Talk:Serge Gainsbourg

message: I don't think that's true. As far as I have learned, Sacha Distel is the only person to have released this song. The person who added this info may have been mistaken - Dionne Warwick and Sacha Distel performed one song together at the Olympia in 1965 (released as "Dionne Warwick in Paris" - see http://www.ccmusic.com/item.cfm?itemid=CCM07562). They sang "Oh, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah".
Unfortunately, this "trivia" has propogated all over - answers.com, reference.com, discogs.com, praff.blogspot.com.
If the information is true, some more details would be important - is a B-side of a single, was it perfomed live only, what album is it on...
Until then, I would treat this as false.
Thank you,
--Designwallah 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the trivia "The first English-language version of a Gainsbourg song was Dionne Warwick's 1965 version of "Mamadou"" 

message: A user has submitted the following concluding sentence to the lead paragraph:
:"He is ranked at number 62 in a list of the top 100 most influential musicians." Source:100人の偉大なアーティスト - No. 62 
I submit that the sentence has no place in the lead, HMV Japan's top 100 ranking by x is not relevant to bio of SG, and not the type of "article source written by reliable third parties or found in publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" this biographical article should rely on.
What is the consensus on this sentence and this source? I'd like to see it omitted but having previously removed it but can't make any further changes to this, at the threat of action from an anonymous contributor. MURGH disc. 00:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you go remove similar information from similar articles? Why is this type of information acceptable for musicians such as AC/DC, Blondie, or Jimi Hendrix, ect?
If this information should be removed, then the information for those musicians (and all other musicians with similar information) should be removed.
By the way, thank you for using the talk page. 219.90.173.141 02:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As for your argument -- see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And see WP:RSUE... sources not in English are greatly discouraged. Gscshoyru 02:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are over-emphasising. It does not say it is "greatly discouraged" it says that an English source is preferred, assuming that there is one. That does not mean this information is not valid, nor does it say it should be removed. You also fail to mention why similar information on similar articles is acceptable. 219.90.167.51 03:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said similar information in other articles is acceptable or not. You cannot assume I am aware of everything, and can remove the information from all those articles -- that's what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explains. Also, what you're adding is not notable, as inclusion in some random top 100 list is not notable, unless the list is notable, and I see no reason why it is (prove me wrong, if I am, as I could be). And finally, your source is not verifiable, and a better source probably does exist as from your wiki-link, HMV seems to be an English company. Finally, your accusations of vandalism and 3RR violations are unwarranted and nasty -- I have not violated the 3RR, as it takes four reverts to do so, nor have I vandalized the article. And see WP:BRD -- you're the one who should be using the talk page -- you made a change, it was reverted, so you discuss till you come to consensus -- you don't keep re-adding the information when multiple editors oppose you, especially in violation of the WP:3RR as you have done. Gscshoyru 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  The article was a collaboration from all major record labels, and many industry professionals, from around the world. How can you say the source is not verifiable? It is provided by HMV from their own website, one of the most reputable names in the music industry. Serge Gainsbourg is often mentioned by many musicians as an influence. This information contributes to the article, and you provide no reason why it should be removed. 219.90.167.51 03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can I say the source is not verifiable? It's not in English. Since the company that made it is English, an English source must exists -- one on their own site, maybe. Nor do I think that a top 100 list made by this company is notable. Any company can make a top 100 list of anything and publish it, what's so special about the company so that their knowledge is truly notable in this field? Gscshoyru 03:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: They have an English-half of their website... perhaps you should try finding it there. And I still don't see why a record company's top 100 list is notable, and I find the statement that they are the largest music retailer in the world preposterous. Back up your claims, please, with refs. Gscshoyru 04:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The Wikipedia does not require sources to be in written English. There is no difference if the source is written in English or Japanese, or any other language. The source clearly states Serge Gainsbourg is listed at number 62 in a list of influential musicians. I don't care if you think the statement that HMV is the largest music retailer in the world is "preposterous" because it is a fact http://www.superbrands-brands.com/volII/brand_hmv.htm furthermore HMV Japan is the worlds largest online music retailer. Your reasons are childish and pathetic! 122.49.133.159 05:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding lead paragraph "top 100 ranking"

message: Isn't there any fair use picture of Gainsbourg? It shouldn't be that hard to find, no? 196.12.206.198 08:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: It seems there is a trouble with the references which appear with html code... Ecureuil espagnol (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it wasn't html code, it was a huge bulk of text opened as reference that wasn't closed with </ref>. MURGH disc. 11:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Please expand section on film work. IMDB.com lists Gainsbourg as director of ten films and actor in 47 -- IMHO worth a little more mention than currently in article. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Please expand section on film work.

message: I can not respect Mezigue's point of view, who proposed to remove any mention of Gainsbourg and Birkin being married. This misconception has been mentioned by many reliable sources (see  for just five of them). In addition there is a reliable source, that mentions this misconception specifically as an incorrect rumor (see ). I think both articles (Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin) should mention this. I like the wording of this edit, but the wording I use here, coupled with the additional source, could also be used. Your opinions? Debresser (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the point of having a discussion about it is to come to a consensus before changing it, but you have gone ahead with the change again despite opposition from other editors before restarting the discussion.  This is really not a constructive approach.  To the point now: the problem with your version, which you were already arguing for last June, is that it tries to strike a balance between things that are not equal in value at all.  On the one hand, people who are best informed, namely their child, and Gainsbourg's approved biographer who had access to the family archives, on the other hand, profile jobs mostly in the English press, probably researched by reading other profiles.  As I already explained above, if Wikipedia were to catalogue newspaper mistakes, there would be no end to it.  But the current version is in my opinion particularly unacceptable because it makes it sound like a controversial issue in which Charlotte G is the minority voice, which is completely ridiculous.  Mezigue (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The specific text can be rewritten. The main point is that you can not remove sourced information from Wikipedia. Even if it is incorrect. The way to handle these situations is to say "It is claimed that X, but source such-and-such proves that notX". Please note that you already have more than one warning on your talkpage for removing sourced information. That indicates to me, that perhaps you do not understand this rule. Debresser (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because you made it up: there is no such rule. You absolutely CAN remove sourced information from Wikipedia, especially if it is incorrect, but also if it is irrelevant or inappropriate, or the sources are not of sufficient quality.  Common sense prevails.  The warnings from my page prove if anything that you are not the only editor fond of resorting to random warnings rather than arguments.  I note that you have a history of being blocked, so bringing this up is extraordinarily cheeky of you. Mezigue (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Common sense is always the basis for Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Which is why Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight takes my point of view here. Common sense dictates that a view which is held by many, and which has been published in reliable sources not only may but even should be mentioned. Your edit-warring here, even without violating the 3-revert-rule, was in flagrant disregard of Wikipedia guidelines and your removal of sourced information borders on the irresponsible. Anyway, now that this issue has been cleared, I have no problem if you'd like to propose a rewrite of the text, preserving the notable and reliably sourced opinions that Gainsbourg and Birkin were married. Debresser (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense to mention that they were commonly thought to be married but weren't, we have sources for that including statements by Charlotte, Jane Birkin, and Jane Birkin's agent (see our article, Jane Birkin and Talk:Jane Birkin). Fences&Windows 19:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuation 

message: The movie "Gainsbourg Vie Heroique" should be included in the article with an external link at the bottom to the official site http://www.gainsbourg-lefilm.com/joann-sfar/index.php. It is a French film in post-production, slated for a 2010 release in France, but it is, primarily, biographical in nature and so I think it should have a passing mention. I'd like to write it up, just checking beforehand to see if anyone objects to the inclusion. Kurtskitten (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. So, what header would you suggest? Debresser (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gainsbourg Vie Heroique 

message: There seems to be some widespread confusion as to whether Serge Gainsbourg married Jane Birkin.  A number of online sources (all in English) mention such a marriage.  Some others talk of their relationship.  NO source I could find in French says anything about a marriage however, and the two lived together and were mostly famous in France.  Given that Gainsbourg's biographies also say nothing of a marriage, including the official and extensive one by Gilles Verlant to which all parties concerned and their families collaborated, and written with access to the family archives, I think it is safe to conclude here that the numerous articles mentioning their marriage are either poorly researched or are using it as a euphemism for a long-term relationship which produced a child. Mezigue (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you notice the section above that addresses this issue? In view of all the confusion about this, what we usually do on Wikipedia is mention sources from both opinions. In other words, we could say something like "Source such-and-such says they were married (reference to that source), while biography source such-and-the-other doen't mention a marriage." I'll wait for you reaction to this proposal, and if you agree, I'll make up a draft. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

text: There are sources online in English, and French ones from France, that say both; some sources state married, some say they were strictly lovers. Straight from the horse's mouth, Jane Birkin said in a Vanity Fair article that they never legally married: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/11/gainsbourg200711?mobify=0#gotopage2
I guess unless someone can find legal evidence of a marriage or divorce, then Birkin's statement could be used as the main source on that point.
OttawaAC (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with Jane Birkin (redux) 

message: I removed this contentious claim
"His legacy has been firmly established, and he is often regarded as one of the world's most influential popular musicians.http://www.hmv.co.jp/news/newsDetail.asp?newsnum=304080038" 
from the article as the citation is in Japanese, from an HMV website. If that is the best source this rather grand claim can muster, we must tend not to believe the claim. If he really is "one of the world's most influential popular musicians", we should surely be able to find some reputable English language sources to support this.86.148.49.157 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contentious claim 

message: Germany's General Paulus never had a grand daughter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.76.188 (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source that can prove this (or disprove teh grandaughter claim rather)?Meatsgains (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Paulus' grand daughter LOL 

message: I am French and just watched a video of this interview. I suppressed the sentence "Ringer scolded back, "Look at you, you're just a bitter old alcoholic. I used to admire you but these days you've become a disgusting old parasite" because that's in no way what she responds. First she is being very vague and then she asserts that, when she was young, everyone around her used to describe him (Gainsbourg), as filthy, unshaven, thus hardly showing any past admiration. She never refers to him as a "parasite".
I also remplaced the word "shouted" by "declared" because Gainsbourg is really not screaming at all. He is actually being closer to whispering.
I didn't bother changing the source, it's probably factually right anyway and this would have been a misinterpretation. 
If anyone would like to check, here is a link to a video that's got English subtitles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzyK7dPXE7M.
Peace.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.162.138.46 (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot use Youtube because it is not a reliable source. The newspaper citation is a reliable source however. As for "declared" or "shouted", the newspaper says "spat", so if you want to change this to "declared" I won't object. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm French too and I confirm that the transcription is wrong. The source is not "Youtube", it is the TV sequence itself. You can't say that a newspaper is most reliable than the primary source. These subtitles are not reliable, but what they say is (I presume the first comment gave an English-subtitled video to allow everyone to understand, not as a proof). Ringer doesn't say alcoholic nor parasite. She says Gainsbourg is dirty, stinks and that nobody understand him when he speaks. --Kappalambda (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ringer 

message: I don't see a discography section.  All those unrelated factoids listed at the bottom of the article should be referenced and moved into the text. This article is a disaster. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: The phrase "This would become Confidentiel, which exuded a modern jazz aesthetic that pleased Gainsbourg" does not really make sense. 'Aesthetic' is to do with sights, not sounds.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.9.13.133 (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't.  It refers to artistic tastes and so on. The term is perfectly correct here. Mezigue (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect term 

message: Although I can provide no linking information, I saw and heard serge gainsbourg on French television a few years before he died, where he received a huge box full of
his favourite gitane cigarettes from the station, say that his mother and sisters had died in a concentration camp and his only living relative at the end of the
war was his broken down father, while breaking into tears ( all on national television )., on your page and almost everywhere else is stated that they
survived. I have not been able to find anything about that or that evening show anywhere on the internet. I will never forget it.62.97.164.182 (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serge Gainsbourg's mother and sisters, incorrect entry 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Serge Gainsbourg. 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/20091125203322/http://www.universalmusic.fr/artiste/serge--gainsbourg to http://www.universalmusic.fr/artiste/serge--gainsbourg/
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) 01:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Serge Gainsbourg par Claude Truong-Ngoc 1981.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 6, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-10-06. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 12:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD 

message: I understand the desire of some people to turn his parents into Ukrainian immigrants, but no, in pre-revolutionary times, Crimea had nothing to do with Ukraine and those living in Feodosia until the 50s were perceived as citizens of Russia in any sense. At the same time, his mother was a Russified Odessa Jewess, so in this case it is also incorrect to call her a Russian Jew. Therefore, given the roots of his father, I left the third version in the article with "Jewish emigrants of Turkish, Russian and Ukrainian origin." In my opinion, this is the most accurate and devoid of the potential for disputes version. Especially when the French wikipedia follows the same approach in the original article in French, where you can also find more details (I still have some doubts after learning the French discussion, but ok). Solaire the knight (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempts to rewrite Serge's origins