lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Fast Car

message: The section on "song Meaning" has been readded to the article, after being removed for being original research. While it does appear to be a literal description of what the song appears to say, can we be certain it's not metaphoric in any way? Without a reliable source, it still seems like original research to me to definitively say what the song means. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently got deleted again, but should have been left in. Fig (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Btw, Tracy herself gives the song's meaning here  Fig (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song Meaning 

message: Despite being at 167th place on the 500 greatest songs I think it might be the 1st song on the list that was written exclusively by a woman. It looks like earlier songs that have female singers were either written by a male or were co-written with with a male. Please correct me if I'm wrong  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.134.134 (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  500 top songs rolling stones magazine 

message: Per wp:NSONGS, same song, different performer. Richhoncho (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *WP:NSONGS also says, "Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions." Is there any reason this particular cover version is more important than every other cover version, for instance, Make You Feel My Love, which has 3 notable cover versions? At what point is the artist more important than the song in a song article? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, maybe. But not always. I think this is notable in its own right. It is a very different genre. It charted at number-one in several countries. It was a number-one début single. AusLondonder (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are saying this different version of the same song should be different page because the singer is different and it's a different arrangement. What makes that different from every other merged song article? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

text: *Quite. I have now reverted the removal of the JB version material and set a redirect up at the JB page. I did this also on the grounds that Auslondonder did not offer any valid argument to keep separate. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  please take a moment to read WP:MERGECLOSE AusLondonder (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Why? There is a guideline which you are ignoring, refusing to repute. Again if you cannot understand the difference between "song" and "recording" By all mean discuss, but the status quo is one article for one song!!! --Richhoncho (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Fast Car (Jonas Blue song)]] 

message: Title - the amount of covers dillutes the article I believe Helpingpeopleyay (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are so many cover songs, shouldn't a Fast Car (Covers) page be created?
Talk:Faster Kill Pussycat

message: The second paragraph -
The track has been criticized due to the the background music's strong similarity to both Deep Dish's "Flashdance" and Bodyrockers' "I Like The Way (You Move)."
- Where does this info come from?  I think, unless some pointers, or at least citations, can be given to such criticisms, this paragraph should be regarded as unsubstantiated, and deleted.
Rocinante9x 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticized?
Talk:Fatshe leno la rona

message: Since this is a national anthem and contains the words, I assess it start class. More can be written concerning the anthem's selection and usage.Gallador (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment Comments

message: Based on a discussion on a forum I belong to, a possible new anthem for this nation should take place. It can be seen at . User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New anthem?
Talk:I Touch Myself

message: VH1 Classic's 100 Greatest 1-Hit Wonders reprots that it was about self love. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.235.1.34 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 20 October 2006.
:The writers of the song said it was about masterbation, it was at this link  but does not work anymore. Lillygirl 21:34, 21 October 2006.
::Hello? I don't think that anyone doubts it is about masturbation (or self-love, if you prefer).  The lyrics aren't particularly obscure.  Is there something to discuss? Leeborkman 22:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-love

message: At the top of this article, it says -->
"It may also be viewed as an expression of independence--that one need not rely on others for basic needs that can be fulfilled by oneself."
In my opinion, there is NOTHING in these lyrics to suggest independence.  For example -->
I love myself / I want YOU to love me
When I feel down / I want YOU above me
I search myself / I want YOU to find me
I forget myself / I want YOU to remind me
or this -->
I close my eyes / and see YOU before me
Think I would die / if YOU were to ignore me
A fool could see / just how much I adore YOU
I get down on my knees / I'd do anything for YOU
Except for the obvious references to masturbation, this is as romantic and traditional a love song as any I've ever heard.  The DEPENDENCE expressed in this song still moves me after - how long? - 15 years now?  Almost a shame it's been so co-opted by pop culture that no one ever sees just how touching (no pun intended) a song it actually is.
I'd like to see that line about independence taken out of the article.
66.82.9.49 09:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independence? 

message: It seems, that this song is commonly erroneously credited to Blondie. Pibwl ←« 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mention in the article has been removed per WP:OR. -- MST☆R    (Chat Me!) 02:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Blondie

message: I'd just like to say, I LOVE the lead to this article. It's classy!
""I Touch Myself" is a 1991 pop rock song written by Christina Amphlett, Tom Kelly, Billy Steinberg and Mark McEntee for Australian rock band Divinyls' self titled album. The song, which has since been covered by numerous artists, is about masturbation." 76.197.194.35 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello Wikipedia!

message: The first sentence states 1991, the infobox states 1990 twice and 1991 once; it is in 1990 and 1991 categories! F W Nietzsche (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Which year?

message: The end of the instrumental in this song, around 1:46, seems to be a riff of the notes to "If My Friends Could See Me Now", from the musical SWEET CHARITY, 1966.  In the context of a song about masturbation it's a joke.  It seems to be pretty much deliberate, what do you think?  Would we need a confirmation quote from the band itself?   174.119.113.31 (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Instrumental riff imitates "If My Friends Could See Me Now"?
Talk:Feels Like I'm in Love

message: It's possible this song might have been offered to Elvis to record (still need a source on that), but it is verifiable that he never actually did so as every burp the man did behind a microphone has been catalogued. Bogus info removed. 2604:3D09:1F74:1C00:CD71:97E5:3573:8483 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Bogus info removed
Talk:Indian locomotive class WAP-4

message: --Iball 20:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First article quality assessment 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Indian locomotive class WAP-7 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 10:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: This article is fairly long (12,707 bytes) and no longer qualifies as a stub. Appears to contain almost all necessary information, but lacks enough references. I have changed the class from Stub to C, and added importance (as Low). Please revert/change if you disagree. Jose Mathew C (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Class, Importance Reassessment for Wikiproject Trains
Talk:Few Lights till Night

message: For Fantailfan:
Alright, I have a proposition: instead of just changing the "nonstandard infoboxes" to fit the standards, make two separate Dragon Ash chronologies, one for albums and one for singles. I want you to write out all the necessary code into a text document so you can make these changes all at once; don't just change one or two albums per week. If you're not willing to do this, leave my work alone. Bencze Gyenge 09:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Fight On

message: Does anyone have a source on the WWII claim? Trojan traveler 05:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WWII

message: Does anyone know the copyright status of the song? If it was written in the 20's then it shouldn't be public domain. I'm going to take out the lyrics for now at least (don't think this is an attack since I'm an Notre Dame alum, I did the same to the Notre Dame Victory March page.) Phydend 23:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says in the article that it was composed in 1922.  That's before the 1923 cutoff.  Might want to look into what makes something historic PD a bit more. --Bobak 14:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was mistakenly under the impression that the copyrights were held for a hundred years before going into the public domain, but I see now why I'm wrong. I just want to keep wikipedia out of a copyright battle (I know it likely wouldn't happen, but still it's better to be safe), but I'm glad someone that knew more about this than I did could correct me. Phydend 14:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I came off snarky. --Bobak 21:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyright is a little more complex, the lyrics will have need to be published for copyright to start to take effect, and at the time of publication the law takes effect.  Until the publication date and status is determined the copyright status  is undetermined and cannot be moved to WikiSource. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was created in a competition, thus logically was published at the time of its creation. --Bobak (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lyrics
Talk:Salford Cathedral

message: The plain statement of 'where' Salford is is Greater Manchester - look at the entry for Salford for confirmation of that. You could gloss Lancashire as the historical/traditional county, but that's not really relevant to the opening paragraph, nor really to the article on the Cathedral, rather than the article on Salford itself. This article has several references to Lancashire further down. C0pernicus 20:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've taken out the information added by 82.12.148.20, since it was full of errors (two of the names were wrong and a third was misspelt, for instance; the opening sentence didn't make sense). That kind of information probably isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia entry, in any case. 82.12.148.20, do please check your facts before adding them here! Thanks.
The other material added by 82.12.148.20 isn't really encyclopedia material either, and needs to be trimmed back to the facts. C0pernicus (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Community" 

message: I've removed Archbishop McMahon from the list of clergy. His connection to the diocese is as metropolitan (i.e. as archbishop of Liverpool). He has no connection to the Cathedral. C0pernicus (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clergy 
Talk:Filthy/Gorgeous

message: Scissor Sisters performed this song as the final encore, accompanied by ten foot high clowns to create controversy.
Errr?  Ten foot high clowns are controversial?  Or the song itself is?  Sentence needs rewording/further explanation. --Lode Runner 00:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 
Talk:Centre d'études et de recherches internationales de l'Université de Montréal

message: I changed this from a French language title to an English one in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions but also because as an English encyclopedia, virtually all users/potential users are and will be English speakers who will have no idea what the French language title would mean or be to search. Lionel GM 20:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and it was moved back to the original title after being discussed at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion#Names of Canadian unilingual Francophone universities in English Wikipedia article titles.  --Stéphane Charette 05:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Talk:First We Take Manhattan

message: The explanation of the song's lyrics leaves out the negative effects of the "drugs that keep you thin" on women in the fashion business... 20:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree... AnonMoos (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Subject

message: I just deleted the section "(The German language speech at the beginning and end of Warnes' recording is from a news broadcast about an attack by the Red Army Faction on the German Arab society of West Berlin in 1986.)" since it is simply wrong. The attack had nothing to do with the RAF. It was done by two terrorists from Jordan.
77.188.49.226 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAF 

message: The song is of cabalistic / freemason nature ( you also won´t believe how many songs are, Manson was on the right track with Helter Skelter ). 
The speaker represents the Chosen One of freemasonry. 
The problem is: Western government knew about Chosen in advance ( that´s what Chosen is all about ). 
Chosen Ones are considered terrorists by the Western governmens.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.76.46 (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  You won´t believe it 

message: Isn't the entry about the Warnes vesion a bit SRV-heavy? She barely gets a look in.  I've just watched a Cohen tribute in which she explains why she wanted to do an album of his songs and he paid a tribute to her for staying on as his backing vocalist even though she was bigger than him at the time.  Why isn't any of this on here?  If I'd known I'd have made a try at taking it all down but since this was all archive material it never occurred to me that it might not be on here yet.  Surely someone must have a copy of the original video? --Deke42 (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Jennifer Warnes

message: Apparently, the song was included in the dance movie "A Moving Picture" by Jürgen Lutz which was released in 1989, copyright date 1987. See . This version is available on youtube here. This rendition has a distinct 80's feel to it. ---<)kmk(>- (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Cohen version in a dance movie
Talk:Center for Immigration Studies

message: I attempted twice this week to edit the article to remove from its opening sentence mention of the SPLC's designation of the CIS as a hate group. Both times the edit was reverted (once in seeming violation of the article's page-specific revert limit), so I'll try to explain here why I made the change.
The opening sentence of a Wikipedia article is meant to identify the subject of the article in broad and objective terms. The first part of this article's opening sentence, which characterises the CIS as an "anti-immigration think tank," comes close to that (although it's still an oversimplification, given that the CIS doesn't support eliminating immigration). The second part of the sentence does not. The SPLC is free to consider the CIS a hate group, and it's a sufficiently prominent organisation to justify inclusion of that designation in the article and even in the article's lead section, but it's still an activist group that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources describes as "biased and opinionated." Giving undue weight to a biased and opinionated source by including its judgment of an entity in the opening sentence of that entity's Wikipedia article is inappropriate and compromises Wikipedia's neutrality. Oooooooseven (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence
Talk:Fool to Cry

message: Another fine Keith-on-smack story, but the source () uses user-generated content that does not appear to be stringently checked. The fan site IORR reports this story is undocumented, and probably originates from a sarcastic comment about Richards' opinion of the song, and not a real incident, as reported in books by Barbara Charone and Martin Elliott to the effect of ...
If anyone has access to either of these books, Keith's impression of the song might be worth including in the article.
Removing for now.  / edg ☺ ☭ 14:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keith Richards falling asleep on stage in Germany
Talk:Fools Rush In (1997 film)

message: This is the trivia I removed:
*The film's title is based on part of the song "Fools Rush In (Where Angels Fear to Tread)", written by Johnny Mercer and Rube Bloom and made famous by Frank Sinatra . It was covered by Elvis Presley in 1972. A version of the song performed by UB40 appears in the films trailer.
*The full adage, "Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread" is taken from Alexander Pope's An Essay on Criticism.
*The opening scene of a river valley is not in central Mexico.  It is the Columbia River Gorge on the Oregon-Washington border.
This is why I removed the trivia (see also WP:TRIVIA):
*The first fact is at least half wrong: the UB40 song is actually a cover of Elvis' Can't Help Falling In Love, which is a completely different song, though it does have the "Fools Rush In" lyric in it, and he he did later record the Johnny Mercer song. 
*As for just what the title of the film is based on, I'd like to see a citation for just what the writer (or producers, whoever chose the title) was thinking. The second fact seems related to the need for this reference.
*With enough expansion on production, etc., perhaps the third fact can be incorporated into the text.
Whitejay251 20:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia
Talk:Fools Rush In (Where Angels Fear to Tread)

message: The title of the song comes from “An Essay on Criticism,” by 18th century British poet Alexander Pope.
The song has been recorded by many artists, most notably Frank Sinatra who recorded it twice in the 1940s and again in 1960 for his album Nice 'n Easy, which reached number one on the Billboard album charts.  Ricky Nelson recorded a more rocking version that reached #12 on the singles chart in 1963.  
Elvis Presley recorded a version in 1972 (not to be confused with Elvis' 1961 song "Can't Help Falling in Love," which also features the lyric "Fools Rush In"). 
It can also be heard on the soundtrack for Marie Antoinette, performed by 80s New Wave band Bow Wow Wow.
Where Angels Fear to Tread is the title of a novel by E. M. Forster. 
Where Angels Fear to Tread is the title of an album by Matt Redman.
Bow Wow Wow recorded a version of the song for their 1980 release "Your Cassette Pet".  It was remixed by Kevin Shields for the 2006 film, Marie Antoinette.
Bob Dylan uses the words "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" in his song, "Jokerman".
Rick Nelson also recorded a version of 'Fools Rush In' (1963?) Noted  also for the James Burton Guitar solo. Producer was Jimmy Haskell.
This material can be returned to article when reference sources are supplied.  –Mattisse (Talk) 20:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving unsourced material from article to here 

message: But the best version was Billy Eckstine's version.
Although it was (arguably) the most popular version, it would be opinionated to say so.
adamson (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Best version" 

message: The redirect Fools Rush In(song) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Fools Rush In(song)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:When You Were Mine (Prince song)

message: The Cyndi Lauper and Prince versions should have different pages.75.68.6.81 23:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The general consensus is that different versions of a song can be adequately covered by the same article. GassyGuy 23:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a recent out-standing version of this Prince song covered by Dent May & His Magnificent Ukulele (http://www.myspace.com/dentmay and http://dentmay.blogspot.com/) that is worth noting. PaulSchmitt 02:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate Pages

message: I have removed the speculative clause that Lauper's version alluded to "another woman or a gay/bisexual man", and replaced it with a more objective explanation. Lauper has never elaborated on her reasoning for using the original lyrics, but she has specified that her desire to record the track was because she liked the story the lyrics told, as well as the song's musicality. () Zargabaath 17:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have again amended the Lauper section for the same reason. Just because an artist covers a song by another artist of a different gender and maintains the original pronouns/perspective, does not necessarily change the meaning of the lyrics. It may be interpreted differently by an audience, but an audience's interpretation is totally subjective. For all intents and purposes, Lauper's cover was her singing the song from Prince's perspective, provided that Prince meant it to be from his point of view to begin with. Zargabaath 06:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction to Lauper Version
Talk:For All the Saints

message: "which sound somewhat demure compared with..." - Um, NPOV? Tpacw (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

message: OK, this may sound a little strange to some, but have a listen. It sounds like there is a connection between 'For All the Saints' and Glenn Miller's version of 
Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto. Have a listen with this link...
You can find it on you tube by looking for Miller Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto
Michou 13 (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Try this... 

message: Am I the first to remark that Vaughan Williams' Alleluia is a (slightly altered) quotation of the Angel's Alleluia in Edward Elgar's Dream of Gerontius ("My work is done" )? --Rabanus Flavus (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gerontius
Category talk:Songs about racism and xenophobia

message: Considero que habría que incluir el tema "Strangers" de grupo británicdo The Kinks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsWRfkeCcss  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.159.220 (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Charles Caldwell (bluesman)

message: To put the two Charles Caldwells on an equal footing, I think the page for the other CC should be entitled "Charles Caldwell (U. S. physician)" or something like that. But I haven't figured out how to do that. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. estmere 20:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Talk:From a Buick 6

message: The article claims this song takes some lyrics from "Milk Cow Blues". If it's the bit about the sun going down, that's in Dylan's song "It takes a lot to laugh, it takes a train to cry". Not this one. Reading "Milk Cow Blues"'s lyrics, there's nothing in common with this song. 
188.29.164.136 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics Wrong