Talk:I Am the Walrus

message: It says in the article that Genesis sampled this song in Looking for Someone, off the album Trespass. I really don't see that myself, and the source has no citations, so can anyone provide evidence? Middle Eye 512 (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a tiny section in Visions of Angels, not Looking for Someone, which sounds similar to the "get your tan from standing in the English rain" pattern, but I am convinced that it entirely accidental / coincidental: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsQwfG4KnCU&feature=youtu.be&t=1m20s MarkRae (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

text: What your hear when you listen or what I hear is irrelevant, as is any editor's musical skills or talent. That's original research and unacceptable on Wikipedia. What matters is what is in reliable sources. Sundayclose (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you can help with this issue. (I had tried to send this to Kleuske, but I'm not sure it worked)
Since discussing this topic of alleged sampling of The Beatles "I Am The Walrus" by the group Genesis, stated in the Walrus article as being on the song "Looking for Someone" on the Trespass album by Genesis, I have accomplished communication with 3 people: 
1) Paul Stump, the author of the book cited as proof of the claim. 
2) Nick Davis, the remix and remastering engineer for the Genesis reissue of the "Trespass" album (and other Genesis remastered releases), and through Mr Davis, 
3) Genesis keyboardist and composer, Tony Banks, who wrote and recorded the song with Genesis on "Trespass", (and ALL of Genesis' recordings before, during and since). 
All 3 deny any truth to the claim. –– 1) Paul Stump, the least connected to actual recording events (i.e. not at all) replied to me via Facebook messaging saying "Agree with all you say, chief." - after my re-telling of disagreeing with the wikipedia claim in in question. 
--------------------------------------------------------------
2) Nick Davis, the remix and remastering engineer, who was intimately involved with the original recordings said via email, after explaining the claim to him 
(Below is the exact email, with the exception of my bracketed reference to Nick's included Tony Banks message): 
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Hi Buddy,
 
Interesting email- I can confirm there is no sample in Looking for someone-
Samplers didn't exist at this time anyway.
 
                                   [Then Nick, who had emailed Genesis keyboardist Tony Banks on the matter, continued including his response]
 
See below from Tony Banks:
 
'Complete fiction! 
 
Never heard this mentioned before, and as you say no samplers then
available, and we never took anything from the original track. What bit
could it be anyway?'
 
 
Hope that clarifies it for you. Glad you like the remaster.
 
Nick
www.nickdavis.org.uk
[Email Nick here: nick@nickdavis.org.uk. - from his website]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
So these 3 all deny the errant claim. But I suspect there's a problem - Both Mr Davis and Stump replied to me via personal email, while Genesis keyboardist Tony Banks replied to Nick Davis' personal email to him and was relayed to me. My guess is that since these are not publicly published bits of information, they are still only my personal research, despite being original, reliable sources. –– Whatever the case, I propose this: That someone Wiki write Mr Nick Davis to confirm (his email is above, and he's very nice) - Or it's wikipedia's choice to continue running the errant information, which no one but whomever authored the comment believes to be true. - On protocol and rules Wiki can stand by the misinformation, or simply remove it, since it really is wrong (it's absence won't perpetuate misinformation) - or, the author of the claim can do like I did, and contact these people for a consensus to either prove or disprove his claim as errantly cited from Paul Stump's book.. 
No disrespect intended. At this point there's nothing else I can do, and it's unlikely that any of these people will make any sort of publicly published statement over such a trivial thing that fits the "reliable source" definition. –– I'll hope in someone's wisdom at this point as my hands are otherwise tied. - I'm only trying to improve some factual accuracy by removing, not adding something. Nothing personal. Thanks for your consideration 
Count_Gracula (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Personal emails are meaningless as reliable sources. I could claim that every member of Genesis personally emailed me and confirmed the sampling, but that doesn't mean it actually happened. Here's the bottom line: the Stump source is considered reliable until it is decided otherwise by consensus; read WP:CON for details about that process. You also can get opinions at WP:RSNB. But at this point you are right, your hands are tied. Sundayclose (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Thank you - I knew that personal emails would mean nothing, hence including Nick Davis's email address, just in case someone in power cared check for the sake of article accuracy. - The odd thing to me is that, whomever made the claim and cited Paul Stump's book didn't bother to quote his source, but only threw out a reference that, unless one own the book, no one can verify that that citation is accurate or even true. So, Paul Stump said so in a book; who checked his claim? – Yet wiki seems to just embrace it and defend it, without even knowing what Stump's page 175 says, and merely trusts the person who wrote it based on the claim that it came from a published book. –– How is this any more a reliable source? Answer: It isn't. Goodness knows that all sorts of misinformation gets published.  
I have again written to Mr Stump and asked him - for my own personal interest in understanding the root of this error - to send me the exact quote from his book's page 175 - and I will post it here, just for the record. --- BUT, of course I know that Mr Stump's private message to me on Facebook will mean nothing to wiki. It seems ironic that the book's author quoting the exact page reference from the claimed reliable source, will still not be good enough. It's funny that, whomever put that bit of errant info in with the unsubstantiated reference to a page on a book, likely had a far easier time passing it off as true because no one cared to test and quote the source. (I do understand why emails don't count, and that anyone can make a claim that way. But even with citing Stump's book, the wiki contributor that put in the info wasn't really held to any higher standard. They were taken at their word by whipping up an unscrutinized reliable source.) 
So what I'm getting is that, a reliable source doesn't need to be true or verified by anyone, it only needs to appear so and fit the wikipedia rules for a seemingly loose definition of "reliable source" in being published or claimed in some easily accepted, commercial form of media. Apparently even the members of Genesis themselves writing to wikipedia in an email would not qualify. ––– Methinks there is a gap in the wiki system if anyone can claim that a book says something, cite an author and a page number out of the air, and have their claim indelibly fixed as the truth (even when everyone else says it's erroneous). -- I merely submitted my personal research toward building CONSENSUS that the claim is doubtful and should be further tested in its citation from Stump's unquoted-for-proof book page. It needs better proof. As it stands, there is none; just this ––– "Stump, Paul (1997). The Music's All that Matters. Quartet Books Limited. p. 175" ––– and by itself, that doesn't prove anything. 
What if his page says no such thing? Then what? How does one disprove something that doesn't exist in the first place? –– I'm not even trying to add to the "Walrus" article, but only trying to spark a consideration of doubt on a bit of wrong information which, per the contributors claim of Stump's citation, wasn't nearly so challenged by wiki. ––– Doesn't anyone find that odd? 
Forgive my frustration tinged expressions. I know it's not your fault, I wrote to you since you're experienced here, thinking maybe you might know a special method to handle this. Short of direct contact with the actual people involved in composing and recording the music (i.e. Genesis and Nick Davis), there is no wiki approved reliable source to contradict the claim. So I guess I'm trying to shift the burden of proof back to the wiki contributor to prove the claim better - since Stump, Davis and Banks ("Complete fiction!"), likewise challenge the contributor's claim. 
Thank you for replying, sorry if I seem a pain. It's just that when one knows that something is wrong, it should be fixed, and in this case, removed.     
Count_Gracula  Count_Gracula (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Once again (and for the last time), if you wish to challenge the reliability of a source, you do it by consensus. Did you bother to read WP:CON? Did you try to raise the issue at WP:RSNB? If not, then you're wasting my time and probably yours. That's all I can tell you. This is not about you and me. It's about how things work on Wikipedia for everyone, not just you. You can follow the proper channels to discuss issues, but if you don't want to do that then maybe Wikipedia is not the place for you to spend your time. I'm finished here. Best wishes. Sundayclose (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Thank You again. Apologies if I've been tedious, learning the wiki ways take some time. I did previously read about consensus, and (perhaps errantly) my postings here to discuss were an attempt at raising attention that an error exists in information. It's been a gaining consensus attempt of sorts. 
I suspected from the start of emailing Stump, Davis (and Banks) that email was NOT a reliable source, so I wasn't trying to pass it off as such, merely trying to wave a flag that these people agree that something is amiss and pique some other editors' curiosity, since yourself and Kleuske both have weighed in on my novice folly. – I see another editor has also challenged the sampling claim, and he's got my consensus, if I can learn to properly give it by the rules - I won't trouble you any further, but sincere thanks for your time.  Count_Gracula (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Count Gracula contacted me so I have looked into this. Paul Stump doesn't say that Genesis sampled the song, so Gracula is correct there, and so is everyone he contacted in agreeing there is no sampling. But what Stump did say is that there is "the barefaced presence of a riff". And, yes, he is right - the line near the start "trying to find a needle in a haystack" is sung to the tune of I Am the Walrus. So, with appropriate rewording, the statement is correct. But it is not really relevant for this article; that little bit of info is more appropriate for the Trespass (album) article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genesis sampling 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on I Am the Walrus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402031330/http://www.beatleslectures.com/lectures to http://www.beatleslectures.com/lectures/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, can someone please add this reference plus put some relevant text in: "The X-Rated Reason Why John Lennon Called Eric Burdon 'The Eggman'". Ultimateclassicrock.com. 13 April 2015. Retrieved 22 July 2017.
Collideascope (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are various interpretations of the song, and your source isn't any better than many of the others. The fact is, no one except Lennon knew who was the walrus, or the eggman, or any other reference in the song (or even if it refers to anyone in particular) and Lennon is dead. Sundayclose (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eric Burdon was the eggman 

message: I added a point that the song was covered by Styx. That change was reverted. What us the reason why? JoelRabinovitch (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As my edit summary indicated, it fails WP:SONGCOVER. We don't add every every artist who has ever performed the song. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sundayclose (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Fair enough, based on those guidelines. Interesting thing though, I wasn't aware that Oasis had done a cover version of the song, but I was aware of the Styx version. JoelRabinovitch (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted change for Styx Cover 

message: "Eric Burdon, lead singer of the Animals, claimed to be the "Eggman" mentioned in the song's lyric."
But no mention of Humpty Dumpty. This character appears in The Walrus and the Carpenter, on which the song is about. The relation seems obvious to me... Elfast (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eggman : Humpty Dumpty