Talk:The Logical Song

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock 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.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Seperate the versions

Shouldn't the original and Scooter versions be seperated? I've never seen a Wikipedia page which refers to two versions (and has "information boxes") about both of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.138.33 (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This page looks a mess 78.151.212.96 (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the article into two separate articles and added disambiguation links. Article about Scooter's version is now at The Logical Song (Scooter) Twinzor (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then some years later it got moved back again without comment here. Is the Scooter version really a cover ? Or a separate "song" which uses the sections from the original (sped up) ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are pages which include several versions of the same song. But isn't this more like Ready_or_Not_(Fugees_song) and its original and other related songs ? -- Beardo (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons

A version of this song appeared in an episode of The Simpsons. And I'm pretty sure it's not the original version. Does anyone have any info on this?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeshead (talk • contribs) 03:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theme

I have rewritten the them section because as it stands it is inaccurate. Also keeping the precis closer to the lyrics themselves allows the actual themes to be picked out precisely without reading in more than is there. Brief criticism of unimproved paragraph:

The song relays (relays - that is not English!) the story of a man who comes to lose childhood's innate (who said it was innate??) innocence and idealism (Who said anything about innocence or idealism???) through pressured conformism (clumsy language). Akin to the discontent expressed by the Counterculture of the mid-1900s ("akin to" -what?? and the 1900s means 1900-1909!), the narrator of the song laments his forced transition from individuality to the norm ("the norm" - this English as a foreign language!) ("but then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible, logical, (oh) responsible, practical"). He also loathes (loathing is not expressed) society's attempt to compromise his individuality; through (?? more EFL) a very sarcastic verse, he warns the listener to "watch what you say", or else risk being called a radical, liberal, fanatic, or criminal. He then condemns society's supposedly benevolent intentions as a thinly-veiled (where is this veiling???) excuse to promote uniformity. The song also touches on the difficulty of retaining self-image because of outside pressures (should be more precise). 62.64.208.81 (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you should really improve your english before you go bagging on others. 'relays', 'akin to', 'the norm' are all fine english —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

space before reference citations

I deleted the spaces before the refs as I *think* that this is better and that this is how most articles are like, but please feel free to tell me whether any of you consider refs with a space superior or better in some respect. NerdyNSK (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Authors

Why is it written : Rick Davies/Roger Hodgson ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.178.247 (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the songwriting credit. It is traditional on albums to separate co-writers with a forward slash, which is probably why the editors wrote it that way.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles

"This Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles" I'm sorry... what? Middle Eye 512 (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why that's there. I'll remove it. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 19:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South African band?!

This song article claims in the first sentence that Supertramp is a south-african band: ""The Logical Song" is a song by the South African rock band Supertramp. " However, the WP page about the band say that they are an English band, and no mentioning of relocating or other origins? I'm changing it to "English band" here in this article, since that is what the page about the band says. Babarf (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also copying the location info for "Recorded" from another song of the same album. In this songs article is said South Africa, but on the other songs from the album with their own articles, it says "The village recorder los angeles, california". Babarf (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The image File:Classics_Live_(Roger_Hodgson_album)_cover.jpg is fair use only for the album's article at Classics Live (Roger Hodgson album). Note that the file page gives a fair use rationale for the album, not this single. Please see WP:NFCI.

This is not the cover art for the single. It is not fair use here. If there is a cover for the single, feel free to upload an image and provide a fair use rationale on that page for use in this article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Cover art for the single obtained from RH Music. Iridescentbutterfly (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.

Can you provide the URL for that image? It seems to be of remarkably poor quality for a single cover. It looks like someone took a low resolution image of the album cover being discussed here and added in text today, using Photoshop, at a different resolution to create a cover for an otherwise undocumented single release.

More to the point, if Hodgson did release the song as a single from this live album, it is a cover version of the original release (even though he wrote it). Normally, we wouldn't even mention it, per WP:COVERSONG. In no case would we add a box for this version above the significantly better known release by Supertramp. Unless this cover passes WP:COVERSONG, there should not be a box for it at all. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

@Dlohcierekim: Would you consider reverting the article back to a version before the dispute per WP:PREFER ? - FlightTime (open channel) 20:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: What policy does it violate? I can't be seen as taking sides in the content dispute. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Dlohcierekim: Well, the purpose of protecting an article is a content dispute is to encourage discussion. Three editors have disputed @Iridescentbutterfly: edits, my self, @Binksternet: and @SummerPhDv2.0:. If the current version is allowed to remain, how does that encourage Iridescentbutterfly to discuss anything ? WP:PREFER allows an admin's discretion to revert back to a version before the dispute without "being involved" - FlightTime (open channel) 21:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescentbutterfly:,-- I am persuaded by FlightTime's argument. Care to rebut? Awaiting your response, but not for long. @Binksternet:, @SummerPhDv2.0:-- do you concur? -- Dlohcierekim (talk)

I would like to see the article returned to its state prior to the dispute, without having the Classics Live section, without overt promotion of Hodgson. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is improper to blanket revert information cited through numerous references, and to claim the revert is about the live version. There has been no discussion from others on the actual cited facts themselves, especially since they are proven through the referenced source. Iridescentbutterfly (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is great! Please request unprotection of make an edit request at WP:RFPP when the matter is settled, if I'm offline.} -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: Thank you for your help

- FlightTime (open channel) 21:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Classics Live infobox and section

In the same manner as discussed at Talk:Give_a_Little_Bit#Classics_Live_version, the Classics Live section must be removed as unimportant to the topic. It has been repeatedly inserted by Iridescentbutterfly, supported by QuietestMoments, but it misrepresents the song as a single. The song is not a single – it is merely an album track, and it has not been discussed in the media. Classics Live sections were added by Iridescentbutterfly to four song articles:

Give a Little Bit, section added by Iridescentbutterfly – supported by QuietestMoments
"The Logical Song", section added by Iridescentbutterfly – supported by QuietestMoments
Breakfast in America (song), section added by Iridescentbutterfly – supported by QuietestMoments
Dreamer (Supertramp song), section added by Iridescentbutterfly – supported by QuietestMoments

Neither Iridescentbutterfly nor QuietestMoments choose to participate in the first discussion about this kind of insertion, started two days ago at Talk:Give_a_Little_Bit#Classics_Live_version. It would be interesting to get some feedback from them here. My aim in this discussion is to poll interested editors to arrive at a consensus on the Classics Live sections added by Iridescentbutterfly. Binksternet (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Binksternet revert. Supertramps version is the only notable version. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally thought the Scooter version was the more notable one. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable to think a live version of a top-charting single, by the original songwriter himself, is not "notable." Live performances of songs on albums are frequently mentioned in articles across Wikipedia. QuietestMoments (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QuietestMoments has been blocked indefinitely as a confirmed sock. Iridescentbutterfly is currently blocked for one week for sock puppetry. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've already had the page unprotected and reverted back to a good version. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I also support the revert. One editor's assertion that various tracks from a live album are singles (when they clearly are not) and are more notable than the widely known, charting original versions does not change reality. Also not altering reality: various fake single covers for the cover versions.

Why a blanket revert? With socking and apparent lies about the origin of a cover (see File:Classics Live - The Logical Song (Single) by Roger Hodgson.jpg and Talk:The_Logical_Song#Image), nothing can be accepted as a good faith, calm assessment of importance or factual. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have a similar issue with the same editor at Talk:Give_a_Little_Bit#Classics_Live_version. Comments there would be welcome. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The Logical Song" also has the distinction of being one of the most quoted lyrics in schools.

The two citations that support this fact are both Roger Hodgson claiming this to be true, or that people have told him that this is the case. This would seem to be hearsay at best, rather than a citation that supports the claim. Rattic (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]