Talk:What a Man (song)

message: Was it a one track single or had been there any additional music on the CD? -- MacCambridge (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  B sides? 

message: I have removed The song was written about 'Pepas' hero Mr Stuart Heywood ... as I suspect vandalism (unsourced edit by anonymous user). Maikel (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stu 

message: There's nothing in the article about this line in Linda Lyndell's lyrics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1bVMW2XVNI What particular move by James Brown did this mean in 1968? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's avoid original research here please. No sources have discussed this. Maybe you can research and then seek a publisher that can accept your research. Otherwise, let's not add portion about lyrics until secondary sources about the lyrics are found. --George Ho (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "original research"? I verified both facts. Are you saying that Linda Lyndell didn't sing for James Brown (she did it's her own article) and that the song doesn't say "do the James Brown"? These are both verifiable facts, on what possible ground would you delete them? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dave Crawford wrote the line. The "Lyndell had sung as a support act with James Brown" is unverifiable, and Using primary source to prove the connection violates the "no OR" rule. How did Lyndell know what the Crawford's line means? I searched for proof from secondary sources but found nearly none. --George Ho (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  I found this source and that source. However, these sources do not connect the song with James Brown. Rather than jump ahead, let's be careful and then go to WP:RSN and/or WP:NORN. Shall we? George Ho (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what "original research" means, George.  Please re-read WP:OR.  OR means original research .  What you are doing is closer to original research; you're trying to determine as your own "investigative journalist" whether Crawford's published statements are credible.  See also WP:PSTS; a primary source is sufficient as long as the item it sources is not "analysis, interpretation, evaluation, or synthesis" of data.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I started a discussion at the noticeboard, Stanton. BTW, "original research" means posting your own analysis in the article. What I did was omitting the passage that linked Lyndell's act with the lyric line. NOR doesn't extend outside preventing analytical insertions in the article, does it? George Ho (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  Wait... WP:NOR says, "." I can say what I want in talk pages, in other words, Stanton. The spirit of NOR applies to articles only, not any talk venue, like WP:VP and RM discussions. And I can insert original research here, not in the main article. By the way, I was trying to prevent IIO from reinserting some line reference; I never added an unverifiable analysis, including of mine. George Ho (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's why I said "is closer to original research" not "is original research". The extent you would make changes to the article based on your own WP:AEIS, whether you do it on the talk page or in your head, it would enter OR territory, however. Just follow the sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Struck that comment as I realize that Lyndell was the act. However, the song itself is not proof of her career as background act with James Brown. George Ho (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Why can't readers be allowed to see what we know are sourced facts? Lyndell was a backing singer for Brown (fact). The song contains the lyric "Make me do the James Brown, every time I get on my feet" (fact). It's not our job to censor content not related to Salt-n-Pepa. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I could see George's point if our article included some kind of out-of-nowhere personal analysis, evaluation and interpretation, like "Lyndell's work with James Brown was so important to her, and so inspriational to songwriter Crawford, that they included the reference to Brown in their song to honor the Godfather of Soul", or some other non-encyclopedic, music-journalist-wannabe blather like that.  But it doesn't.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

text: What I would do is simply note, in the article, that Lyndell had been a backing singer for Brown (sourced), and leave readers - not editors - to make whatever inferences they want.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is the content which was removed. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The removed content went slightly beyond that.  But let's not argue the point any more.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Make me do the James Brown, every time I get on my feet"

message: The original version wasn't notable enough to have its own section. Albeit, the "Original version" should be considered "Background", like Don't Cha, All Through the Night (Cyndi Lauper song) and I Feel for You, which I edited. Also, infoboxes are too large and clunky, especially in the mobile version. Of course, we can leave in the Salt-n-Pepa box; unsure about the Lena version box. If not for Salt-n-Pepa, the article of the original version wouldn't last and then would have been merged into a parent article. --George Ho (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect you probably shouldn't have deleted that content on the original song before making a request to retitle to the 2nd version. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't remove the content about the original; just the clunky infobox. WP:INFOBOXUSE says that infoboxes are not necessary. Using the infobox would imply heavy emphasis on one thing or another. Also, MOS:INFOBOX says not to supplant information by using the boxes. Maybe I should have improved the article, but even the improvement doesn't make the original more important and significant than the Salt-n-Pepa/En Vogue version. --George Ho (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Disagree, per WP:RECENTISM and because this article is not about any particular recording, but about the song (the written musical work as such). Its history begins with the original not with a cover act.  Also, we do not remove valid information just to make under-developed information on a subtopic look more complete; we flesh out the details of the subtopic. If you feel the S-n-P version is under-represented, then feel free to expand the article to include more reliably sourced, encyclopedically relevant information about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've reworked the article, Stanton, and then added more stuff about Salt-n-Pepa's version. --George Ho (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks pretty good. I restored the original infobox, which had important information like who wrote it (especially that!) and what album it was (same title, so this article may end up serving as the article on that as a subtopic, unless the album is independently notable).  Did a few copy edits.  I wouldn't be surprised if someone complained about all the video details and other trivia (who's wearing what, and so on) as a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE issue, but I'm leaving it alone (other than some minor cleanup tweaks) on the "more facts are better, usually" argument.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

text:  There's a missing citation in "According to the rap song may associate hypermasculinity", after "to".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

text: I've added a sentence or two on the Lyndell version.  Would anyone object to changing the reference to Salt-n-Pepa being a "cover version"?   It wasn't - it was a reinterpretation of the song, using a sample of the original - "  When rappers Salt-N-Pepa teamed with R&B vocal group En Vogue for their provocative 1993 single "Whatta Man," they borrowed Lyndell's original chorus in toto. She knew nothing of the appropriation until the first royalty check appeared in her mailbox, but the massive success of the hip-hop update proved the catalyst that inspired Lyndell to eventually resume her music career. In May 2003 she performed at the opening of Memphis' Stax Museum, highlighted by her first-ever public rendition of "What a Man.""    Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable, and that fact about Lyndell is obviously of note. There have been actual cover versions, so the lead should probably speak of "cover versions and reinterpretations by various artists, including ...".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone with "sampled and reinterpreted", which is supported by the main article text and the Allmusic reference above.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much emphasis on the less notable original version