Talk:Little Boxes

message: I've removed the song lyric listed as it appear to be copyrighted. --Tsaetre 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As have I, twice now.  PKtm 01:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removed copyrighted lyrics again. —MJBurrage • TALK • 14:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song lyrics 

message: There are three composers by the name of Charlie Barnett listed at IMDb:
# Does anybody know if the two present day film-and-television composers listed on IMDb—Charlie Barnett I and Charlie Barnett III—are related, or are they possibly the same person, with IMDb being in error?
# Is one of them the composer of the orchestral version of “Little Boxes” that was used on Mrs. Botwin's Neighborhood (Weeds episode), or was it Charlie Barnet?
—MJBurrage • TALK • 09:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Orchestral version

message: Why there is no one single word about the negative meaning of the lyrics? In my opinion this is a [Marxist] song that criticizes the middle class values without a solid ethical base. I.e. envy is at the bottom of it. I suppose that Malvina Reynolds was happier when seeing the slums.--Mazarin07 (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the reverse of the medal 

message: I have removed the image because the song has no connection with the location, and is therefore only synthetically associated with the song retrospectively by the inserter.  The location of the image I inserted was referenced in the quote about the origins - we do not know the precise location, only the city, which inspired the song, according to the source who gives the origination: "My mother and father were driving South from San Francisco through Daly City".  Not sure that image is of insufficient quality, but when there is not a more appropriate image, we use the one we can find.  Having an image of the city linked to the song in the article is preferable to one in a different state that has no relationship to the song - which can not be justified. Mish (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An editing conflict has developed over an image that I added to this article.  It is being claimed that the photograph, which shows Levittown, PA, is not appropriate for this article, because that development is not directly connected to the song.  The editor replaced the image with a fuzzy, indistinct image of Daly City.  But the song "Little Boxes" isn't about Daly City, that was merely the inspiration for the song being written.  The song is about "ticky-tacky" suburban housing developements, of which Levittown was a prime and prominent example.  Thus, using the image is not remotely "synthesis" as the editor claims, it is simply an illustration of the song's subject matter.Using Levitttown wasn't my first choice, I looked high and low for an image of the actually hillside houses which inspired the song, which can be seen when driving from San Francisco to SFO, but no images were available.  I then looked at images of Daly City, including the one the editor used, and considered that they were just not strongly evocative of the theme of the song, or, like the one the editor picked, just technically and visually unsuitable.  I finally settled on the Levittown photo because it aptly illustrates the subject matter of the song and is a distinct and visible image which nicely complements the article.I would ask the other editor to stop removing this perfectly good and completely allowable image from the article. "Little Boxes" hasn't survived and remained popular because people like a good song about Daly City, California, it has continued to be popular because it makes a point about a social trend and a certain kind of enviornment.  The image I choice illustrates that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the song is about Daly City--in fact, it was inspired by a car trip Malvina Renolds took (with her family) through Daly City. There are plenty of images--and stories--of the respective area, but most of them, of course, are copyrighted. One would think there is an enterprising editor who lives in the area who would go out and snap a picture of the Westlake district to place it here. But one would be wrong, apparently.  Alex.deWitte (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: There should be a redirect for ticky-tacky to this article, as someone's attempt to construct an independent one has been deleted. Also need some history on the ticky-tacky material--any trademark and/or etymology, etc., where possible. Note that ticky-tacky is in virtually every major dictionary, including the OED, American Heritage, Merriam-Webster, etc. Yet, no one seems to know the history and no association with the song is ever mentioned (except by Telstar Logistics).Alex.deWitte (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirect is  Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ticky-tacky 

message: I came acrss a parody of Little Boxes, and there are others, of course – would a section on parody/parodies of the tune make sense, and/or a few external links to parodies of 'the most sanctimonious song ever written' as Lehrer put it?
Also, while I agree that referring to it as 'satire' is accurate and appropriate, might it also be appropriate and accurate to refer to it in addition as a 'mockery' as a means to accurately and objectively characterize its particular form of satire? In a way that seems to me to capture the character of it as to its particuar form of satire.
Any thoughts? AtomikWeasel (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the difference between "satire" and "mockery"? BMK (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

text: My main concern is that this would become an in popular culture-type section that would attract cruft. If we can keep it fairly tightly controlled and ensure that all entries include sources establishing that they are in some manner significant...maybe, but I'd like to hear from others. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Any parodies should just be mentioned in the popcult section, I don't think they're going to be deserving of a section of their own.  As for "satirical" vs. "mocking": meh. BMK (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible parody section? Possible use of the word 'mockery' in addition to characterization of the tune as 'satire'? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Little Boxes. 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/20100527213443/http://www.sho.com/site/weeds/music.do to http://www.sho.com/site/weeds/music.do
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) 08:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Little Boxes. 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/20071222231203/http://music.homegrownseries.com/?p=5 to http://music.homegrownseries.com/?p=5
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) 19:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I made two minor edits to the entry so as to correct the fact that the existing presentation of statements were non-neutral and clearly biased with respect to a particularly favorable perspective re the merits of the tune, whereas the cites presented included both positive and negative, and ought to have been comparably weighted, neither one perspective nor the other perspective favored in the presentation of the entry. I also shifted a secondary observation re the popularity of the phrase ‘ticky-tacky' to the final, less important position within the section as it did not bear upon the question of critical assessment provided by the cites, and therefore should not be placed between them, as it's fairer and far more neutral to simply juxtapose the two differing critical perspectives presented by the cites and to let them speak for themselves, whereas to place a tangentially related matter as to popular use of a phrase objectively diminishes the comparison and therefore shifts the balance away from neutral presentation, favoring the first view presented, diminishing the second view, with no objective reason provided for that subjective skew.
I presented those edits fairly and in good faith, and presented my reasoning in the edit summary.
Beyond My Ken reverted, simply saying ‘better before’, with no further explanation, clarification, or justification.
This seems to me extremely subjective, if not simply capricious, and therefore clearly unreasonable, and I would ask for other opinions on this, as what matters here is fair, accurate, neutral presentation per Wikipedia criteria.
It seems important to me that critical assessments of the worth of the tune in question be presented simply, fairly, neutrally, per the cites provided, rather than reflecting any preference as to merit of the tune with no justification presented other  than ‘better before’, a quintessentially subjective preference.
WP is not meant to pander to any particular subjective preference – but to fairly, accurately, and neutrally present the information from the cites available.
AtomikWeasel (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'll say that "perhaps less favorably" is pretty wishy-washy language that doesn't, IMO meet the WP:TONE we should be striving for. It also implies that we do feel the view is less favorable but are trying to couch it in uncertainty. The original statement appears, to me, to be a more clear statement of the situation without expressed or implied perspective on it. But this is a bit TL;DR for me personally right now. DonIago (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree that that's a fair point. I have difficulty, though, with the fact that at present the statement about the popularity of the phrase 'ticky-tacky' is placed immediately after a positive critical quote, and seems to me, therefore, to effectively reduce the quote from Tom Lehrer, a very well-known satirist of that time, which is negative. Might it make sense to simply lose the 'perhaps less favorably' language, and shift the Tom Lehrer critical quote to immediately follow the professer's positive quote, and then simply place the statement about the popularity of the phrase 'ticky-tacky' at the end. A possible simple fix? AtomikWeasel (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me. Positive critique followed by an "on the other hand" statement, and the bit about ticky-tacky can stand on its own, especially given that Lehrer's criticism is related to the song entire, not that particular phrasing. DonIago (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then, I'll just let this sit for a few days, I guess, to see if anyone else disagrees or has other thoughts, and if there are no differences I'll make the change as we discussed in a few days. AtomikWeasel (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, just posted these changes as per discussion. AtomikWeasel (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entry Should Present Fair, Accurate, Neutral Presentation of Critical Opinions, Not Reflect Any Particular Editor or Editors Personal Judgement or Assessment