Jump to content

Talk:We Didn't Start the Fire/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Much as I like the idea of this page, aren't these lyrics copyrighted? - Hephaestos 17:18, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We can probably fix this by axing the chorus and making a few other changes so the page is "commentary". Worst case, we end up with some like "Verse 7 (1955) alludes to the deaths of Albert Einstein and James Dean ..." Loren Rosen 17:58, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, adding links surly makes it a derivitive work for academic use or comment. CGS 18:27, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC).

Didnt he say Cassius Clay in the song too? I mean if he didnt, he missed big time!

Antonio Fragile, handle with care, honey Martin

Anyway, the annotations really need to be improved to indicate the precise event being alluded to, which often isn't immediately obvious from the link alone. Loren Rosen 19:44, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think you need to add the composer(s) and author(s) name as well, but even then i thnk copyright gets in the way. I would like to see song lyrics on Wikipedia or maybe then the un started project sourceburg. - fonzy


Regarding the Rockefeller link to Nelson Rockefeller: What did he do in 1953 that was so memorable? He became governor of New York State in 1959, so it's not that. Or perhaps does this refer to some other member of the Rockefeller family? Loren Rosen 05:28, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Looks like Winthrop Rockefeller moved to Arkanas in '53. So I'm changing the link.
Ah, my fault, didn't remember precisely when Nelson was governer... thought that the time period sounded vaguely correct. --Dante Alighieri 19:44, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Erm........ song lyrics are copyright, guys! -- Tarquin 20:26, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

IANAL, but wouldn't the links themselves be seen as commentary? Therefore we're not just listing lyrics, we're making commentary on them, which would constitute fair use.... right? --Dante Alighieri 20:33, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Is linking to the mentioned subjects the most we can do as far as making this an article goes? I mean, we couldn't mention some historical significance of each person/thing/event, or do something (more than linking) that the song itself doesn't? Koyaanis Qatsi 20:31, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


I don't think it's fair use because we have the whole song! Cut the chorus, cut the incidental words, and put each verse into bullet form. That should be ok - Tarquin 20:36, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair use either, but I also don't think it's an article. ^_^ Koyaanis Qatsi 20:45, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
No - it's not an article. I created it because it's an excellent place to start browsing from. Just like the front page is not an article, but very useful none the less. CGS 22:22, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC).

Ugh, stupid edit conflicts... :( OK, aside from the article as it is now written, we also have We Didn't Start the Fire/temp. People care to vote on which version is best for our purposes? --Dante Alighieri 20:50, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The temp article doesn't have the words "We didn't start the fire" in it at all, which might make some people wonder where the title comes from. We should have the corus at least once. CGS 22:23, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC).

All that blue is hurting my eyes 8-|. I link to external site for song lyrcis see: Eurovision Song Contest 1956. - fonzy

Maybe we should ask permission, like from his agent or something -- at least get some sort of assurance that he's not going to sue. BTW, the lyrics are online at billyjoel.com and there's some kid who did a school paper with links (just like ours). Question: whose version is more sophomoric? Heh, heh. --Uncle Ed 02:11, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Depends on whether or not the student was in his second year. ;)
I'd be for asking permission, although I'm not volunteering (I have horrible luck with it). I'm guessing we're legally OK with what we've got here, but the publicist might give permission to use the whole thing. Never hurts to ask. - Hephaestos 02:22, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
It does hurt to ask. If we ask then we're sort of saying that it isn't a deriviative or academic work so we have to ask permission. CGS 11:00, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to guess that this is a special case of a "derivitive or academic work" and take the daring step of leaving it alone. If Billy Joel or his lawyers ever come to wikipedia.org, they're welcome to blank the page. But I don't think they will, because:

  1. We credit the source.
  2. We link to [www.billyjoel.com their website], which generates valuable "hits" for them.
  3. We are non-profit.
  4. And I sincerely believe it's "fair use", even though (a) we've quoted the bulk of the work pretty much as a continuous extract and (b) all our "commentary" consists of is links to other articles.

To our credit, every single proper noun in the song links to an article. I'd think they'd be glad not mad. My vote is to leave it alone. --Uncle Ed 13:15, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think this article, as is, is the very embodiment of fair use. There is no reference to "start the fire" anywhere except in the title; there is no copying of the very important chorus of the song. I think it would be a good test case actually; wait for a cease-and-desist letter. - Hephaestos 06:51, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, why don't you ask them and see what they say. Fair use does not give us the right to republish virtually all of the lyrics and then relicense their work under GFDL. 38 of 43 unique lines (88.4%) is a substantial copying. The claim that links to articles are scholarly is not something I would want to prove in a court. Daniel Quinlan 07:04, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
Have you asked them? I think I said earlier on this talk page that it would be great to ask them, maybe they could point our links more in the direction the song was talking about. I admit I haven't asked them; in my defense, I haven't majorly jerked with the article, either. - Hephaestos 07:14, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well, the whole article is released under the GFDL... links and all. If people take the article and remove the links, that would be a modification of their own and would violate copyright. That's not our problem if we have a legitimate fair use version. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:01, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Because the song is mostly a list of facts we can list the facts without violating copyright. I suggest just making it a list of topics mentioned in the song without using Joel's phrasing.

Oh what the heck. I'll just do it. --Gbleem 20:31, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This page has flicked between linked lyrics and a list as it is now several times. I really don't like it as a list and I think the lyrics are fair use. I think we should have a vote on this. CGS 00:43, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC).

  • I don't like leaning on fair use unless we have to. --Gbleem 08:19, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lyrics are NOT fair use. See the history of www.lyrics.ch. RickK | Talk 08:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC) www.lyrics.ch gives me a page in german. I'm assuming someone bought their domain name. What was in the history? --Gbleem 08:43, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Someone just needs to ask them permission... --+sj+

lyrics.ch was a repository of thousands of song lyrics. United States recording industry lawyers got the site shut down. The Swiss government showed up at the owner's door and toted off all of his computer equipment. RickK | Talk 08:45, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,17499,00.html for details. RickK | Talk 08:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But we're providing comment on the lyrics with our links (every single phrase is linked). That makes us different from just a site listing lyrics. Does someone know for sure (a lawyer perhaps) what the law says about fair use? CGS 13:09, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC).

Getting permission: If we were asking permission to use the song in a textbook we might have a chance but since we would be asking to publish the lyrics under the wikipedia license the chances of getting that are nil.

Fair use: There are plenty of articles on the internet that explain fair use. The fact that we are not using a small portion nixes the concept of fair even if we meet other fair use requirements.

Fortunately the actual facts are not covered by copyright. If we remove those portions that make it a Billy Joel song and leave just a list of facts then it may be published under the Wikipedia license. Gbleem 05:33, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Question--since the old version is still easily accessible via the page history, couldn't we still be sued? Meelar 05:41, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lock the page

The article is entirely complete as is. I see no reason to change it in the future. The only changes here are probably going to be vandalism. I recommend we lock the page. Does wikipedia have a lock message that states the article is entirely complete without need for further changes?--Will2k 13:48, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

There's still changes that could be made to the article - to the lead section, or links, for example. The list may be complete, but that's not a good enough reason to protect the page, unless and until it gets a huge amount of vandalism. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. sjorford →•← 14:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There may not be huge amounts of it, but it's all vandalism. If there needs to be changes to intro or links, it should be posted here.--Will2k 13:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
This is very much against the Wiki spirit and the locking policy. There is a great deal to add. Deco 23:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I just made a minor addition. Esjones 21:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
And I just made some changes... sound like Bill Gates saying no one will ever need more than 64 Kb! You start locking pages here because they are, in your opinion, "done", and that's the end of wikipedia. Dyslexic agnostic 02:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

claim of influence

the article states, "This song was very influential to American Culture at the time of its release in 1989." "very influential"? "to American Culture"? this is NPOV? i was around in 1989, part of american culture. i heard a few people mock the song. that's about it. how was it "very influential"? and if it was, what description does one then apply to things such as the iran hostage crisis, the birth control pill, etc? the claim should be adjusted downward, or justified with examples. SaltyPig 19:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the claim is based on how the song got written in the first place. Joel heard someone say their generation (the one before his) had it tough (Depression/WW2) but Joel believed his generation had it just as tough (As described in the song). It was a chance for everyone to reflect on what kind of things they actually grew up with and how they persevered through those tough times. That said, I have nothing against removing it.--Will2k 23:38, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
The song must have some influence, if not at it's time of relese then now. I've seen it refrenced in multiple English Course books in my college studies as a example of unique poetic style, more than that is the fact that I hear references to this song as much as american pie, which is indisputedly invluential. What I'm getting at is that it may have been / is infuential but people didn't / don't fully recognize that.--Kode 22:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I seem to recall articles at the time in newspapers and magazines about the song (AP stories? Newsweek and TIME?), having something to do with it being used as a tool for learning history, or a model for creating songs that could be used for learning. That didn't last terribly long, though. Шизомби 12:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Details

I've started adding some brief details about what exactly happened to the linked subjects in the cited year. I'd appreciate it if you guys could check out the linked articles and help out. I think they make the article much more informative. Deco 23:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are all good except for foreign debt. It doesn't match the link. --Redskunk 16:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm very new to wikipedia, so please excuse me if I over stepped my bounds. I have removed the last 3 links from the External links section. The First was a link to another article which tries to do what has been attempted here but not as well and seems extraneous. The other 2 links could be found with a quick google and I don't believe they serve the encyclopedic qualities wikipedia strives for. I would also request feedback on the sections 1959 and 1961 which I fleshed out earlier today. --Kodemage 10:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your changes look fine and I agree with them. Just a quick note that discussions to talk pages are usually placed at the end instead of the beginning, but not a big deal.--Will2k 14:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

1960 1962

Ok, I need some help with the payola seciton, it almost appears that wikipedia lacks sufficient content on that subject. There was a specific event in 1960 that Joel is talking about but I can't find it, just hints in other articles 2 or 3 degrees away from bribery#payola. Also, Brittish Beatle Mania began in 1963 according to The Beatles#History although some significant events did occure in 1962. Suggestions on how to deal with this, it almost seems Joel is incorrect in the song, but we can't really say that can we? --Kodemage 10:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In some cases Joel did list things a year or two too early or too late. Considering he needed to make everything fit the rhythm and rhyme, this shouldn't be too surprising. Either find something important that happened that year or just explain that it really didn't happen that year. Deco 19:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heavy Metal Suicide

Reverted This change as the event it intended to link to happened after the song was written / released see: Judas Priest#Subliminal message trial (Also, this probaby should have been the link instead of heavy metal suicide.) On the other hand Judas Priest may be wrong about the year in which case you can just put the changes back and I'll apologize. --Kode 06:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot of debate over whether this line should be read "heavy metal suicide" or "heavy metal, suicide". I'm inclined towards the latter, as I can't think of any notable heavy metal band members committing suicide prior to the song being written. Deco 07:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Of course the phrase "heavy metal, suicide" has nothing to do with heavy metal bands or band members committing suicide.--Will2k 13:44, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

The subliminal message thing makes sense...but still, there were no notable band members who committed suicide at that point in time that I can think of. Of course, either way you put it, there does appear to be an association of ideas there. It obviously fit with the rythm, but it seems likely that Joel intended to associate heavy metal and suicide, by their placement so close to one another. The sung lyrics seem to omit any half-breath comma, but then again that could simply have been to fit the rythm. It's open to interpretation, but the connection was probably very intentional, whether ideas are seperated or not. If anything, check out that prticular point in time and see if "suicide" by itself was a major issue...all the other subjects included in the song appear to denote specific events, but suicide is a pretty broad concept. I lean towards the omission of the comma.

I have never 'heard' the comma in the song. However, this source [1] refers to the two as separate items, but then presumes that 'suicide' is a reference to the Jonestown mass suicide in 1978, which of course would then put is out of sync. Jonobass 14:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cola Wars

I think this more specifically refers to "The Pepsi Challenge" campaign (at least initially)--an unusually direct attack on a competitor, compared to the normal 'image' ads for soft drinks. Our Pepsi article's history seems to support this. Niteowlneils 17:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then why the rock and roll before that line?--Will2k 17:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Because it fit the music? Seriously, I'm not certain and that's why I didn't change the article, but the way I remember it, the challenge ads were a pre-cursor of the popstar ads, as described at cola wars. Also, I don't usually associate ads that don't mention the competing product(s) as part of an ad "war". Niteowlneils 20:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't around at the time but perhaps you can enlighten me. How does the Pepsi Challenge and the like relate to the music of the time? And really, who says it isn't both?--Will2k 20:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
It may have been both. However, thinking about it further, Coke and Pepsi have been each other's main competitor for many years before and after the early '80s, and have also used popular singers since, so the direct attacks/taste tests seem to arguably be the most unique facet of their marketing of that period. That said, I don't really care enuf to research it further--like I said, I'm not certain, so I didn't change the article, so it really doesn't seem to matter that much. Also, if you actually read what I wrote, I never said it wasn't both. Niteowlneils 21:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

rock and roller cola wars reffers to rock stars being asked to promote pesi and coke, and eventually, it began to be a competition to get the hottest rocker.

Sources needed

We should cite sources that are going to support the songs meaning and the reason why Mr. Joel wrote it. Many people have told me about different reasons to why the song was written and its meaning. Kids are being taught in some schools that this song is about world war 2. I Wouldn't feel comfortable send people to this article until I find a source that is going to support the origin and meaning of this song. I will be looking on my own time for a good source but some help would be nice.

15:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC) - Kados

Well, it's evident from the list of events that this starts quite a bit after WWII and continues right up through the end of the '80s. I'd call it more of a Cold War song. Deco 17:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The sleve notes to The Very Best of Billy Joel (2004) by Fred Dellar of Mojo Magazine quote Joel as saying "I started with Harry Truman because in 1949, the year I was born, Harry Truman was president". Jonobass 14:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Pet Names for Genitalia merged here

This article's AFD debate agreed to do so. Johnleemk | Talk 12:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Flash Animation

The animation was removed due to possible copywright violations, on the flash artist's part, not ours. In addition it's a pretty crummy animation and I feel it dosen't improve the article. I'd really rather it not be there. (I'd remove it but I don't want to step on your toes.) -Kode 18:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Why

My 21st Century History class is covering the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's by this song because of being behind in time to finish the right requirements by the end of the year. We're doing alot with the song and alot of the students like it. Some don't though because of their own things. I think this was a really cool idea and now I know how cool this music can be.
Honestly,
Nicole H.,Fayetteville,WV,USA

Hypodermics on the Shore

It might be suitable to start a whole new arcticle on the New Jersey hypodermics incedent.

--Redskunk 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I just did, and linked to it in this song. I believe the specific event he's referring to is "Syringe Tide," since it follows chronologically for the song. Novastarj 17:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sex Pistols?

Why is punk rock soley attributed to the Sex Pistols? If it's going to be soley attributed to anyone I think the clear choice is The Ramones (I made this change but it was reverted). Perhaps it should be changed once more to refer to punk rock in general and not attribute its creation or success to any one artist in particular? Mouseclicker 05:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit based on this page of this source, which claims the reference is to the Sex Pistols. I'm not an expert on punk rock or this song, so I based my revert off the source. As I said, I'm not an expert, but if this song is meant to refer specifically to the Sex Pistols, that is what should be in the article. Timrem 06:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the Ramones formed in 1974, technically one year before the Sex Pistols. The link you found is unusually one-sided in its portrayal of the history of punk rock, especially since regardless of whether or not the first true punk rock band was the Ramones or the Sex Pistols, both were unquestionably influenced by American bands like The Stooges, Velvet Underground, MC5, and the New York Dolls.

The song itself literally just says "punk rock", which I take to be a reference to the punk movement as a whole rather than one band in particular, so I suggest the explanation in the article be changed to refer to punk rock in a generic fashion rather than singling out any one band.Mouseclicker 10:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics?

I know this isn't wikisource, but why isn't the exact lyrics from the song in the article? I know the lyrics are explained, but it wouldn't hurt "as for reference". --[Svippong - Talk] 08:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the first section of this talk page, there are copyright concerns about putting complete lyrics here. Timrem 16:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, they pretty much all are except the chorus, which is totally uninteresting. If you want to find illegally published lyrics, all you have to do is a quoted Google search. Deco 20:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps mark what is been song with bold? --[Svippong - Talk] 11:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

# of Jews

I dont see why it was important to add "# of Jews 0" but since its neither accurate nor needed unless there is reasonable objection it should be taken down --Olthar 15:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a totally unnecessary stat. I removed it. Rasi2290

Ok, my removal was reverted. Rather than start a revert war, could someone please explain to me how "number of jews" is pertinent information here, without listing the number of other ethnic, cultural, or religious groups? Why single out Jews here? Rasi2290

I have removed the stat from the page; hopefully it will not be reverted, and there won't be a need for further discussion here. If it is reverted, I feel that it should be debated. Mikesolo
I had reverted it but I was not the one who created it. As I mentioned earlier on Rasi2290's talk page, the reason I reverted it is because I think it is notable the disproportionate contributions of the Jews to modern history. There are other ethnic groups listed here to some extent, Soviets, Chinese, etc. I think that we should add other demographic trivia to this article as well. Valley2city 18:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The other ethnic groups listed are all listed by leader, not just by race/religion. Soviet leaders, Chinese leaders, American politicians, etc. I have no problem with the positive contributions made by Jews, but it doesn't seem appropriate in this case without similar stats for other ethnicities/religions. If it was a similar "leader" statistic, I would be inclined to keep it. Mikesolo

Historical Items Referred to In the Song in the Table of Contents is extremely long. That's a lot of scrolling. I tried adding new links by year under the table of contents, but it was reverted. I think it's a good idea to help people get to the year they want quicker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealdeal (talk • contribs)

This article used to have a manual TOC in order to keep the years out of it before the year headers were changed. While adding the years to the TOC may be more functional, it makes it unconveniently long. Timrem 22:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Roy Cohn

In the statistics at a glance section, one line says: No. of US politicians mentioned who did not become President: 2 (Joe McCarthy, Winthrop Rockefeller -- Roy Cohn doesn't count) Not that I have any personal stock in Roy Cohn or anything of the sort, but why doesn't he count? Can someone add an explaination? Pnkrockr 16:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

He was a laywer, not an elected official.Rasi2290

sex pistols 1974?

How is it possible that the sex pistols became popular in 1974, if they only recieved their name (sex pistols) in 1975??? According to my sources, they became popular in 1977. KennethCVIII 10:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Spanish

I think I gonna translate this and put it in the spanish wikipedia, but I was reading about the copyright issues...is there any problem or I can translate it?

Ryo xp 16:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We didnt Trash you file

Why was the link to the YouTube video of it deleted? I am pretty sure the user that posted it is Dan Brill and it is about desktop publishing according to the text on YouTube. (Robotboy2008 08:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

I didn't trash your link, but I do fail to see why every single parody of this song should be listed here. I'm sure my friends and I could go write one this afternoon and put a link up on YouTube; should that link be posted here? It just looks like self-promotion to me. I recommend the whole section be cleaned up. MRuss 12:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think that the whole list of concepts would be under copyright, things like "What else do I have to say?" and other lyrical interludes definitely would be and have no reason being on this page. I'm removing them. —  MusicMaker5376 02:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Statistics at a glance incorrect; also original research?

No. of Soviet references: 4 (Josef Stalin, Communist bloc, Georgy Maksimilianovich Malenkov, Nikita Khrushchev)

I only looked at this item and quickly found several more references to the Soviet Union: Budapest (revolution crushed by Soviet invasion), Sputnik, U-2 (shot down by Soviets over Soviet territory), Russians in Afghanistan (technically Soviets in Afghanistan), and perhaps also Soviet artists Prokofiev and Pasternak. I didn't try to find inconsistencies with other categories. In any case, wouldn't such a list (without a source) constitute original research anyway? --ThorstenNY 15:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say original research. It's too trivial. I'd certainly delete the fuzzier ones like "Soviet references" that could be construed with multiple interpretations, and possibly kill the whole thing if it's not useful. Dcoetzee 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Number of Musicals: 2 Peter Pan is also mentioned -- the Mary Martin version being televised, specifically. So that should either go under Musicals or Televisions shows (I would think musicals.) Either way, leaving it out is incorrect. 68.116.143.113 22:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia or Not?

I don't think that the "Historical Items" section of the article merits the warning against trivia sections. The Wikipedia guidelines even state that not all lists are to be considered trivia. Rather, it says trivia is a list of disorganized and unselective group of facts. In fact, these items are listed in the order in which they are presented in the song, are grouped into the decade when they occurred and most, if not all, have references to their own Wikipedia article. That, to me, does not constitute trivia in the Wikipedia sense, and for that reason I don't believe that the reference discouraging trivia sections belongs in the article. Steggall 02:35 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed. —  MusicMaker5376 02:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed also. Dcoetzee 08:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Style

Could the references begin exactly how they are in the song? I don't know about others, but as I go through them, I have the song in my head. I'd like to see the exact lyrics start each reference (though often they would just be repeated next.) For example under 1955, the reference is 1955 World Series. That is the reference, but maybe it could start "Brooklyn's got a winning team: 1955 World Series as the Brooklyn Dodgers win the World Series for the only time. (There is cheering in the background of the song during this line.)" Thus by going through the beginning of every line, it would have the exact lyrics. I'm all up for changing it accordingly. Thoughts? Vdrj2 08:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be akin to having a list of the lyrics: a copyright violation and against WP's policies. —  MusicMaker5376 13:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Parodies and other cultural references

In my opinion, this section is way too long, and includes a number of details that are not particularly useful. Per WP:TRIVIA, I am taking the liberty of trimming it by about 50%; it isn't my intention to make unilateral decisions, but I would request that, if you restore one of the parodies, you make a note here on the talk page explaining why its inclusion is important to the article. I encourage my fellow editors to be assertive in removing parodies which are added without discussion, since it seems that this section gets added to fairly frequently, and not always usefully. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done. The guidelines I used: I removed things that seemed to be purely local in scope (like local radio show parodies), things that were done by musicians who didn't appear notable, and things that were unreferenced. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Dcoetzee 06:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's another parody on this song: [2]. It tells in a joking manner about recent wave of startups. We might want to add it to the cultural references section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahadeo (talk • contribs) 11:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is that JibJab parody recently added to this article. Marlith T/C 05:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rockefeller (1953)

I see near the top of this talk page that there was some discussion in 2003 about what the "Rockefeller" reference in 1953 meant. Although I can't find anything that stands out that Nelson Rockefeller did in 1953, I can't say that Winthrop Rockefeller starting two companies in Arkansas makes more sense as the reference. Keep in mind that Nelson Rockefeller became governor of New York when Billy Joel was 9 years old and remained in that office until Joel was 24, besides running for President three times and being appointed Vice President. For much of Billy Joel's life, he probably could not watch the news on TV or read an newspaper without seeing a mention of Nelson Rockefeller. Winthrop, who was in Arkansas, would have had a much lower profile in Joel's mind. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The two external links -- one to the BBC and one to another site -- have competing claims as to whom Joel is referring. Perhaps we should just use both brothers in the article? —  MusicMaker5376 04:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1

Rosenbergs

They maintained their innocence even after their executions? If they were executed, how were they maintaining their innocence? I don't know enough about the topic to make an edit, but something should be done to correct that statement. Perhaps up until their executions? --67.84.171.78 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated lyrics since the song's release

A NYT Op-Ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/opinion/19cohen-web.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

Nice attempt. Worh a mention?

Macshill (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not - this obamistic propaganda is shallow and trivial - too many names that will be forgotten in 5-10 years, just a handful of important changes.

78.128.196.95 (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd support mentioning it - @IP: only the last stanza is "obamistic propaganda", the rest is more or less in line with the original. Many of the names/events in the original are also long since "forgotten", so that's no argument against it...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The link "They'll never stop the simpsons" doesn't work anymore :'( --Lazer erazer (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced

Does anyone know of a great way to cite the many unreferenced statements in the article? The lyric analysis, while interesting, is very much original research. Some of the things are no doubt true, but other things are definitely up for debate. I don't know if removing that mountain of a section would be a good idea, but I think it might be wise to reference it. Does anyone have any ideas? CarpetCrawler (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Timeline suggestion

The timeline of referenced events is really well done and all, but the one drawback is that it's all one, exacerbatingly long section.

For readability and editing purposes, I'd suggest breaking the main section up into subsections for each decade. More or less like this:

4 Historical items referred to in the song

4.1 1949, 1950's

4.2 1960's

4.3 1970's

4.4 1980's

given this is the talk page, I'm obviously not going to create actual subsections, and since 1949 is the only year in that decade referenced, I'd suggest combining it with the 50's.

Does it sound decent? KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Historical items referred to in the song

Wouldn't it be better to preserve the original format in the song, and then explain in each entry what it is? (i.e., keep "Campenella," sted "Roy Campenella"?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.182.172.229 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Copying word for word would be a copyright violation, unfortunately. Smallbones (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Fancruft items

The fancruft on nonnotable paradies is overwhelming. I,m removing the whole section, but please feel free to insert individual items again, provided that you have a reliable source that shows that it is notable.

Note this diff if you want to check back on which fancruft (all) was removed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=We_Didn%27t_Start_the_Fire&diff=295350358&oldid=295320688)

Smallbones (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Amen! They've already started creeping back in; I've just torn two more out, and left a comment in the source in the vain hope that will do something. 4pq1injbok (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • At the moment, the CollegeHumor parody has >5 million hits, and has been discussed elsewhere, so it's getting close to notable by itself. I cited a Time/Techland article supporting the existence of parodies of WDSTF in general and the CollegeHumor example specifically. --Lexein (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Page hits does not at all equal notability for an encyclopedia. DreamGuy (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Who said they were? The above reply (to a four-month old comment) misses the compound nature of my two-clause sentence. Perhaps I should have used the words "in sources" instead "elsewhere." And, to quote the introductory paragraph of WP:N These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Verifiability... If you have a pillar, policy, guideline, essay, or even a discussion which actually sheds light on the above specific issue, please link to that rather than merely make bold, naked (unsupported) statements. What you say _may_ be true, but you have not supported it. Barking platitudes are still just platitudes. Such brief barks do not constitute WP:Discussion. --Lexein (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Summer Girls?

Referring to the "Historical items referred to in the song" section... Does the song "Summer Girls" really count for a song which "We Didn't Start The Fire" to be a successor to? It came out 10 years after "We Didn't Start The Fire" and doesn't have nearly as much significance on the history of popular music as the other songs mentioned. I'd argue that that song is actually more of a footnote/write off than anything.

Just wanted to put my input in here before I deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.34.93 (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Citeable source for event interpretation

For the events in the lyric we don't have any references. In some ways this is perfectly normal, the success of the song was dependent on everybody knowing what these things referred to, and the things referred to were the top news items of each year in chronological order. On the other hand, I don't want to suggest that we use "This is common knowledge" if somebody asks how we know that "Hypodermics on the shore" refers to Syringe Tide.

Does anybody know of a citeable source that we can use to justify (at least to some extent) our links to specific items? I doubt there is anything like an "official source" (but see Joel quote I put in about the first verse or two). The only thing we have in the article now is an external link to a bloggish source [3]

Might there be a source interpreting these events? Sure, why not - I've seen such interpretations for Hotel California, and Bye-Bye, Miss American Pie, why not for "Fire"? (see e.g. sources in Hotel California#Themes and American_Pie#External_links A big Barnstar for whoever finds such a source! Smallbones (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Psycho

While it may have been shocking, “Psycho” is not a “a landmark in graphic violence”, because the violence is never show, it is implied (hand movements, the curtain tearing, the water darkening). At no point is the violence depicted - no contact between knife and body, no wounds shown, no prosthetic effects. Publicity may have made out that the film was graphically gory, but it isn’t, and made no great inroads into what could be depicted on screen. Jock123 (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See Also

I've removed and commented ==See Also== 'It's the End of the World as We Know It (And_I_Feel_Fine)' song by R.E.M. This is covered by its containing category "List songs". Also, R.E.M. is not related to Billy Joel; otherwise include evidence (with citations) in the article. Discuss. --Lexein (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter Pan

I'm fairly certain that Peter Pan actually refers to Operation Peter Pan, which is out of chronology but makes much more sense. -Binary Fruit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.88.244 (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Davey Crockett

Could the lyric referencing Davey Crockett also referencing that hand-held nuclear recoil-less rifle? It also appear in the fifties. 69.37.167.238 (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted this:"To hear a new version of the song, follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk0JzUE4tWc". 1) WP:HOW 2) Likely WP:LINKS 3) Maybe WP:PROMO 4) Certainly WP:COPYVIO. --Lexein (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Forms

Upon re-instating and expanding the deliberately de-cited and decimated covers and parodies paragraph, and creating the == Derivations == section, I've noticed that the cover by The Forms is only listed in Pitchfork, though it is favorably reviewed by the unknown-notability "Gimme Tinnitus" blog. Moved to here, in case it eventually is reviewed in a notable source.

The Forms' cover noted in Pitchfork[1] and reviewed in the Gimme Tinnitus blog as "They have (almost completely) rehabilitated the song with a radical rearrangement... lowering the vocals in the mix, postpunk bass."[2]

Sadly, this seems to leave no notable cover versions. WTF? --Lexein (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Solarski, Matthew (November 19, 2008). "My Brightest Diamond, Frightened Rabbit Do Covers". Pitchfork. Retrieved June 11, 2009.
  2. ^ "We Didn't Start The Fire (Billy Joel Cover) By The Forms". Gimme Tinnitus, November 25 2008.

Other parodies

--Lexein (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Describing parodies/takeoffs/knockoffs

  • Parodies which I've seen so far all seem to be "based on", not "of", the song. That is, neither the song nor Joel are the target of the jokes.
  • Knockoff as wikilinked, describes an inferior copy of a thing - haven't found any of those either in notable sources. "Takeoff" is, perhaps, a less pejorative term, though less well known, but seems to be a better description of most of the versions than either "parody" or "knockoff". --Lexein (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Funny, your edit comment when you added a bunch of triviacruft nonsense back in was to "See talk" and there's nothing on the talk page supporting your edit... in fact the talk page has a lot of comments saying that nonsense should be removed.

I should also note that something have a source by itself only proves it is factual, not that it's notable for mention in an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. That I neglected to leave a special discussion place for you in Talk is irrelevant. You could certainly start your own, to explain your deletions one by one, citing specific policy points for each one, to encourage discussion, rather than revert wars.
  2. Although there is general agreement that non-notable non-reliably-sourced material should not be allowed, no definitive consensus has occurred as to what will be allowed, after material has been soundly sourced. How many sources?
  3. Your characterization of "bunch of triviacruft nonsense" indicates that you are pushing a POV. You fail to indicate what _does_ indicate notability to you, yet you are quick to delete sourced material without policy based explanation. What do you want?
  4. Your deletions were mass deletions, without rationale or justification. You not only failed to assume good faith on my part, you make it very difficult for me to assume good faith on your part.
  5. Fancruft is your term, and in my opinion, it's a detestably uncivil word to use to describe what might be in-good-faith fan-driven non-RS material which may be of questionable notability. It's a bald-faced insult, and has no place in Wikipedia discussions, because it's just plain WP:UNCIVIL. It is deprecated in the two essays WP:Fancruft and WP:NOCRUFT, and does not apply to my additions.
  6. Nonsense is an uncivil word to describe the reliably sourced material I added. Nonsense implies falsehood - were the sources lying? No? Then neither was I.
  7. Notability is a matter of intense debate on Wikipedia. We should be able to agree that notability can be established by sources. If you do not agree with that, then you should WP:DISENGAGE. Read the intro to WP:N - it is not to be used as a reason to delete content within articles, only to determine article notability.

--Lexein (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Edited for tone --Lexein (talk)

R.L.Stine

Can anyone explain what the R.L.Stine reference is about?

Should it be here?

Dave Harris, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.214.6 (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio concerns

I am concerned that the body of this article is mostly a copyvio. While listing the allusions may be fine, the fact that we have the lyrics word for word up is a bit troubling. thoughts? --Guerillero | My Talk 04:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:We_Didn%27t_Start_the_Fire/Archive_1&oldid=1124430275"