Talk:Clear Channel memorandum/Archive 1

message: Thank you! This is comedy gold!
Pozole 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To all contributors to this article

message: I miss something about when channels started playing the songs again. I assume that it is not in effect anymore?--Dittaeva 17:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I started out trying to address this question and fix the massive run-on first sentence and wound up rewriting nearly the entire introductory section.  I think this version is clear and reflects the actual circumstances of the situation better: it's interesting as much for the social reaction as for the existence of the list itself.  Jgm 23:28, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  So when were they deemed appropriate again? 

message: I've unprotected the article, hopefully the vandal(s) have gone away by now. If they haven't please re-list it at WP:RFPP. Thryduulf 14:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: The song was pulled from many radio stations, including clear channel ones  --Fallout boy 03:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bleed American

message: I certainly hope this list belongs to the realm of rumour and speculation, and that it was not actually an authentic decree. The very idea of blacklisting certain songs because their lyrics can be associated to a traumatic terrorist attack (usually extremely vaguely and unintentionally) seems downright psychotic to me. Jonas Liljeström 11:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but that is the sick extreme moralistic world (of USA) we live in today. Help us return to normal non-destructive moralism! Ran4 18:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deranged 

message: As I said before, I went through the entire list when I first created this article. There should be no more new songs added to the list unless someone can actually prove there's more. Please stop adding random songs to this list and show some proof. -- LGagnon 23:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No new additions, please

message: The list says all of RATM's songs are on the list. Can we get some verification from the original author of this article? I certainly wouldn't be surprised if in fact all of their songs were on this list, but that also kind of sounds like something that some smartass might have put there because it's humorous.
:I'm the original author. The link at the bottom of the article says that. -- LGagnon 04:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rage Against the Machine 

message: I can't believe this!!
They banned songs like: "What a wonderful world"!!
WHY!!?!?!?!?!????!?!??!?????????????????1!!!!!?!?!?!
Legendary songs like Queen's "Another one bites the dust...
I don't understand... explanation please... and don't say: "Lyrics bla bla bla..." tell me what is wrong with these lyrics...
--Aviv Maliniak 17:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's paranoia, plain and simple. But this isn't the place to discuss the article's subject; talk pages are for discussing the article itself. -- LGagnon 18:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing "wonderful world" while you're grieving is no fun. I think that's one of the few entries on the list that were actually sensible. Peter S. 13:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT?!?!? 

message: If you are not going to talk about how to improve the article, don't bother writing on any talk page. These things are meant to facilitate editing, not give you a soapbox. -- LGagnon 22:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pot, meet kettle. Thorns Among Our Leaves 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is not a message board

message: The page was improperly moved (moving is not supposed to be done by copying and pasting; we have a specific procedure for moving), so it is back here. Also, there was no consensus on moving it; Morton devonshire moved it based on his still disputed point of view. Thus, it should remain here until a consensus is reached. -- LGagnon 14:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it that you object to in renaming the article?  The current title is misleading.Morton devonshire 01:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the names of other hoax articles. Paul is dead is "misleading", but that is not a problem because it is explained in the article that it is a hoax. We don't need the words "hoax", "supposed", or "urban legend" in every hoax article's name. That would make article names overly descriptive and longer than they really need to be, especially in this case. All we need is the article to be accurate and it should be fine. -- LGagnon 03:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it.  Thanks.  Morton devonshire 03:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved back

message: Given the number of internet users who only read titles, this title is way off.  If mention an urban legend that never happened belongs in an encyclopedia on the basis of social curiosity, then it should be flagged as such.  The title should include "Falsely Rumoured" or similar phrasing.
For evidnece of morons only reading titles see:
http://digg.com/links/Wikipedia:_List_of_songs_deemed_inappropriate_by_Clear_Channel_after_9_11 -- 210.9.182.38
:We've been over this already. Read the rest of this talk page. -- LGagnon 12:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/radio.htm Now, someone nominate this for speedy deletion and let's move on. --NEMT 21:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've gone over this already. And you didn't read it correctly. Snopes didn't just make a blanket "false" statement; they said that the ban is false. -- LGagnon 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reading is fundamental

message: Hey, how about the pro-urban legend people point at some source other than Snopes? None of you have done it yet, and it's likely because you can't find one. I, on the other hand, cited Snopes myself (and actually read the whole article) and cited 2 more sources that further back my argument. Thus the score is as follows:
*anti-urban legend/Me: 3
*pro-urban legend/Morton: 0
Don't cheat; compete. Show proof that you're right instead of claiming my source says the opposite. If you are right, there has to be another source out there. Find it or quit pushing your POV. -- LGagnon 21:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's your version that has no support.  Snopes says the list didn't exist.  Morton devonshire 02:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut the childishness and come up with your own source that you actually read. I'm reverting the article again, and I'm ignoring your baseless pleas until you can find evidence for your claims other than lies about the Snopes article. -- LGagnon 02:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  If Snopes did indeed lead you to sources that prove it existed, link away. Don't say you have a cow, and then not let us taste the milk.  --  Zanimum 23:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go: . They're right in the article's References section, like I said. -- LGagnon 01:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you provide a source for that? -- LGagnon 03:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take at look at http://www.hitsdailydouble.com  Cheers.  Morton devonshire 00:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything about ownership, and I don't have an account with them so I can't enter the site. Please provide some other source. -- LGagnon 02:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can obtain a free account from them.  Morton devonshire 16:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not giving my e-mail address to them. -- LGagnon 19:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try http://www.bugmenot.com to avoid this issue.  Morton devonshire 18:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't let me into the log-in form; it only lets me get to the registration form. -- LGagnon 00:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut the POV

message: I don't know if this list is an urban legend, but if it isn't it should be. :) It is totally absurd. There are some songs on it of which I know the lyrics quite well, which I can't possibly link with the attacks. However, one song I completely expected to be on this list isn't. The MASH theme. "Suicide is painless, it brings on many changes". Exactly what the attackers wanted, to bring on changes through a suicide action. Not what the songwriter had in mind, I assume, but that's not the issue here (obviously, considering the songs on the list). DirkvdM 11:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Suicide Is Painless]]

message: I think the point should be included that (according to Clear Channel) this originally started as a smaller list, but was added to after being circulated through e-mail. From Snopes:
:Note that The New York Times posits a smaller, earlier version of the list did originate in Clear Channel's corporate offices:
:    Others in the Clear Channel network . . . said that a smaller list of questionable songs was originally generated by the corporate office, but an overzealous regional executive began contributing suggestions and circulating the list via e-mail, where it continued to grow. (emphasis added)
When drawing my own conclusions, I have to admit this sounds believable. We all know how e-mail lists can grow. (That is, of course, strictly my own POV.) -DejahThoris 18:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One point to add 

message: I found myself puzzled by this and added a [citation needed]:
 In Britain, many people expressed rage at the supposed exclusion of the song "Killer Queen" from the UK airwaves.
Eh? I don't remember it really ever being mentioned. Why just that one song? Why rage? I'd like to see a source. Sum0 19:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killer Queen in the UK 

message: This is obviously getting out of hand. I notice it's still going on, but the parties involved aren't even arguing about it on this talk page anymore - they're just reverting one another every few days. Morton devonshire also misused the word "truthiness" in what looks to me like an attempt to mock LGagnon. So much for civility. Morton asserts many times that Snopes says the very existence of the list is false, an urban legend, or hoax, even though his own edits show this isn't true:
 * Claim: Clear Channel Communications banned their American radio stations from playing specified songs in order to avoid offending listeners.
 * Status: False.
The very fact that we have a list here means that the list exists. (Duh?) Snopes does not say that the list didn't exist - they say the list isn't one of songs that were banned in the days and weeks following 9/11. The fact that Hits Daily Double isn't owned by Clear Channel (which is likely but still not proven with a reliable source) is a moot point: they aren't even a radio station, are they? Also, I went to the Hits Daily Double website, entered some random text when it asked me for my name and e-mail (it let me right in after that), then searched the site for "clear channel". I found this, which kind of alludes to the sentiments being felt by many people at that particular time and references a few songs that are on this list; and then this article, which references this list specifically. --SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 06:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, Morton doesn't rely on sources, but truthiness. When he does use a source (Snopes being his only one), he makes claims contrary to what it says, assuming that just because he can point at the existence of a source that he can make up whatever it says. He's nothing more than a vandal pretending to be legit, and his vandalism should be reverted when it happens. If needs be, we can get an admin involved to stop him. -- LGagnon 14:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand the dispute.  You assert that the ban is real, Snopes.com says that the Urban Legend is false.  Including the Snopes.com information in the article is not POV, it's relevant and verifiable.  Yes, I do believe that you are violating Wikipedia policy on WP:OWN and WP:NPOV, as you revert almost everyone else's edits of this article, and you refuse to allow verifiable information to be included.  I would welcome the presence of a neutral Admin to resolve this dispute.  Morton devonshire 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Snopes article is cited; look at the citations for the opening paragraph. There, it is specifically mentioned that CC didn't ban any songs, and Snopes is given as the source. The problem is that you claim that Snopes is calling the list the urban legend, when in fact they call the ban the urban legend. Snopes does not deny the existence of the list - only you do. And for the most part I am only reverting vandalism, which is supposed to be reverted. In your case, it's both vandalism and poorly done edits. The latter is what you were doing by adding redundant info on the Snopes article, on top of misusing the word "truthiness". -- LGagnon 22:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are saying that the list exists on Fucked Company, or some other site, then that's correct.  If you are saying that Clear Channel banned this list of songs, that's an Urban Legend.  Snopes says that it is false that Clear Channel Communications banned their American radio stations from playing specified songs in order to avoid offending listeners.  I apologize for using the word Truthiness -- you should know that Colbert's use of the word is for the purpose of humor.  Morton devonshire 06:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ban was an urban legend, not the list. So far, there's no proof that CC didn't make the list themselves, and there is some proof that they did. Thus, we will not call the list an urban legend, only the ban. I hope that's clear now. -- LGagnon 12:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is the article title, because it asserts that Clear Channel produced such a list, which Snopes clearly says it did not.  Morton devonshire 21:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you ever going to actually read the article? Let me repeat this again: Snopes says THE BAN is an urban legend. It does NOT say that THE LIST is, nor does it say that CC didn't make it. If you can not find any proof to the contrary, quit making an unproven argument. The rest of us editors can easily read the Snopes article and realize you're lying. -- LGagnon 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There's nothing wrong with the title. Morton has never given any proof that there is. He claims Snopes says it's wrong, but if you read the Snopes article it says nothing of the sort. -- LGagnon 01:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Where in that does it say that CC did not make THE LIST? It says they did not make THE BAN, not the list. I don't know how you can not understand what I'm talking about. The fact remains that CC made the list, but did not make the ban. You can cite that line over and over again, and it will not change the article because it says exactly what I'm saying. -- LGagnon 15:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That would only make the title POV. There's no conspiracy, not even an alleged one. There was a rumor that they were going to ban the songs on the list, but that turned out to be false; it was just an advisory list. -- LGagnon 14:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, perhaps then "Clear Channel Communications misunderstood 9/11 song list." I think we as editors need to start coming up with a new name as this obviously is not a valid one. Do you have a particular opinion about the validity of this as an article? It seems to state some people thought it was a ban, then say it wasn't. Kind of lacking as an article in general, no? Perhaps this should be merged into the Clear Channel article and have the song list added to WikiSource as a reference. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what's wrong with the title. They deemed the songs inappropriate, which does not mean they banned them. As for the info on the ban, I don't see what the problem is. A rumor got started, and CC denied the rumor. That's how it happened. There's nothing confusing about that. As for WikiSource, are we even supposed to have lists there? And besides, this thing links to a lot of Wikipedia articles, which probably makes it more appropriate for being in this project. -- LGagnon 15:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've cited the actual memo, which we had an external link for already. It's worthy of being an article because this caused a big controversy at the time that it happened. It was a significant event in the history of CC, and one of the reasons why they are considered a dangerous monopoly by their opponents. As for the title's length, we've tried to shorten it before but have been unsuccessful in the past. This was the best we could do to fix percieved POV problems with a shorter name. -- LGagnon 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand now regarding the name, the ability to come to a concensus can be daunting. As for the original memo I do not see it. I look at the two sources for the memo and neither even appear to be genuine, lacking headers of an email or even the companies info if it was a memo.--zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I see you sourced the memo's comment with a link to internalmemos.com, however I don't think it takes much looking to see that what they have on there is a far cry from a memo, it doesnt even have a header ... I doubt Clear Channel sent out this list on white paper with no identifying marks such as their own letter head. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 19:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war needs to stop 

message: After reading the article, the Snopes page, and now this awful talk page, I want to declare my support for the work of , who has persevered through months and months of people attacking this article without trying to properly understand the context. Clear Channel made the list. No, it was not to a ban list. (It was, however, circulated before September 11, something we may disagree on.) Anyway, I have your back, LGagnon. But I have to say: You guys might not have been arguing about this for more than six months if you had sought mediation. Then you wouldn't have anything left to argue about. If this continues, I will seek mediation or even arbitration for this disagreement, because I think both sides have their points; unfortunately, only one side has cited anything. --Chris Griswold 09:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is the sources for me, they are not real sources and none of the source has the original document or a scan. Therefore there is no way to confirm its content. There is a list of songs here that Clear Channel may not have created, they made a list, however this list on this article page has no proof to being the list. So anyone could have added any tracks to the list and we here are documenting it as fact. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can someone scan the original? It was circulated via e-mail. --Chris Griswold 19:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you; I'm glad to have your support. Unfortunately, I've had bad experiences with mediation in the past (basically, they shrug off serious problems as not needing their help until they blow further out of proportion), so I was reluctant to ask them for help. If you want to ask them for help that's fine with me, though. -- LGagnon 15:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for LGagnon 

message: In order to address (but avoid continuing) a lame edit war, I'm going to dispute recent changes made to wording relating the Snopes page on the Clear Channel list. The wording as of this writing is:
::Rumor had it that this list was meant to be used to ban the songs on it from airplay. Clear Channel has denied banning any songs. Snopes dismissed the "banned list" as false urban legend.
The wording this was changed from, which (full disclosure) I last edited, was:
::Rumor had it that this list was meant to be used to ban the songs on it from airplay, but this has been denied by Clear Channel, and urban legend tracker Snopes disputes any "banned list" claims.
I feel the latter sentence, in addition to being better written (the first has three choppy sentences, including the redundant and horridly-constructed "Snopes dismissed the 'banned list' as false urban legend"), better describes the situation. The first statement implies that the list altogether does not exist, whereas the second statement merely disputes its status as a "banned list." In other words, the first strikes me as a weasley way to dispute the subject's notability altogether, whereas the second leaves that open to debate but clarifies the established facts. Thoughts? -- H·G (words/works) 22:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first version accurately describes the three seperate events.  The latter sentence is a runon weasel word sentence.  The 'rumor to ban' has been debunked.  Watering down the rejection by snopes and the denial by Clear channel gives too much credence to a 'rumor.'  It needs three separate sentences from three separate, independant sources.  Rumor (how this even makes it in the article, I don't know).  Clear channel.  Snopes.  Three separate organization.  Two are verifiable.  One is rumor.  --Tbeatty 02:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how saying "Snopes disputes any 'banned list' claims" waters anything down; nor do I appreciate being accused of planting "weasel words" when I don't have an agenda in relation to this article. My point is to clarify, not to obfuscate. But this is heading to lamest territory, so have your way with it. -- H·G (words/works) 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Final note, though--the three sentences are all verified by the one source listed there. (I.e. Snopes discusses the rumor, Clear Channel's denial, and the results [its debunking]). Breaking down the material to three sentences isn't that big of a deal, but no further sources are needed for those three. -- H·G (words/works) 04:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weasel Words are a Wikipeida term, not an accusation.  Weasel words include passive voice sentences, words like "allegedly", "supposed", etc.  The words try to cast doubt where it isn't supported by the source and they should be avoided.  A sentence that starts off "Rumor has it that...." is a classic weasel word sentence since it is passive voice.--Tbeatty 04:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about, "it was rumored that"? 69.40.248.10 01:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  Passive voice is your guide to weasel statements.  Plus, this whole conjecture is unsourced. --Tbeatty 23:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snopes and this list 

message: The list of songs here is the list that should be in the article.  It is a far more reliable list.  Also, it is referenced in the first link that describes it.  The songs that were listed in additional to this list are questionable in their reliability.  --Tbeatty 23:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks exactly the same as the list I used to create our list. I agree that we should keep new entries off the list. -- LGagnon 01:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the hitsdailydouble list matches the internalmemo list.  That discrepancy alone casts doubt on one of them as a source for the article. That list only has 158 entries.  It is the hitsdailydouble list that the Wikipedia article claims the list came from.   Anything not from the hitsdailydouble list should be deleted as that is the source for the memo from ClearChannel.  --Tbeatty 04:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: SOmeone fixed spellings on the list.  Since this is a recreation of a published list, I think the spellings should appear as they were originally.  I have fixed links so that they return to the correct artist in wikilinks.--Tbeatty 19:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The list

message: Heh, Mispeled, thanks for the edits.  The article is looking much more NPOV these days.  We're finally free of that ridiculous "ban" stuff.  I will help defend your current edit.  Morton devonshire 01:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing was removed, only reworded. Either way, I hope you're done deleting facts you don't agree with despite the existence of sources. -- LGagnon 03:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will support Mispeled's version, because I believe that it's a neutral presentation of the facts.  You will feel better if you stop taking this personally.  Morton devonshire 22:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken nothing personally. Stop making personal attacks. -- LGagnon 00:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stick to content.  Morton devonshire 04:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have stuck to content; you haven't. Your statement "You will feel better if you stop taking this personally" is no different from any other personal attack you've made in which you falsely claimed that I was trying to own the article. Don't tell me to stick to content; you stick to the content of the article and stop making personal attacks. -- LGagnon 05:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm glad the edit looks good. :) Mispeled 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Looking much better

message: Please see WP:RS -- Fuckedcompany.com and Internalmemos are not reliable sources.  Please provide sources which qualify under WP:RS.  Thank you.  Morton devonshire 16:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lists are exactly the same as the one at Snopes. Thus, they are backed by a cited source already. -- LGagnon 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:Reliable Sources

message: We've had three instances of vandalism in the last three days – I think it would be a good idea to make this page protected. Mispeled 21:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine with me. -- LGagnon 22:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't foresee the content needing to change much... — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 04:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: At this point, I'm reverting any additions that aren't discussed on the talk page.--Mispeled 19:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection?

message: I think that claim is very dubious given that the best sources this article can come up with is 'Snopes' pointing out the ban was urban legend and some fringe articles.  --Tbeatty 06:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Much media attention?

message: They missed "New York City's Like A Graveyard" by the Moldy Peaches. --Dangherous 20:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYC 

message: I just removed Heatseekrs – "Ass Smoke Rims Spinnin'" from the 0-9 section. It's misplaced first of all, and I've never seen it on this list before so whoever added it probably doesn't have a reliable, citable source for its presence there. I'm too lazy to check the history and see if they added anything else.--SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 20:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heatseekrs

message: that is most probably a joke or vandilisim because that song wasn't even released at the time of the attacks.
Removed it. It was released in 2006, so there's no way it could have been on the list. Richaod 04:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  evermores running? 

message: A factuality-disputed tag was added by an unregistered user, without any discussion on the talk page. The question of whether or not credible sources have been used was solved quite a while ago, and the factuality-disputed should be taken down.
:I have removed the disputed tag, as well as some contradictory phrases in the article. First it said that the list was not an actual "ban list" but in the next paragraph some lazy editor decided to throw around the word "banned" as if the list was a ban list. The word "ban" or anything derived from it no longer appears in this article, except in the sentence: "Snopes did research on the subject and concluded that the list did exist as a suggestion for radio stations, but not a ban on the songs in question." This is the only sentence in this article where the word "ban" should ever appear. --SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 21:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed tag 

message: The article makes a mention of a Beatles song that doesn't appear on the list. I think "Killing an Arab" would be a better example of a song that would logically appear on the list but was left off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.105.123.77 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Killing an Arab being a logical inclusion for this list? What nonsense. First of all, it's not the sort of song that gets mainstream airplay anyway, and anyone who does listen to it knows exactly what it's about and knows there's no reason it should have been discouraged following 9/11. I am The Walrus might not be the best example of a song that was left off, but Killing an Arab's no better. 58.175.33.49 11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What about that song "Have You Forgotten" by Darryl Worley or the song by Toby Keith that goes on and on about 9-11?  I guess it's OK to write about 9-11 as long as you're a country singer?  Meanwhile rock songs written 30 years ago that have a lyric that can be associated with the attacks are dangerous? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.123.1 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cure: Killing an Arab 

message: I removed the sentence "The reason for the controversy surrounding the inclusion of this Barenaked Ladies song is because the song is about the emotions one feels while being in love, and has nothing to do with actually falling" from the indroduction. Aside from the fact that it's poorly written, I thought its removal was appropriate, as I see no reason this song deserves special explanation. No one has felt the need to explain why the inclusion of any other songs is controversial, why add a clarification for this one?
Also, labeling the inclusion of any song as controversial would seem to imply that the inclusion of certain others might not be controversial or objectionable, and I hardly thing such behavior would represent a neutral POV.NihilisticMystic 03:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So, is the inclusion of some songs acceptable?