Jump to content

Talk:Benny Bell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Dr. Demento has sung customized versions of the song on his show a number of times... AnonMoos 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bbel.jpg

[edit]

Image:Bbel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Explanation of Shaving Cream

[edit]

This article goes out of its way to use silly, unencyclopedic language like 'a certain word' in lieu of professionally and clearly stating the word 'shit'. Since wikipedia has no censorship policy, I think this article should be as clear as it can. I made the change, but it has been reverted hostily (the second time, not the first) despite my request to discuss this on the talk page. Since the user was apparently too lazy or self-righteous to honor my request, I'm starting this discussion. Does anyone see any reason that we shouldn't make this article clearer and eliminate the unencyclopedic prose? (I don't expect a lot of people watch this, but who knows) Luminifer (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since [Shaving Cream (song)] exists, I propose we remove all of the redundant info and just link to that article. I'll do that since that can't be controversial. (and FYI the word 'shit' is already in that article). Luminifer (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but this still is pretty unprofessional writing: "Take a Ship for Yourself" in which he suggestively pronounced the word "ship" so it sounds like a similar rude word. Thoughts? Luminifer (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained on your talk page, the my main reason for reverting was I saw another person had reverted your first change (in what I presumed was an objection), and you seemed to be ordering him to allow your change to stand until it was discussed. That's the opposite of the way it should work, and so I objected and reverted to make a point. But after doing that, I went to your talk page to say more about it, and found the other user had already posted on your page, saying he made an error, and didn't intend to revert. I'm not sure if "too lazy or self-righteous" is directed at him or me, since neither of us apparently reverted because of the content of your edit (primarily). Since my beef was a disagreement over editing practices, rather than the article, I thought it was appropriate to address it on your own talk page, instead of giving it a public airing on the article's talk page. (And by the way, it's not really a big deal, I'm just saying it again here because it sounds like you still don't understand why I reverted you.)
I responded, asking you to show me where "the way it is supposed to work" as you describe it is stated in WP. Could you please do that? Luminifer (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I didn't understand, because you complained before that I said something that implied you were not an experienced user at Wikipedia, and surely this is the widely accepted practice, aside from just being commen sense? Help:Reverting says "If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change." I would think there is also advice against breaking up another person's post in several places, instead of replying after the post. Surely this is all new-user stuff? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to take the tone of your response - it seems very condescending, and inappopriate for this forum. Is there any other way to take it? Luminifer (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not sure if you're just putting me on! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, as to the issue of "the word", I do think that since Bell never actually said it, we are not going against Wikipedia's anti-censorship rule to avoid mentioning it in the article. If this were a different kind of blue singer who routinely used explicit language, that would be a different story. I'm sure George Carlin's article spells out the seven words you can't say on television. But since Bell's song, and indeed his whole body of work, has to do with staying "nice and clean" and never saying a rude word explicitly, I thought it was rather clever that his article does the same. I'm sure he has descendants who might feel uncomfortable looking up Grandpa Benny's Wikipedia article and finding it peppered with the word he never actually said. I also realize that since he's not living, BLP rules don't apply. But even so, I'm struck by the idea that it was a nice gesture and/or clever idea to work around the word, as Bell did. I might also take the opposite track from you regarding what should or should not be in a Wikipedia article, by asking: why is explcitly stating the word that listeners thought he was going to say, necessary to explain the song, and how does the word's omission hinder the explanation? Also, you changed "rude word" to "obscene word"; isn't "obscene" much more POV? (And prudish, as an accusation? It is, after all, a legal term, and therefore suggests it's a criminally offensive word. I think "rude" is more neutral.)
Wikipedia is not the place for articles to be artsy and clever, unless I am considerably misunderstanding the point of it. I thought clear and concise was the way to go - and whoever wrote the article for the song itself agreed with me. Rude is a much more subjective word, according to the dictionary (" offensive in manner or action "), while obscene is used in American law, which is does not mean it is neutral, but implies some thought that it is an exact definition. If you have a word better than either of these, feel free to put it in. In the case of describing the technique of implying the rhyme itself, it makes sense to be vague. In the case where you can describe the word it rhymes with, by not including it you are assuming a lot about your readership (for once, that English is their first language). Luminifer (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who thinks the word is obscene, in a legal sense? Has anyone ever been arrested for using it? (I do know there are some famous cases of people being arrested for using the f-word in public, but never heard of it for this one, so I thought it was too strong of a label.) It seems like circular logic to say the article calls for a non-vague labelling of the word that is not actually used in the song, and therefore, the usage of the word itself is vague. Let's face it, the song is "rude" in its suggestiveness, but it's not explicit, and therefore not relavant to a discussion of obscenity. I can't imagine any radio station getting fined for playing it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe obscene is wrong too; I don't find the word to be particularly rude. If you google "fined for broadcasting "shit"", you can find some sources, though I don't know how dubious they are. The point is to communicate the inappropriateness of the word that the listener is supposed to predict is there - in specific cases where it's a specific word, I think we should state it (to avoid ambiguity). When describing the technique, we do need to find a better word to describe it. Luminifer (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the other information you removed, I believe the explanation of the Paul Wynn / Winston version is needed to explain why another singer's version appears on Bell's albums (in fact, I don't know if I've ever actually heard the real Benny Bell version); the Winston version is the one used on the Vanguard album, and later editions of the album state this on the cover. Also, it's a fact of the song's history, and inserts a factoid that Bell used his private record label to release records by people other than himself. The substitution is mentioned in the Roland Smith book used as a reference, and I can change that into a citation if you like. (BTW, I did some improvements on the article, but I didn't create it, and I believe this info about Winston was already in the article originally.) As for the mention of the Fabulous Five and Dr. Demento cover versions, I think they are helpful for establishing notability. There is no article on the Fabulous Five on Wikipedia, but if you want proof the record exists, somebody made a video of it being played on a turntable at YouTube (there are a lot of YouTube videos like that, strangely enough), which of course we can't point to from our article for copyright reasons! (How are we gonna deal with that?) In fact I think there is also a YouTube video of Dr. Demento singing the song live (without Bell, but Bell and Demento did sing the song in a duet on stage, and that version appeared on record after it appeared on his radio show). Hope that's enough info to explain why these things were in the article. Do you agree they belong, and if so, what can be done (citation-wise) to get them back in? Or are there other issues? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of that information is on the page for the song itself. This page links to that page, so I don't see any point in including it twice. Luminifer (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the song's article isn't on my watchlist, so I didn't look for material moved over there. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So really you don't have an issue with any of my changes, and ignored the text I put in the comment that said "moved material over to the song's article"? Luminifer (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have issue with some of your changes; this page is full of them. I really don't like getting into circular arguments just for the sake of arguing. Maybe you should find someone else to argue with, if that's what you're here for. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. I made a change to the page, you reverted it, I started a discussion. The only change that I've made to the page as it last stood was removing redundant information (which you didn't even notice was redundant, and accused me of outright removing despite it being very clear in my comment), substituting one word for another, and generalizing the text. How this talk can be "full of " the issues you have with my minor changes is a mystery to me, and most of them seem to pertain to something that I did not end up adding to the page at all. You've been accusing me of a lot of things in the various discussions I've been having with you, while I have been trying to stick to the subject matter. I would like nothing more than for this discussion to end. Luminifer (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the meta-discussion above has cooled off, I have gone ahead and uncensored the article. jnestorius(talk) 16:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Benny Bell. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benny_Bell&oldid=1199801955"