Jump to content

Talk:Handlebars (song)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Talk Start

I started this article. It is going to become huge, I can tell, as I created it right as the song was gaining nationwide notability. Come on everyone, lets get this article up to Featured Article status ASAP !!!JeanLatore (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Platypus

Platypus was the name of their first album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jailerdaemon (talk • contribs) 02:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But how is that relevant to this article? Rau's Speak Page 18:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone was removing the music video section due to its platypus reference. Jailerdaemon (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it was removed because of the lack of a source, the platypus just went with everything else. Rau's Speak Page 23:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Meaning

The meaning of the song uses direct quotes from the beginning and ending of the song. It is sourced. Please explain its continual removal or replacement. Rau's Speak Page 21:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone is misinterpreting the song completely. The song is not about any one person in particular, it is about everyone. This song is about a childlike innocence, the "look what I can do!". It is about John Q Public and how as he grows up, he realizes that he has the power to do things. Sadly, most men with power tend to abuse that power and the song goes on to follow that little boy growing and becoming a man and shouting "Look what I can do now" while using his great power to bring about the end of the world. It is about how we all have the propensity to be either good or evil. Seanmeadows (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

While I do not disagree with you, that is OR, which is what this entire thing is about. Rau's Speak Page 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, as soon as you try to divine the meaning of the song and put your opinion in the article, then you've begun telling us about you, not the song. That's not what Wikipedia is for.Elsendero (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It's the only problem. If we could have OR, I would be more than happy with the one they are proposing. Rau's Speak Page 23:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


I actually agree with this guy's interpretation, however since it seems like some kind of war has been waged over the translation of something (like many things in life), we could just try and put like 2-4 different meanings.

The meaning of the song is difficult to difficult to ascertain on a holistic approach. There are a few glimpses of who the subject is. The song is in direct reference to the American people or an American person in the lyrics “and I’m proud to be an American.” Other lyrics reference America such as, “I can tell you about Leif Ericson,” who is mythologized as the Viking that discovered America, and “I know all the words to De Colores,” which is the unofficial song for the United Farm Workers that was frequently sung in marches that occurred in the United States. The embodiment of the lyrics progress on the capabilities of an individual as they grow from childhood to adulthood and the multitude of applications that an individual can go through from tinkering with a remote control, to capitalistic ventures in magazine publishing, to (“I can lead a nation with a microphone”) and finally to war monger. User:Rachat 15 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.68.55 (talk)

I like that one. Uses lyrics from the song with out personal interpretation. Up until the end, it is pretty good. The "political leader/activist" cannot remain however because the narrator could be talking about the fact that musicians used to be such a heavy influence on people mind, they could lead the nation with a microphone. That is unlikely, but possible. Some links to other pages, and a bit of tweaking in the wording, and that could work as the one on the page. Rau's Speak Page 23:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm with seanmeadows, at the beggining of the song you can hear him sounding purely delighted at what he's achieved. But by the end he's practiclly screaming. He's not longer acomplishing things because of the pride it gives him, but just for the sake of eing in power.--CrazyOmega (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Here (Flobots Fight To Make The World, And Your Cubicle, A Better Place) is a MTV article with direct quotes from the band explaining the meaning of the song if someone wishes to revive this section of the article. 204.111.114.38 (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Some has been added, but more will be, or it might be trimmed. We'll see. But that was a nice find. It can be used for the Flobots article as well possibly even the Denver, Colorado article. Rau's Speak Page 05:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations

You cannot cite the "meaning" of the song by referencing the song itself. Any citations sir need to be from secondary sources, and reliable ones at that. Plz. keep in mind even if you claim to have "heard" those lyrics in the song itself, your repeating/communicating the lyrics is a form of original research as well in that you are merely communicating what you think you heard. Each word, nay each verbal sound, you "hear" whilst listening to the song (or even reading the printed lyrics) is processed in your brain before being passed on, thus subjecting it to your own personal biases, experiences, interpretations, and inherent biases. See Hobbes or Jacques Rousseau on language if you want to know more about that. JeanLatore (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

We can use primary sources. This is directly quoted from WP:ORIGINAL:
  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
  • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
What part of that did I violate by citing the song itself? Rau's Speak Page 01:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I still want to know how I continually add OR. Rau's Speak Page 18:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I believe that protection is going a bit too far. Plus, in no way will we endorse the current version. JeanLatore (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Who is we? It's you and a bunch of ip's. And protection will allow us to focus on resolving our debate rather than just continually reverting each other. Also, be glad they did not report us. Rau's Speak Page 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

But the IPs are people too. most of the constructive edits come from IPs actually. Like little things, things that will make this article grow into FA. There is no consensus for your version. its just you. JeanLatore (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your version either. Mine has a source. Yours does not. Mine contains verifiable claims. Yours does not. And the ip's were not adding constructive edits. all information needs to be sourced to make it to FA, the continual addition of unsourced material is unconstructive, and will actually prevent this article from reaching FA. Also I tried to establish consensus above, but you never replied back. Rau's Speak Page 19:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, what was that bit about "in the last 24 hours I believe he has made 5 or 6 reverts to the article". I checked the history of the page, I have made two reverts. Sometimes, even simple things like edit histories need to be verified. Rau's Speak Page 22:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. [1] [2] JeanLatore and the anonymous IP user, stop filling Wikipedia with nonsense. Consensus is determined by reasonable discourse, not majority support. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the true and correct version so far that has consensus

The song is about George W. Bush and saying the people of the United States has elected a leader of little intelligence, and that they have given him enough power to start a nuclear war that would leave many dead. The song begins describing Bush as being so child like in sense as to compare his intellect with only being able to do simple acts as that of riding a bicycle with out the use of its handlebars, but by the end it also indicates that he has the power to execute the act of ending the planet in a holocaust through the use of nuclear weaponry.

The song references many modern technologies, including seeing someone's face "on the telephone;" an example of this technology being an iPhone, and the advances in modern science: "I can split the atom of a molecule." The narrator of the song is a youth of the modern generation, with the line "Look at me, look at me" embodying the narcissism of the younger generation spurred on by the power of modern technology. Global affairs can also be controlled by the narrator, who discusses killing millions "by assassination."The song starts out as the narrator, a young Hispanic male of about 4 to 10 years of age, brags about riding a bike with no handlebars. The bar handles theme becomes rote into this song, providing the chorus, and most likely inspired the title of this piece, which is "handle bars."

Soon this child, playing basketball, learns that he is a platypus (the duckbill platypus theme is found throughout the corpus of Flobots), can discourse about Viking Adventurer Leif Ericson, and can tie a knot in a cherry stem. Later accomplishments in the arts (keeping time with no metronome), business (boasting of marketing prowess), and technology (building an extremely fuel efficient engine) follow this young man, who is now a light skinned black boy. This symbolizes the band's ethos that one must be white to be considered successful in the contemporary Western World.

All is going well with this young man, as the masses that flock to listen to his song and buy his wonderful products are shot down in China and Africa, demonstrated graphically by video montages with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. This young man, now inexplicably a black female adolescent with straight hair, gains political power, imprisons her enemies (presumably the white race that so successfully manipulated economic markets at the expense of the self-esteem and political aspirations of former minorities), cancels distribution of world wide vaccinations, and eventually presses a large red button that signifies the end of the world.

Later the characsters are riding bikes with no handlebars again, and the process repeats infinitely.

Another Interpretation of this song is that it is stating that just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should. This meaning does support the theory that the song is aimed towards George W. Bush but also shows that it could be any of us who make this terrible decision if we don't watch what it is we are doing and learn from our mistakes.


Structure The song begins and ends with the title lyric: "I can ride my bike with no handlebars." In between, the narrator shows increasing degrees of local, scientific, global, and political power over his surroundings until the eventual apocalypse at the conclusion of the song. The song is done in the post modern "slash & burn" hip hop style associated with Rage Against the Machine, with a horn element taken directly from Cake.

  • That is a load of OR. Also, that does not have consensus, if so, show me the discussion that established a consensus for that. Also, we have been discussing this like gentlemen. Rau's Speak Page 01:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • JeanLatore, I propose you give it another try. Submit it here again, but simplify a bit, with the interpretations removed (e.g. the Bush stuff) - that would be the first step to a solution here. Elsendero (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yea i'd have to say that it's less about Bush in general and more like he (the singer) is trying to tell us about how much power we're giving one person. I mean, if everytime you went outside camera crews were documenting you, you wouldn't look so great either, I'm not saying bush isn't an idiot though... Anyways, i diagress, point in short, it's not Bush specifically, but corruption as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyOmega (talk • contribs) 13:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not post it, like you just did. Jailerdaemon (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Seconding Jailerdaemon. Regardless of the quality of the writing and reasoning, it is Original Research. Secondly, the song's notability is its popular success (as reasonably recorded in the article). The song's notability is not dependent upon its political or aesthetic message. For songs which are notable due to their politics or political impact, consider The Internationale for example. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Extra help?

WP:3O or WP:RFC. It may be a good idea to bring in some extra help on this article... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as it stands, the two of us will continue to but heads. Rau's Speak Page 03:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Update

This is a list of things that need to be updated when the protection is removed.

Why has this been removed?

The following section was removed from the article. Why? I think it is concise and explains the meaning of the lyrics in the song quite well.

The song begins with childish braggadocio, as the singer boasts that he is able to ride a bicycle without holding the handlebars, can tie a knot in a cherry stem, has composed a comic book, and has seen a platypus, "because he can do anything that he wants." Next, the singer boasts of business and technological acumen, offering such skills as designing engines, marketing, and running a business.

Finally, he boasts of great political power, including the power to "lead a nation with a microphone", "hand out a million vaccinations / Or let'em all die in exasperation", to order assassinations, and to end the planet in a holocaust. Despite the apparent arrogance and amorality of these powers, he claims that his goals are pure and noble.

The song is in the genre of indie hip-hop but with a horn element very similar to that of the band Cake.


The one thing I might change is horn to trumpet, since that instrument is what is used in the recording.BassBone (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It was OR, it did not cite sources. Als, some of it isn't even about the meaning of the song. Rau's Speak Page 10:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Which parts are irreleavant? the horn/trumpet part can be moved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jailerdaemon (talk • contribs) 02:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


So the lyrics of a song is OR? I'm confused. Seems to me a pretty strict and rigid interpretation of the rules. I'm trying hard to assume good faith here, Rau, but you're not making it easy.BassBone (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
OR is when you add things that you interpreted into the meaning. What I added was simply a paraphrase of certain lyrics. That is someones personal opinion of the meaning. Rau's Speak Page 10:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yea, that last part was the irrelevant part. Rau's Speak Page 10:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How many think my version is better? Its pure poetry. The article as it is is too bare bones and seems as if written by pre schoolers. JeanLatore (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We aren't looking for poetry. You're version had mentions of Bush despite him not being mentioned at all in the song. Here is the above version with out OR:

The song begins with childish hubris, as the singer states that he is able to ride a bicycle without holding the handlebars, can tie a knot in a cherry stem, has made a comic book, and has seen a platypus, because he can do anything that he wants. Next, the singer offers skills such as designing engines, marketing, and running a business. Finally, he boasts of have the power to "lead a nation with a microphone", being able to "hand out a million vaccinations, Or let'em all die in exasperation", to order assassinations, and to end the planet in a holocaust.

That is the same version without OR. And I would still object to that on the bases of it being copyvio. Rau's Speak Page 23:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Because of it being a blow by blow of the song, yea it leaves some of it out, but it contains more than it leaves out. And for it to not be copyright violating it has to be 60% original, thats why I paraphrased a line and a half for mine. Rau's Speak Page 00:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes but your paraphrase is still original research, dont you see? Its your interpretation. JeanLatore (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Except it isn't. What part is interpretation? Rau's Speak Page 01:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The entire thing dude. JeanLatore (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
How? It is a paraphrase of words from the song. I think you are taking the term "Original Research" too literal. Rau's Speak Page 02:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You are right, I am being literal. But not "too" literal. The problem lies in that your paraphrase is simply a subjective interpretation. Any reading of the WP:OR guidelines will back my point. JeanLatore (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
What part of mine is subjective, and how is it subjective. Also:

Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims... and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.

That was taken directly from WP:ORIGINAL. Rau's Speak Page 03:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
yes but you dont have a source other than the song itself. Its the same as if i wrote a "paraphrase" of an Emily Dickinson poem, which would clearly be unacceptable. JeanLatore (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It would only be unacceptable if you added your own interpretation of the poem, not if you paraphrase the words of the poem directly. And what is wrong with using the song as a source. Rau's Speak Page 03:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
But your paraphrase IS an interpretation, I don't see whats so hard for you to see that. JeanLatore (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Because it isn't, unless you want to elaborate on why you think it is. That means explaining how it is as well. Rau's Speak Page 03:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I already did, above, see my comments under the heading "citations". You are obviously avoiding the issue and feigning ignorance. JeanLatore (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering I counter-pointed that, but you never replied. It seems you are obviously avoiding the issue. Rau's Speak Page 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole conversation is pointless. JeanLatore (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

See. How can we progress this discussion if you fail to address the issue. Rau's Speak Page 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your counter points were not sufficient. You did not properly rebut my assertions. JeanLatore (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The others were crap. I addressed the only ones that mattered. Rau's Speak Page 02:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. And you claim to be civil, eh? JeanLatore (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, one time..... You still avoid the issue at hand. I figure you are just buying time until the block runs out. Rau's Speak Page 23:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Chart Peaks

I wasn't able to update the chart peak link (as it is now broken for some reason) and i'll add the new link here: [3]. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to update anything on the page either. This article will wither like a Roman town during the barbarian migrations... JeanLatore (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I can edit...Jailerdaemon (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

New meaning of the song?

Just found the official music video on youtube, and i figured that it would make it a little easier to dicern the meaning of the song. http://youtube.com/watch?v=r-u2KWnKmlc&feature=related One thing i noticed is at the begining there were two people on bikes. And by the end, One was Dictating and the other was dieing trying to uproot his former friend. Further prooved by the section when they're walking down the street and take seperate ways at the fork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyOmega (talk • contribs) 13:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

yes it would appear that there's a new meaning to the song now, instead of one person we have two and instead of what we thought of before about one man being corrupt it's now one man being corrupt and the other is trying to stop him.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 17:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
But does the video dictate the meaning of the song? or does it offer an interpretation of the song? Rau's Speak Page 19:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
At any rate, it is significant enough to put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jailerdaemon (talk • contribs) 23:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's not. But it belongs in a "music video" section. And not as a blow by blow like it used to be. Rau's Speak Page 00:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment.

I have started an RFC on User:Rau J and his antics on this page and his uncivil posting on our talk pages. You can comment on it here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rau_J. JeanLatore (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

there

I added some sourced commentary from the singer himself. JeanLatore (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Random

What's is the technique where you repeat the start at the end, if there is one...?--Relyk (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm going to insert a segment in the section on the video that the logo in the video looks like the omnicorp logo from robocop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I object. It is insanely trivial to mention that something "resembles" something from a movie. Rau's Speak Page 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do, I second your suggestion. It has enough relevance to justify its inclusion, and no harm done. I support the "omnicorp" thing. JeanLatore (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It has no relevance. It's trivia, nothing more. Rau's Speak Page 02:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Handlebars_(song)/Archive_1&oldid=1136785375"