Talk:Personal Jesus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Personal Jesus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Songs

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

Electronic music High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sales in the USA 1989

It would be interesting to notice in the wiki that by 1989 single sales were at a low point in the USA . only a few acts could get GOLD or PLATINUM for singles at that point.

As I'm not from the usa i always wondered, that the single sold well in the US. it sold more than 500,000 copies but reached only #28 on the hot 100.

The other single which sold 500,000 copies or more in that year were all number 1 positions on the hot 100. Now i know that Airplay + Sales are measured for the HOT 100. Quite unfair, because it was not a pop radio darling, but sold well

Biggest selling 12" comment

the article states: "...the single was particularly successful commercially thanks to the fact that it was released six months prior to the album it would later appear on. Up to that point, it was best selling 12" single in Warner Brothers history. "

The "up to that point" comment is confussing to me as it seems to be a misquote from the allmusic article you quote.. I think you mean that it went on to become the biggest selling 12", not that it was and then, subseuqently, once the album came out, was no longer. There is a cause and effect in the statement that I don't think you mean. I also think it STILL is the best selling 12" in WB history.

The All Music quote is "the EP release of "Personal Jesus" became the biggest selling 12" single in Warner Bros.' history up to that point." which has a different meaning from what the wiki article attests. But I am unsure what the author of the article meant so I will leave it to him or her to edit as they see fit. --Jackbox1971 00:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong with that ? I will explain it to you. 1989 sales for singles in the US were at a low point. That means that only a few — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.2.97.200 (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities----------

There is quite a clear connection to T. Rex's 1971 song "Get It On". In the Cash version the piano line in the intro is very similar to that of T. Rex, and the chord structure is generally the same (although the song has a different overall structure) - the verse is almost entirey on an Em chord, deviating only to A for a couple of bars near the end of the verse. The chorus then also follows "Get It On", with the G, distinctive Am, before going back to E5. I do not own a copy of the Depeche Mode single, so this is mostly based on Johnny Cash's version of the song.

Anybody agree/disagree? Byrney86 18:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Manson cover

Does there really need to be such a lengthy section regarding the Marilyn Mansion cover? This is suppose to be about the DM original. A mention is fine but such detail could be saved on the Marilyn Manson page. Just seems like a shameless plug for Manson. Just a thought!

Agreed. Why is the Marilyn Manson section necessary? It's probably just me but as far as cover versions of this song go, I'm actually much more familiar with the Johnny Cash version. Either way, the Marilyn Manson cover is given way too much space. Just a mention of it among the other cover versions would be quite enough, or if the Marilyn Manson cover was notably succesful (i.e. clearly more so than the other cover versions), this should be clearly stated and backed up with info about its success. Shadowcrow (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But now there are at least 2 links refering to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Jesus#Marilyn_Manson_cover, should those be fixed or left like this? Moersleuteltje (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material on the Marilyn Manson cover is unsourced, so I deleted it. If someone comes up with a version they can provide references for, they can put it back in. DQweny (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PersonalJesusBack.jpg

Image:PersonalJesusBack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PJ.jpg

Image:PJ.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Debbie Gibson on the single's cover?

An anonymous contributor 12.75.233.186 wrote, "This girl happens to be fellow popstar Debbie Gibson. (She was dating Andrew Fletcher at the time, and thought the photos would be a fun thing to do.)" I am sure this is vandalism and therefore have removed this part. Still, correct me if I'm wrong and please cite a source. Garik 11 14:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Single

I am pretty sure I've read in a music magazine that the single was promoted in England with posters with "call your own personal jesus" (or something similar) written on them and a telephone number which once called would have the single playing at the other end of the line. I think this is something worth mentioning in this page but the only reference I managed to find online is in a Spanish blog. If someone knows more and has a better citation please add it. Gpap.gpap 14:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired only by a specific book/movie?

The editor did bring a reliable source that proves Personal Jesus was inspired by the Presley's relationship. However, why should anyone deduce it is also inspired specifically by this book/movie and not by the other endless material based on the aforementioned relationship? Unless there is a source that backs the statement, I suggest removing it. Opinions, anyone?

-Lwc4life 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it looks just perfect now. A reliable, comprehensive and sourced statement without overloading. Garik 11 10:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Marilyn manson personal jesus.jpg

Image:Marilyn manson personal jesus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube link?

Why on earth is there a link to a Marylin Manson cover version on a page about a Depeche Mode song? I'm going to remove it...80.229.225.16 (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synthpop?

I am sick and tired of editing Depeche Mode material post-1982. Get it over iwth people, Depeche Mode and even obviously this single is not synthpop. This band's legacy shouldn't be stained by a two early albums and people with narrow minds.

Read the caracteristhics of synthpop on Wikipedia:

While most current popular music in the industrialized world is realized via electronic instruments, synthpop has its own stylistic tendencies which differentiate it from other music produced by the same means. These include the exploitation of artificiality (the synthesizers are not used to imitate acoustic instruments), the use of mechanical sounding rhythms, vocal arrangements as a counterpoint to the artificiality of the instruments, and ostinato patterns as an effect. Synthpop song structures are generally the same as in other popular music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basty goofy (talk • contribs) 20:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Covers/References in General

There is a lot of repetition in this article regarding covers and references.Johnny Cash is mentioned twice. In the interest of promoting fluidity and ease of reading, I think all of the covers should be put in one section and mentioned once. This also goes for the Marilyn Manson cover mentioned earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elyswim (talk • contribs) 17:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I made all the changes, feel free to revert if you so choose.

Elyswim (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Elyswim[reply]

The covers definitely need to be sorted out. The problem is that people are deleting stuff without engaging in any sort of discussions first on how to properly organize it.

Excuse me but WTF are you doing?

Can someone please explain why the info box for the marilyn manson version was deleted? If it was a single it needs to have some info. I'm not asking for a 300kb long page discussing the cover, but I would like an info box for it, and the track listing for that info box. Okay? Unless there was a really good reason for the removal of the info box. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 22:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox with the accompanying MM info was removed by an editor named Elyswim (see above paragraph). I've restored that part. Garik 11 (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material regarding to the Marilyn Manson cover was deleted because (1) it is totally unsourced, (2) this isn't an article on Marilyn Manson. DQweny (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The removal was reverted and labelled "vandalism" without any discussion. I'm attempting to start a discussion on the removing user's talk page to see what that's all about. It seems to me that it's just a matter of children (who are young enough that they mistakenly believe music actually matters) being Marilyn Manson fans and wanting to promote their favourite artist in a gratuitous way. DQweny (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I am not a Marilyn Manson fan and I do not like their cover version of the song. Yet since it was released as a single it deserves a special section which is, by the way, linked to their discography page and is part of their singles chronology. I believe you should not remove that section. What exactly do you find doubtful or non-neutral and needing a citation? If you do find something, please place a "citaion needed" tag, but do not remove it all so suddenly which does look like vandalism. The article is not about the band Depeche Mode, but about a song (also, see for example It's My Life (Talk Talk song) or Dancing Queen). Garik 11 (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duff Sample

Fixed the Hillary Duff sample link, it linked to the generic reach out page, and not the song. I had some minor issues with markup though (I'm not exactly an expert at wikipedia markup) but they are fixed now. Atomic1fire (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cheese

Richard Cheese has done a lounge cover of this song, i think it should be mentioned in here.

Gravity Kills

I find it interesting that Manson's cover of Personal Jesus, coming out in 2004, and being a virtual knockoff of the Gravity Kills cover (yes I know they're both covers, but they sound very, very similar in musical style), which was released in 2002, yet Manson apparently deserves a paragraph, whereas Gravity Kills is an also mentioned. Compare the two; it seems that Gravity Kills was there first, and stylistically, a little better as well (not quite so overbearing).

Anyway, in the interest of avoiding undue weight, either every cover should be given the same amount of attention, or at least they should be listed chronologically.208.38.59.161 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're both mentioned. Manson got his own section because his version had a physical release. --Theshape78 (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

link

why is there a link at the bottom of the page to someone flogging a bad unlisenced t-shirt? 125.239.105.100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC) I went ahead and removed it, it was bugging me all to hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.105.100 (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

This section needed a cleanup. Still needs some additions if anyone can find some.

Concerning the cover versions listed. Any version that gets a prominent release from a notable artist should get a mention. Question is, should they get their own section? I'd say no, unless the single charts somewhere. But the others do need a mention. --Theshape78 (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12/8 Time Signature

Currently, the page lists this song as having a 12/8 time signature, which seems off to me... this definitely sounds like it's in 4/4 to my ears, 12/8 seems like a very strange way to transcribe it. Am I off base here..? Suddenlywolf (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]