Talk:Hooker with a Penis

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Non Neutral POV?

In the opening, there's a fairly subjective statement:

"The song is one of the heaviest tracks from the album, and perhaps one of the heaviest songs by Tool."

First of all, the statement isn't really saying anything - "one of the heaviest"? For this to read like an ENCYCLOPEDIA, it needs to say something definitive. "Perhaps one of the heaviest" is equally vague. Secondly, the whole issue of "heaviness" is subjective anyway. Someone who listens to Cannibal Corpse and Bethlehem all day isn't going to think that Metallica's "Black Album" is heavy at all. On the other hand, Kenny G and Michael Bolton aficionados might think that Green Day is heavy. Furthermore, Tool's rather atypical approach to metal can make heaviness a difficult thing to define even within their own songs.

If Tool themselves said "this is the heaviest thing we've done" then a remark could be included to reflect such - "Tool considers this song the heaviest song on the album." But until we have a concrete, universally accepted "scale of heaviness," units to measure heaviness in, and a way to derive those units from any given piece of music, subject stuff like "this is perhaps the heaviest song from Tool, ever" belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedic article.

Patrick of J (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrical content

The message in this song is very strong, I'm really surprised it's not been analysed or even mentioned. Come on, get on with it you cunts

I might be several years late in replying, but I did literally laugh out loud at that. Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hooker with a Penis. 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/20070414041701/http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/brush_excerpts/brush_20030226.shtml to http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/brush_excerpts/brush_20030226.shtml

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) 21:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]