Talk:Follow Follow

A fact from Follow Follow appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 April 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a parrot was branded sectarian after being heard whistling "Follow Follow"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/April.

Wikipedia

Unprotecting

It's been vandal protected for weeks now, time to let it be edited again. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Catholic lyrics

The alternative lyrics to this song (about the Pope and the Vatican) seem to appear and disappear regularly on this page. I think a consensus needs to be found as to whether they should be included. Unpleasant as I find their sentiments I think that they should be in the article, though a good citation would also be handy. Dancarney 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be appropriate to mention that there are anti-Catholic lyrics. But it is offensive to have the words FTP in full, and not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. After all, Wikipedia is not a forum for voicing religiously-motivated obscenity - and to voice such obscenity under the pretext of reportage does not lessen this unacceptability.

Best,Maxim662 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, we report the good the bad and the ugly! See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. --Guinnog 13:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sed contra, we report in an appropriate manner. See Wikipedia:Profanity: 'Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.'

The addition of these lyrics adds nothing to the informative content of the article - reporting that there are offensive lyrics, and describing how they are offensive is sufficient. (Unless the intention of the inclusion of the lyrics is to teach people how to sing the song with the modified lyrics.)

Best,Maxim662 15:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, removing the lyrics definitely makes the article "less informative"! --Guinnog 17:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but unless it is your purpose to use Wikipedia to teach people offensive sectarian lyrics, adding the actual lyric adds nothing in this context which is not already supplied by the explanation that the content of the modified lyrics are sectarian, etc. Do you advocate using this article to teach people songs of religious hate?

Maxim662 23:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I advocate telling the truth about the controversial words that are the ones usually sung by fans. That they are sectarian and offensive is not in question here. Wikipedia is not censored, and we have articles on nigger, fuck, and cunt. This article is about a song that is usually sung with offensive lyrics, therefore the actual offensive words need to be shown, so people can judge for themselves whether they are offensive or not. Please stop removing content from the article. --Guinnog 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a matter of copyright. It's only a matter of sensibilities and information. Here, any roundabout way of conveying the same information would take more words and look pedantic, snooty, and euphemistic. This is one 'bad' word and two nouns; it's not a gigantically long spiel. We could replace fuck with f—k—but that looks so wimpy, silly, and old-fashioned to me. It's insufficient to say that there are some religion-centered offensive lyrics: religion is a huge topic. Even saying there are some offensive lyrics centered around Roman Catholicism or the Papacy is too vague—and takes more words. When a direct quote is far more concise and conveys the information and does it in an absolutely exact way and is a direct quote and doesn't violate copyrights—those traits outweigh the possibility of offense. — President Lethe 02:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The addition of these lyrics adds nothing to the informative content of the article" — I disagree, I think the offensive lyrics are relevant and encyclopaedic information which should be included if possible. That said, the full uncensored lyrics should be included if and only if they can be properly cited, and I note that there's currently no citation for them. Demiurge 08:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I found a cite; can someone else restore the lyrics please? --Guinnog 10:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't agree. It is simply fallacious to argue that 'a song that is usually [sic?] sung with offensive lyrics, therefore the actual offensive words need to be shown, so people can judge for themselves whether they are offensive or not'. This just doesn't follow. Particularly now that a citation has been provided, it is perfectly possible to note that there are alternative lyrics and give the link, but without drawing attention to the foul content of the link on this wikipedia page.

With the FTP&V included, far too much attention is drawn to the particular sentiments of one 'alternative' line (and that is, of course, not the only line - cf. 'Up the Falls, Derry's Walls', etc.). And I don't want excessive attention to surreptitiously glorify these lyrics, nor to for wikipedia to become a data-bank for the dissemination of sectarian song-lyrics. This is what concerns me about that paragraph. I don't care about swear-words, etc. (so President Lethe's remarks are just off the point here).

If both Guinnog and Demiurge are insistent upon the inclusion of these lyrics on the page, can we compromise and have these explicit lyrics either included through the link to the citation source, or in a footnote? Either way would remove them from a position of prominence within the article, without any loss of informative content? Maxim662 14:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone finds a webpage to the complete alternate lyrics (as opposed to a prose article that mentions the change to the pope line), I'll be willing to undo the recent reïnclusion of the direct quote that I just made. — President Lethe 15:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the latest changes:

1. The unofficial lyrics are still lyrics and so can go under the "Lyrics" heading. This article isn't so long, and the sections aren't so long and different, that two separate sections are necessary. Also, some like to restrict the adjective alternate to situations in which there are only two things to alternate between. Because there are probably zillions of possible other lyrics, alternate is, in that more restricted sense, inappropriate.

2. I agree with removing the bit about epitomising loyalty and pride.

3. Why make the reader follow a link and load another article page just to found out the Rangers are Scottish? It's standard, when writing an article, to give the very basic answers about who(m), what, where, when, why, how. Surely we can allow a few words about location. Articles about other songs mention nationality.

I'm putting the two sections together again and restoring the bit about Scotland.

By the way, is it known for sure that it's not a copyright violation to show the complete official lyrics here?

President Lethe 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone actually owns the copyright to it. Also, the alternative lyrics are very rarely heard these days, and I feel this should be highlighted in the article.Archibald99 02:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If only that were true! --Guinnog 05:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the scurrilous version had been deleted again so I restored it. --Guinnog 23:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grampian Police

Any updates on this story?

Alternate version?

I've heard the one that goes Follow, follow, we are the Teddy Bears... Is that still sung? - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Follow Follow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928234516/http://www.rangers.co.uk/articles/20090714/acceptable-conduct_2254524_1722055 to http://www.rangers.co.uk/articles/20090714/acceptable-conduct_2254524_1722055

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]