Channel made a list of something, but that the sources are not showing a credible email or memo. There is no headers that normal emails carry when printed from a email client, nor is there a letterhead. Its not even a scan, its just a list of songs, the worse part is the article states that their are many versions floating around. Clear Channel has admitted a list exists, I just dont think any of these are valid sources. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Morton, any source I can come up with is more reliable than the nothing you cite. All you ever use is Snopes, which does not back your claims. And cut the personal attacks; your bullshit claims about my motives need to stop NOW. If you can't be civil about editing, quit and let the reliable editors be. -- LGagnon 20:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please Keep Clam. No need to be so angry. I don't want to argue with you anymore, as you seem to take it all personally, and I don't intend that. I just want the article to adhere to Wikipedia policies. Morton devonshire 20:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you two have a history but I hope that can be kept out of the discussion here. I simply feel the two sites provided are not legit, they are not first hand sources. They did not see nor seem to ever have in their possession the documents. Its obvious neither site has a scan of the original or even a full representation of it, no headers, no letterhead. I just think we should remove the mention of it as "The one that the company did distribute, which is also the most commonly cited and extensive version, is detailed below." Is it possible to reach a middleground and just reword the sentence? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Morton, I have every reason to be angry. I've asked you over and over again to stop the personal attacks and you haven't stopped. I've asked you over and over again to provide sources and you never have. You're not a legit editor, but a troll. I'm going to ask you again: give a source or leave. Don't make another personal attack, don't point at Snopes and lie that it backs your claims. Give some source that says in plain English that you are right. If you can't, then you have no right or reason to change the article, and you should stop vandalizing the article for the sake of your POV. -- LGagnon 00:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to engage in this kind of dialogue with anyone on Wikipedia. I'm going to take a Wiki-break from this page in the hopes that things will calm down. Peace to you sir. Morton devonshire 00:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Support for LGagnon

After reading the article, the Snopes page, and now this awful talk page, I want to declare my support for the work of LGagnon (talk · contribs), who has persevered through months and months of people attacking this article without trying to properly understand the context. Clear Channel made the list. No, it was not to a ban list. (It was, however, circulated before September 11, something we may disagree on.) Anyway, I have your back, LGagnon. But I have to say: You guys might not have been arguing about this for more than six months if you had sought mediation. Then you wouldn't have anything left to argue about. If this continues, I will seek mediation or even arbitration for this disagreement, because I think both sides have their points; unfortunately, only one side has cited anything. --Chris Griswold 09:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is the sources for me, they are not real sources and none of the source has the original document or a scan. Therefore there is no way to confirm its content. There is a list of songs here that Clear Channel may not have created, they made a list, however this list on this article page has no proof to being the list. So anyone could have added any tracks to the list and we here are documenting it as fact. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How can someone scan the original? It was circulated via e-mail. --Chris Griswold 19:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; I'm glad to have your support. Unfortunately, I've had bad experiences with mediation in the past (basically, they shrug off serious problems as not needing their help until they blow further out of proportion), so I was reluctant to ask them for help. If you want to ask them for help that's fine with me, though. -- LGagnon 15:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Should This be in Wikipedia?

Just want to check something out first. I quick scan of this article almost makes me wnat to nom it for AFD. How ever I'm not quite sure it warents one or not. I'm basicly looking for another editors or twos opinon on this so I can make a good choice and not one that is going to cause a whole lot of issues needlessly. Aeon 03:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This was a pretty major event in CC's history. I don't think it would be fair to delete it. Second of all, if you have problems with the so-called "urban legend", keep in mind that some rather unethical editors have been altering the article without sources to back up their claims. They have given no real proof that this is an urban legend, yet continue to edit the article to fit their views. -- LGagnon 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the event this article covers is an urban legend by definition - to the letter. Urban legends aren't necessarily untrue, but different "versions" of the legend vary between pretty much every person who's heard the story. (See Telephone (game)) By now, a few hundred million people in the world are probably aware of this "urban legend" and they all probably heard a slightly different version of it. That, I think, is why this article deserves to exist: so that people can get the facts on what really happened.

Whether or not this article should actually exist as the full list here on Wikipedia is another thing. Maybe the article should just explain the details and facts and events surrounding the rumors and whatnot, and then just have an external link to the list itself if anyone actually wants to view it.--SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 16:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But don't we lose some important content without the list? As long as we keep new entries from being added (as the full list is already here, and anything new is simply inaccurate), it should be fine. Many people are unaware of what exact songs were put on it, and we should be pointing out which ones were. -- LGagnon 18:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that suggestion was really just an idea that popped in my head. An obvious pro for it would be a smaller file size for the article, and as long as there's still a link to a site showing the full list there's nothing really stopping anybody from still being able to read it if they want to. Also, you wouldn't have to worry about reverting people's edits when they try to add songs to the list. Another idea might be to try and find one of the smaller, earlier versions of the list, putting THAT in this article, and then linking to the full list. Meh, I'm just spitting out ideas here.--SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 05:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This was definitely a notable event, and "Clear Channel banned list" still turns up a lot of Google hits. I do think the article should mention that Clear Channel claims the original list was smaller. According to Snopes "Others in the Clear Channel network . . . said that a smaller list of questionable songs was originally generated by the corporate office, but an overzealous regional executive began contributing suggestions and circulating the list via e-mail, where it continued to grow." Snopes attributes that quote to the New York Times (I think this is the article in question). I can't get to the NYTimes article, because I'm not willing to pay for it. But if we're going to mention the event, I think we should include the list. DejahThoris 19:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

hmmm....ok thanks. I wont nom it for AfD but I might still tag it for clean up. Thanks for your all input! Aeon 20:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged it for clean up. I will try to get some of it done when I can spare a momment. Aeon 12:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

"nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion"

Snopes and this list

In order to address (but avoid continuing) a lame edit war, I'm going to dispute recent changes made to wording relating the Snopes page on the Clear Channel list. The wording as of this writing is:

Rumor had it that this list was meant to be used to ban the songs on it from airplay. Clear Channel has denied banning any songs. Snopes dismissed the "banned list" as false urban legend.

The wording this was changed from, which (full disclosure) I last edited, was:

Rumor had it that this list was meant to be used to ban the songs on it from airplay, but this has been denied by Clear Channel, and urban legend tracker Snopes disputes any "banned list" claims.

I feel the latter sentence, in addition to being better written (the first has three choppy sentences, including the redundant and horridly-constructed "Snopes dismissed the 'banned list' as false urban legend"), better describes the situation. The first statement implies that the list altogether does not exist, whereas the second statement merely disputes its status as a "banned list." In other words, the first strikes me as a weasley way to dispute the subject's notability altogether, whereas the second leaves that open to debate but clarifies the established facts. Thoughts? -- H·G (^words/_works) 22:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The first version accurately describes the three seperate events. The latter sentence is a runon weasel word sentence. The 'rumor to ban' has been debunked. Watering down the rejection by snopes and the denial by Clear channel gives too much credence to a 'rumor.' It needs three separate sentences from three separate, independant sources. Rumor (how this even makes it in the article, I don't know). Clear channel. Snopes. Three separate organization. Two are verifiable. One is rumor. --Tbeatty 02:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how saying "Snopes disputes any 'banned list' claims" waters anything down; nor do I appreciate being accused of planting "weasel words" when I don't have an agenda in relation to this article. My point is to clarify, not to obfuscate. But this is heading to lamest territory, so have your way with it. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Final note, though--the three sentences are all verified by the one source listed there. (I.e. Snopes discusses the rumor, Clear Channel's denial, and the results [its debunking]). Breaking down the material to three sentences isn't that big of a deal, but no further sources are needed for those three. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words are a Wikipeida term, not an accusation. Weasel words include passive voice sentences, words like "allegedly", "supposed", etc. The words try to cast doubt where it isn't supported by the source and they should be avoided. A sentence that starts off "Rumor has it that...." is a classic weasel word sentence since it is passive voice.--Tbeatty 04:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What about, "it was rumored that"? 69.40.248.10 01:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Passive voice is your guide to weasel statements. Plus, this whole conjecture is unsourced. --Tbeatty 23:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The list

The list of songs here is the list that should be in the article. It is a far more reliable list. Also, it is referenced in the first link that describes it. The songs that were listed in additional to this list are questionable in their reliability. --Tbeatty 23:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That looks exactly the same as the list I used to create our list. I agree that we should keep new entries off the list. -- LGagnon 01:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the hitsdailydouble list matches the internalmemo list. That discrepancy alone casts doubt on one of them as a source for the article. That list only has 158 entries. It is the hitsdailydouble list that the Wikipedia article claims the list came from. Anything not from the hitsdailydouble list should be deleted as that is the source for the memo from ClearChannel. --Tbeatty 04:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the songs that were not here. Hitsdailydouble is how the list was distributed. I don't even think we should reformat it but I didn't change the format. I only got through the 'S's. --Tbeatty 08:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

SOmeone fixed spellings on the list. Since this is a recreation of a published list, I think the spellings should appear as they were originally. I have fixed links so that they return to the correct artist in wikilinks.--Tbeatty 19:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking much better

Heh, Mispeled, thanks for the edits. The article is looking much more NPOV these days. We're finally free of that ridiculous "ban" stuff. I will help defend your current edit. Morton devonshire 01:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing was removed, only reworded. Either way, I hope you're done deleting facts you don't agree with despite the existence of sources. -- LGagnon 03:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I will support Mispeled's version, because I believe that it's a neutral presentation of the facts. You will feel better if you stop taking this personally. Morton devonshire 22:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken nothing personally. Stop making personal attacks. -- LGagnon 00:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stick to content. Morton devonshire 04:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have stuck to content; you haven't. Your statement "You will feel better if you stop taking this personally" is no different from any other personal attack you've made in which you falsely claimed that I was trying to own the article. Don't tell me to stick to content; you stick to the content of the article and stop making personal attacks. -- LGagnon 05:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad the edit looks good. :) Mispeled 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:Reliable Sources

Please see WP:RS -- Fuckedcompany.com and Internalmemos are not reliable sources. Please provide sources which qualify under WP:RS. Thank you. Morton devonshire 16:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The lists are exactly the same as the one at Snopes. Thus, they are backed by a cited source already. -- LGagnon 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

We've had three instances of vandalism in the last three days – I think it would be a good idea to make this page protected. Mispeled 21:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me. -- LGagnon 22:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't foresee the content needing to change much... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 04:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the three lists that are cited don't match, I foresee changes. 3 vandalisms in 3 days is very small and I wouldn't call any of the reverts "vandalism" as it is a cotnent dispute. --Tbeatty 06:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'm reverting any additions that aren't discussed on the talk page.--Mispeled 19:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Much media attention?

I think that claim is very dubious given that the best sources this article can come up with is 'Snopes' pointing out the ban was urban legend and some fringe articles. --Tbeatty 06:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

NYC

They missed "New York City's Like A Graveyard" by the Moldy Peaches. --Dangherous 20:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Heatseekrs

I just removed Heatseekrs – "Ass Smoke Rims Spinnin'" from the 0-9 section. It's misplaced first of all, and I've never seen it on this list before so whoever added it probably doesn't have a reliable, citable source for its presence there. I'm too lazy to check the history and see if they added anything else.--SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 20:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Down?

Was "Down" by 311 truly deemed inappropriate, or is that vandalism? It doesn't seem inappropriate to me.

• Oh, wait...I think I get it...

evermores running?

that is most probably a joke or vandilisim because that song wasn't even released at the time of the attacks.

Removed it. It was released in 2006, so there's no way it could have been on the list. Richaod 04:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

A factuality-disputed tag was added by an unregistered user, without any discussion on the talk page. The question of whether or not credible sources have been used was solved quite a while ago, and the factuality-disputed should be taken down.

I have removed the disputed tag, as well as some contradictory phrases in the article. First it said that the list was not an actual "ban list" but in the next paragraph some lazy editor decided to throw around the word "banned" as if the list was a ban list. The word "ban" or anything derived from it no longer appears in this article, except in the sentence: "Snopes did research on the subject and concluded that the list did exist as a suggestion for radio stations, but not a ban on the songs in question." This is the only sentence in this article where the word "ban" should ever appear. --SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 21:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Cure: Killing an Arab

The article makes a mention of a Beatles song that doesn't appear on the list. I think "Killing an Arab" would be a better example of a song that would logically appear on the list but was left off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.105.123.77 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Killing an Arab being a logical inclusion for this list? What nonsense. First of all, it's not the sort of song that gets mainstream airplay anyway, and anyone who does listen to it knows exactly what it's about and knows there's no reason it should have been discouraged following 9/11. I am The Walrus might not be the best example of a song that was left off, but Killing an Arab's no better. 58.175.33.49 11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What about that song "Have You Forgotten" by Darryl Worley or the song by Toby Keith that goes on and on about 9-11? I guess it's OK to write about 9-11 as long as you're a country singer? Meanwhile rock songs written 30 years ago that have a lyric that can be associated with the attacks are dangerous? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.123.1 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

So, is the inclusion of some songs acceptable?

I removed the sentence "The reason for the controversy surrounding the inclusion of this Barenaked Ladies song is because the song is about the emotions one feels while being in love, and has nothing to do with actually falling" from the indroduction. Aside from the fact that it's poorly written, I thought its removal was appropriate, as I see no reason this song deserves special explanation. No one has felt the need to explain why the inclusion of any other songs is controversial, why add a clarification for this one?

Also, labeling the inclusion of any song as controversial would seem to imply that the inclusion of certain others might not be controversial or objectionable, and I hardly thing such behavior would represent a neutral POV.NihilisticMystic 03:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)