Talk:River Deep – Mountain High

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the River Deep – Mountain High 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

Archives: 1

A fact from River Deep – Mountain High appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 August 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Phil Spector considered the song "River Deep - Mountain High", his 1966 production for Ike & Tina Turner, his best work, despite its commercial failure in the United States?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2005/August.

Wikipedia

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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

The Supremes

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Supremes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Supremes 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.The SupremesWikipedia:WikiProject The SupremesTemplate:WikiProject The SupremesThe Supremes articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Cover versions

I have absolutely no idea why the mentioning of more contemporary cover versions is regarded as ill-fitting and keeps being deleted. It makes no sense to me. There are already cover versions mentioned in the text. It's really distressing. Here is a small paragraph I wanted to include (it will hurt nobody and it's only contributing to the article) which has been repeatedly deleted.

Other contemporary versions are by Harry Nilsson on his album Pandemonium Shadow Show (1967), Allison Durbin (dubbed "Australia's Queen of Pop" in the 1960s) on her 1968 album I Have Loved Me a Man (produced by Howard Gable) and by British singer Anita Harris on her 1969 album Cuddly Toy.

Maybe this could be added in the future. The Nilsson version had been in the article before, so I can't understand why it was thrown out. The Durbin and Harris versions had been added by me. I got the LPs. So why not include? Thanks, OfficeBoy (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they need to be included. Put them back, include the records that they are from as a reference and I'll back you on what ever happens next. Carptrash (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Carptrash, thank you for your support. But I won't be putting anything in this article again. It keeps being deleted (just view the recent history of this article). I am a Wikipedia author for 11 years now and I have added cover versions of songs in at least 30 articles. Those addings have never been disputed and never (I repeat, NEVER) been deleted. So I guess I am not wrong. It's been this one person who likes to put additional information in the trashcan. I don't feel like I offend any directives. I just feel like I am disturbing a single person who guards this article like a hen. OfficeBoy (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of ended up here because I was working on covers elsewhere, (I am in favor of including as mus=ch as is possible) so I'll take a look at this article and assume that you will at least watch list it for hopefully unneeded assistance. Carptrash (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filling articles full of endless non notable, uncharting covers goes against WP: SONGCOVER. If the rendition is notable there will be reliable independent sources out there not just an entry from Discogs. I have asked how these pass SONGCOVER but never got an answer!--Egghead06 (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First: The number "3" is not an "endless" affair. Second: It is not important whether the cover "charted" or not. Third: The word "notable" has never been defined here. Who says what's notable and what's not? I never answered it simply because I can't see the point. I've taken several looks at WP:Songcover and it's absoutely no guideline. It's so wishy washy. Sorry. OfficeBoy (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!! PLEASE!!

Hi Wikipedia, could somebody PLEASE HELP me stop this person Egghead06 from deleting information that only contributes to the artice? He is such a pain in the ass. I included cover versions of popular songs before and it has never been disputed. I don't make up facts. I am quite sure about these versions as I got the vinyl in question on my hand. You can look it up everywhere, secondhandsongs.com, discogs.com, those artist's Wikipedia sites and so on. All I want is to mention some cover versions that could be of interest to people who like this song or are interested in 1960s music in general. Wikipedia is about spreading knowledge, no about restraining knowledge. I don't know what's wrong about this person. Can you take a look into this? What are your opinions? This narrow-minded idiot needs to be talked to. Thank you. OfficeBoy (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ALL your additions fail WP:SONGCOVER whatever is in your hand.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about it to have an opinion about the goodness or badness of WP:SONGCOVER, although I do do occasional Wikipedia editing.

However, in my role as a music fan, I do happen to like lists of covers. Just now, I came to this article to find (unsuccessfully) other covers of this song - notably a punk version that I just heard on WLUW's "Friday Night Showdown". I did try at https://secondhandsongs.com/performance/2138 , which was difficult to use. (So, I finally called the WLUW DJ Terry Nelson, who told me that the cover was by The Saints (Australian band) (of whom I had never previously heard), on their 1977 One Two Three Four EP. Subsequently it was also on expanded reissues of (I'm) Stranded and at least one The Saints compilation.) Acwilson9 (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Easybeats cover of the song (from their 1967 album "Friday On My Mind") wasn't 'notable?' They were a very popular band in Australia and had hits in the US. They can be seen performing their version of River Deep, Mountain High on Youtube. As other users have noted in this thread, there are lots of other songs on Wikipedia that have numerous cited covers that may not meet your definition of 'notable' and they have not been removed. Why so quick to remove cover references that you don't agree with, Egghead06? Weaverbird.kw (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about me and what edit or don't edit. If you have issues with WP:SONGCOVER, gain consensus and get it changed.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]