Talk:She's Lost Control

[Untitled]

In the film Control, the beat is shown using an aerosol can. It this true, or is it actually made by a drum machine? The article is not particularily clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.43.124.144 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Jones

according to an NME article of the time (1981) this song was suggested to her by Talking Heads. Sorry, I don't have a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.124.74 (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions

The site states that there are two recorded versions of the song, the one appearing in the LP and in the Atmosphere single. There seems to be at least three recorder versions. If we exclude the Atmosphere-version, there is the one found on my CD copy (Re-issued in the 90's?) and I'm currently listening to a version via google chrome's last.fm player that I haven't heard before. It sounds more unpolished and is definetely in alpha-state. Two things are for sure though: It's not a live-version and it is with no doubt Joy Division that performs it (despite the somewhat unrealiable last.fm library)--Albin H-L (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More music entry errors.

That's why I don't visit here much anymore. I keep finding so many entries related to music with posted errors or omissions or both. In the case of this Joy Division entry, the U.S. 12 inch single which preceded the U.K. by one month in the summer of 1980, was issued with "She's Lost Control" as the A side, as seen on the back jacket. Also in the runout groove / deadwax "She's Lost Control" has 2A. The "Atmosphere" side has 2B etched in the runout groove / deadwax. I own an original U.S. Factory Records copy purchased new back in 1980.

The way the entry reads here, everyone is to think that "Atmosphere" was the A side. In fact it was not.

The entry at Discogs.com has the U.S. 12 inch single listed correctly with "She's Lost Control" as the A side.

http://www.discogs.com/Joy-Division-Shes-Lost-Control-Atmosphere/release/387754

Beasley564 (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's Lost Control

No arguments or pedanticism intended. I'll sort this tomorrow. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, that's swell. Next time, rather than adding sources that don't confirm the information, "sort it out" and then add a cite.

In the meantime, I'll remove the claims as unsourced. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SummerPhDv2.0 I'm tempted to insert some sarcasm here (which you started before you accuse me of anything), but I will just state that your talk page and its general history reflects your general reputation and, it seems, several other users' opinion of you, given your haughtiness. The citations were sufficient and reputable, but it seems you think otherwise. I'm not finished with this issue. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read the cites (one existing and one recently added by you). I do not see anything in them that verifies the information. Easy fix: If you believe they do, please directly quote the material that you feel supports the story.

If, after your extensive review of comments on my talk page you feel your criticism of me is valid and my behavior problematic, please take the issue to an appropriate venue. As it has nothing to do with improving the article, it does not belong on an article talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SummerPhDv2.0, I was just referring to 'track records'. Chill, dude. I agree certainly one reference I added wasn't quite up to scratch. We all use our skills. Would have thought this was sufficient as a reference for what had prv. been in the now redundant 'notes' section, though. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are fine for the material that is there. None of it has anything to do with the cites I requested.

Originally, I removed a user-edited site as the source for "When this young woman suddenly ceased attending her appointments at the centre, Curtis initially assumed that she had found a job, but would later discover she had died from an epileptic seizure."[1]

You added a source.[2] While the source is apparently reliable, it does not say anything that supports the statement.

I noted that the story (and one other) "simply are not in the sources cited".[3] The second problem was the story in the note that "According to one source, the young woman...actually committed suicide due to her acute distress at the social humiliation endured by many individuals suffering from epilepsy". I later removed both stories as unsourced.[4]

None of the sources cited previously, later added by you or now in the article back up the story of Curtis assuming she found a job then hearing she died of a seizure or the claim that one source had her committing suicide.

Those stories are gone from the article. What is there now is sourced. If you find the current material sufficient, we're done here. If you'd like to restore either or both of the stories, that's another matter. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your integrity, SummerPhDv2.0. Make no mistake. However, despite slightly meandering text in the prv. version, you just needed to add/reinsert citation needed or 'better source needed' requests. It could all be backed up. I'll give one example: Regarding "Curtis assuming she found a job then hearing she died of a seizure". Sources could be backed here, here, and here. I may return to this. I am not denying more acute sources could/should have been found for this, but really, simple advanced Internet searches could verify anything I (or others) added. Best regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"More acute sources"? I removed a completely unreliable source and added a cite needed tag. You added a source that didn't say anything about the claim. I added failed verification tags. You left a vague "I'll get to it at some point" note. We didn't need a "better source", we needed a source.

If you'd like to re-add any of the material, feel free (with cites, of course). The first source omits the "he thought she found a job" bit. The second is paywalled. The third would need a page number (as I don't feel like reading 256 pages about epilepsy to try to verify a source.

Yes, I could approach every unsourced edit as an opportunity to re-research something that someone else has supposedly already researched. That's rather inefficient, so I choose (and policy backs me up) to assume that someone adding or restoring material has the responsibility to cite their sources. That's where we are: If you'd like to restore any of it, the burden of sourcing it is yours. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what you say, SummerPhDv2.0. Don't think I'm attacking yous. Have a good weekend.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]