Talk:Karma Police/Archive 1

Genre
Can we not label a track from one of the most notable ALT ROCK albums of all time as "art rock"?

Because if we must, it'd be better we have no genre here whatsoever. I think it's strange when people call Radiohead "art rock" or albums like Kid A "post rock" but citations or otherwise, these labels don't apply to OK Computer. 72.208.101.200 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Covers?
We should have a covers section, this is great:
 * Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7Xt4ObtKas
 * story https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/546573191/karma-police-meets-the-east/posts

Samfreed (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Key
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "A Dorian" is a mode, not a key. Attys (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No Chorus
"The structure of the song is unconventional in that it has nothing resembling a typical chorus".

Actually, the song follows a completely typical 2 verse into chorus structure. The chorus clearly begins with the line "This is what you'll get".

Sexy Sadie reference
The chord progression is actually not very similar to sexy sadie. Karma starts on amin-d/f#-e min sexy sadie is G-F#-b min, not even one chord relates, I think these references are crackpot and should be thrown out.--Justhangin (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They are the same--somewhat, the "this is what you'll get" and "she made a fool of everyone" both have C, D, G, F#. Saebjorn 03:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Film
I just stumbled upon this by sheer chance... http://www.karmapolicemovie.com/

Is it related? Worth mentionning? Worth making a new article for? Toyboxmonster (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)toyboxmonster

Fair use rationale for Image:KarmaPolice.jpg
Image:KarmaPolice.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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) 22:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KarmaPolice.jpg
Image:KarmaPolice.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK
If the article is not suited to Wikipedia, fair enough. I have no problems with its removal. Cheers,

~Chandan

opinion
bad way to start an article:

"Karma Police" was the second single from Radiohead's acclaimed 1997 album OK Computer, and is perhaps Radiohead's best known hit worldwide, apart from "Creep."

Rationale for Removal
I removed the essay for the article. In my opinion, everything in the essay falls into one of these three categories: 1) No original research - although mentioned (and subsequently dismissed) above, this is relevant. From the link: "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source," ie, anything (researched or not) that has not been published in a reputable source would fall under this policy. 2) Neutral point of view - many parts of this essay are not universally accepted truths, even amongst Radiohead fans. What is presented is an interpretation of Karma Police, not the interpretation of Karma Police. In this respect, the editor's POV on this issue is very clear. 3) Verifiability - since the editor, in the editor's words, simply "sat down and wrote" this, much of this essay can't really be verified. For example, a similar explanation of the song, constructed from interviews with, for example, Thom Yorke, would likely be very acceptable.

If the editor that added this is still hanging around, then they are welcome to point out how I am misunderstanding things here. It seems to me like this is violating policy on multiple levels, however, and I don't a appear to be alone in thinking that. --EdisonLBM 21:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

POV
It's a biased analysis by one person, it even credits and names that person. Skinnyweed 18:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Not copyright violation
I assure you I that have written the Karma Police article myself. The Google result is a from my page on a peer networking/blogging website, where I had uploaded the article some time ago.


 * Unfortunately, it still violates No original research. --Qviri (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not research. It is not of an academic nature. I did not do research to develop the article, I just sat down and wrote it. The only way in which it is different from other Wikipedia entries, it seems to me, is its length.

Recent copyvio
Unfortunately, the large revamp of the page seems to be a huge copyright violation from another source. I found the source merely be selecting some of the text and dropping it right into Google (a typically manner of checking for copyvio). This is what came up: Google's cache of the page, as I can't get the original to open. Folkor 08:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

original research
this article is filled with it, gets some sources up or i will start hacking away at this article, especially the refrence to 1984..that connection is weak at best, ive read 1984 about 10 times and never has radiohead come to mind and vice versaKas0809 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Song and Music Video Opinion
I watch the music video for this song multiple times. The video is a great work of art and I play it over and over again. Every time I watch this video as a patriotic American I imagine and dream that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is tied to the hood of this car for the entire video and I am sure many other patriotic Americans dream and imagine the exact same thing when they watch this great music video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vic20usa (talk • contribs) 13:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

B-sides
Just curious about why the “Climbing Up the Walls” mixes aren’t included in the info box. Are they not considered B-sides since they’re mixes of a song that’s on the album? FicusElastica2 (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)