Talk:La La (song)/Archive 1

This is not an encyclopedia article on a song. It's a review of the song, which is POV and does not belong in an encyclopedia. RickK 20:11, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Then list it on VfD, Rick. I don't know what your problem is. I don't claim my writing is perfect, and I intend to expand the article, but I think it's fairly good just the way it is. Everyking 21:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious vandalism, and so didn't warrant a revert IMHO. --Rebroad 23:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Plus, it's a stub, so it's not as if it needs cutting down in size yet :) --Rebroad 23:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say the article needed to be deleted, I said the article needed to be cleaned up. It isn't a VfD-worthy article. But it DOES need cleaning up to remove the POV wording. And Rebroard, your trolling is starting to get on my nerves. Which is probably your purpose. RickK 00:04, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Rick, what wording seems POV to you? Everyking 02:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with RickK. Some of the phrases that makes this sound like a review are: "the most energetic", "humorous", "(it could also be compared to the Smashing Pumpkins' 1996 video for their song "1979")". WonderWoman 04:03, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Did you get an account just to complain about this article? Are you a sockpuppet? It is the most energetic song on the album, nobody would dispute this. If I cited some source saying this, people would bitch at me for overquoting and overciting, like they are now on FAC. Moreover, I ain't saying it'd be funny to everybody under the sun, I'm just trying to characterize it properly, and "humorous" seems appropriate for that. What sort of wording should I substitute, WonderWoman? Did you watch the show? And it can be compared to the Pumpkins video; they are basically the same thing, crazy teenagers running around town, partying and getting into mischief. It's a guideline that you're supposed to draw reasonable comparisons like that, actually. Everyking 05:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend you. I'm not complaining.  After I read the article, the language and writing gave me the impression of a review.  Since RickK and I appeared to have gotten the same impression, I thought I would help by telling what parts of the language and writing gave the review-like impression.  The way some sentences are written such as the use of adjectives, characterization and comparison come off like a review to some users rather than an encyclopedia article.  Listing it on cleanup can help bring in other users, who gets the same review-like impression, to collaborate on fixing some of the sentences. WonderWoman 06:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * One does not list a page like this on cleanup, it's absurd. It's a reasonable, well-cited, factual article that two people think somehow sounds like a review (positive or negative? beats me). If you want to work on the article, feel free to do so, provided you avoid the RickK approach. Everyking 06:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That is certainly your opinion, but why not actually LEAVE it on Cleanup for a day or so and see if somebody, who is not currently involved in this, finds a middle path for us? Are your words so carved into stone that they don't stand a chance of being edited?  RickK 06:47, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * We stand a much better chance of finding a middle path if you just tell me what you find objectionable. Everyking 06:50, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think my edit explains what I find objectionable. The language is not the language of an ENCYCLOPEDIA article, but of a fan page.  RickK 06:56, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * What in particular? Quote the article and bold what's objectionable, something like that. The fact I called the song "energetic"? The "energy and charm" thing? I said I'd get a cite for that, I'm thinking about using the BBC album review, but you aren't giving me the time to think and do the proper research. Everyking 07:03, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Your deletion of the Cleanup header and removal of the listing from the Cleanup page is what precipiated this. If you had left them there, then I wouldn't even have been editing this page.  But you insisted on deleting them, and so I began editing.  If you want time to think and do the proper research, leave this on Cleanup.  RickK 07:05, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * No way, that's nothing but an insult. You know good and well this isn't cleanup material. It's well-written, reasonably neutral and cited. Also, maybe I could address your complaints myself if you'd just tell me what they are. Who are you going to find on Cleanup who knows as much about this song as me? Everyking 07:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think using reviews for your source information could explain the review-like language of the article. Entertainment reviews are inherently pov - the person writing the review. WonderWoman 07:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've listed this on Requests for comment. Everyking, if your behavior continues, I will list this on requests for protection. RickK 06:32, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * My behavior? Rick, you're a sysop and you're vandalizing an article, and abusing rollback to do it. That's unacceptable, and I won't let you do it. You have done next to nothing to explain your problems with the article, yet you continue trying to impose your will. Everyking 06:37, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've now listed it on Requests for page protection. RickK 06:50, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see anything really POV here, and I don't see anything that requires massive cleanup. It's true that some of the language is a little fansite-ish, why not leave the cleanup tag? No reason to delete whole paragraphs though. This leaves the question: is this really important enough to justify protection and even an edit war over text on WP:RFC? Rhobite 07:14, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a waste of time and effort for people looking for genuine cleanup material to have to read over this, and I take personal offense at having a perfectly legitimate article I've written listed there. I've never seen anything like it as long as I've been here. All he has to do is tell me what his specific complaint(s) is (are), but he won't. He just persists in this bizarre edit warring on two different pages. Everyking 07:22, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the big bad POV in what RickK is deleting either. If either everybody agrees with an assessment, or if a not-universal opinion is attributed, then there is no POV problem. Remember, that's "Neutral Point of View", not "No Points of View". Stan 07:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have a question. Why does one song from one album by a random pop star deserve an entire (and rather lengthy) article? Shouldn't something like this go on the album's page? Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 08:49, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, because the album page is already filled to maximum capacity. Everyking 09:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Please define "maximum capacity". There are much, much longer articles on Wikipedia. This could easily be put on that page. So I ask again, why does this have its own article? Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 09:27, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are longer articles, but there aren't really supposed to be. It's a guideline that you don't let an article grow past 32KB (unless it's a list), and Autobiography (album) is at that size now. Everyking 09:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Guideline, not a hard rule.
 * Hey, tell you what, if it bothers you that much I'll go do some snipping at the main article, merge this one with it, and make this a redirect. I'll go do that right now actually. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 09:50, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd really hate to see you do all that work for nothing. Everyking 09:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Starting a revert war is something extremely unbecoming of an admin. You have absoloutely no reason for reverting my changes. I'm trying to make an article that is WAY too huge smaller so all of the necessary and relevant information can fit into it and you're actively going against me on that. Why? I know you're a fanboy, but isn't this taking it a bit too far? Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 10:03, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * It would be extremely unbecoming of me as a Wikipedian to let you remove good information. Everyking 10:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I removed nothing. The article does not need a 17 week playbook of chart positions and album sales. I summarized the information in an attempt to make it easier to read as well as to save space. It's superfluous and as you said, the article is huge. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 10:08, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does need that. It's very important information. Everyking 10:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm with Everyking on this point too, and I'm not a fan of whoever this singer is. If there is a rule on when song information is "too detailed", let's see it. I can assure you that we have biological info that is far more obscure and unimportant than week-by-week chart positions, because I've added some of it. :-) Also, just because the guidelines allow 32K articles, please don't do that; long articles are reader-unfriendly; slow to load, slow to read, hard to find a specific topic. Individual songs in albums is a completely logical division point. Stan 17:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Responding to Request for Comment My $0.02 I dunno nuttin' about the subject at hand, but the present article as I write this, this revision, looks OK to me. The point of view issues are no more serious than in any good article about a piece of artistic material, writing, music, or whatever. You can't say anything meaningful about a work of art without expressing some kind of opinion; all you can do is to try to express opinions that can be backed up with facts, and that are fairly representative of the mainstream range of opinion. The phrase "La La is the most energetic, rock-oriented song on the album" is descriptive, and I think it is likely that that it is fairly objective and that other listeners familiar with the genre would agree. This is not the same as saying that what's-her-name is the most energetic singer in rock or anything like that. It's not an encomium, it's a comparative statement about the tracks on the album. As for breaking this out into a separate article, unevenness of coverage goes with the Wikipedia territory. I've never heard of Ashlee Simpson, I don't like this kind of music, and I probably wouldn't like the song if I've heard of it, but the article appears to be the result of reasonably hard work and reasonably careful research. And I think the Ashlee Simpson article is long enough, and this article itself is long enough, to justify breakout as a separate article.

Now, of course, I am the primary contributor to a couple of articles about individual songs myself (I'm Henery the Eighth, I Am and That's Amore), so I do have a bias... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 04:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts, and thanks for noticing the hard work and reasonably careful research that went into the article. Actually, the article we're having the dispute about breaking out content from is Autobiography (album), not Ashlee Simpson. My opinion is that there's no reason we shouldn't talk about the album in a fair degree of detail, and if that means it gets to 32 KB and we have to move some detail to singles articles, that's fine. Other people seem to disagree with me, and I think it may have something to do with the subject matter rather than mere principle, but I'm not sure. Everyking 05:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If anybody's editing is being influenced by the subject matter, it is yours. Place blame where blame is deserved, and don't make it out like you are pristine and unbiased on this matter. May I remind you of a particularly mature statement on your part, "i'll revert you till doomsday"? Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 05:03, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * May I remind you that I said that in response to an attempt to remove correct information on the album's sales and chart positions? And yes, I would say, not to give myself too much credit, that I am being more or less unbiased here. If my writing is biased, and it is of course possible, nobody has demonstrated to me how by citing a specific example. Everyking 05:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You seem fond of pop stars in general, which is where much of your bias comes from. This much was evident to me when you gushed over a certain User:Hilary Duff because you believed it was truly them.
 * And you seem to forget that I was not removing anything. I was condensing the information and making it more palatable and relevant to the audience. The audience is one thing you seem to be forgetting about. Right now the page reads like a magazine article at best, and any attempt that has been made to change this has been thoroughly rejected by you. While I admit it's tempting to get you banned *again* for violating the 3rr (since you seem unable to resist the temptation to revert changes to the page) and perhaps even de-admined for unbanning yourself *again*, I've got a whole host of better things to do with my time.
 * What you are asking for is hardly a compromise, as you're still wholeheartedly rejecting the opinions and desires of myself as well as other users. Perhaps when you are truly willing to compromise I will listen. When and if that time comes, feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Until then, I won't bother. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 05:37, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, Reene, you can't get me blocked for violating the three revert rule unless you also violate it, in which case you'll also be blocked. I won't unblock myself again, I'll make that solemn pledge. I'll depend on the kindness of strangers. Truth be told, I am the only one prominent in this strange conflict who has remained basically civil throughout it; Hemanshu did the most outrageous thing by blocking me initially (for which he should be desysoped, and I have confidence that we will eventually improve our policies to enable that if he continues such behavior), and then Snowspinner committed a somewhat lesser sin by briefly blocking me again; you have been absolutely full of contempt for me and my writing, utterly unwilling to compromise, and have demonstrated not a shred of civility; Gentgeen called my article a "fanpage" and listed it on cleanup. Moreover, while others have engaged in petty sniping and guerrilla tactics, I've been proposing compromises on the talk pages and trying to rebuild bridges. And where has it gotten me? You are still full of contempt, insulting and threatening me. If you continue, why should I continue to discuss this with you at all? Everyking 05:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'd like to remind you that you broke the 3rr after two other users reverted your revert of my changes. I didn't even revert the page until AFTER your third revert, after which you reverted me- breaking the 3rr. Something that will warrent a ban very soon (so if a sysop unbans you after you've been rightly banned, they will be the ones up for a de-admining; I doubt anybody would risk it on your behalf).
 * It's all so hard to keep track of, yes? You know, I don't even care if you think I'm being snarky. I've never been this short with another user before. That should tell you something. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 06:42, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Holy s***, people
I was pissed off by Drbalaji md. I was pissed off by Bumiputra. I was pissed off by the upcoming Arbcom elections (dis)endorsement scandal. But this really takes the cake. I haven't used words tougher than ass on a talk page before, and I'm not about to start, but reading this talk page really makes me want to. I suggest mediation, since it's obvious neither side is going to let the other gain an inch on them. I've worked on song articles before &mdash; actually, five or six of them are already featured articles &mdash; and this article's dispute strikes me as an extremely laughable one.

Everyking, if you'd like to see how you can describe a song and make it palatable for an encyclopedia, see Hey Jude or Yesterday (song). You can't just come out and outright gush that the song is the most rock-oriented on the album &mdash; you need to obfuscate this with lots of verbosity. I'm only being half-sarcastic &mdash; really, there's probably a better way you can describe the song &mdash; rephrasing? Quoting a review? You argue people don't like it when you quote reviews. Well, first off, I think people don't like your style of referencing the source. Ideally we should be following the policy handling this. That way your inline references don't drone on forever. And you might not even want to quote the review at all. For example, here's a rewrite of the paragraph in question (the references have been removed for easier reading):


 * "La La" has been described as the most energetic and rock-oriented song on the album. [1] The lyrics to the song are highly sexual &mdash; "You make me wanna la la in the kitchen on the floor / I'll be a French maid when I meet you at the door" &mdash; but Simpson has described them as tongue-in-cheek: "It was one of those songs where every silly thing that was sexual that I could think of I put into the song." [2] During an interview with Carson Daly on MTV's Total Request Live, Simpson left the song's meaning open to interpretation, stating that "you can take it how you wanna take it." Reactions to the song have been mixed; while sometimes praised as having energy and charm, it has also faced criticism; People magazine called the song "insipid" in its review of the album. [3]

What are those numbers in brackets, you may ask. Inline URL references, that's what they are. Helluva lot shorter. For the first one ([1]), just cite some random online review describing it. Then replace the other references appropriately (or you could use the style at Cite sources, whichever). To create an inline reference (not that I think you're dumb, just in case), use and replace the URL appropriately.

Oh, and Reene, this subject is perfectly encyclopedic, so there is absolutely no point in merging this with another article and deleting/redirecting it. I'll close with a conciliatory note &mdash; can you guys please cool down and assume good faith? If that's not enough, there's always RFM. Johnleemk | Talk 06:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course I do use the in-line URL references you describe; they're scattered all throughout Autobiography (album). But generally I think it's better to actually name the source, especially if it's an authoritative one. And sometimes there's no URL for me to link; for example, if it's from a TV or radio interview, and I use a lot of those. I think it's perfectly fine to state "La La" is the most rock-oriented song, because it's not a point anybody would dispute. It would be silly to cite every uncontroversial thing in an article, and as you note, people shot down my FAC nomination partly for overciting. Everyking 06:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If you prefer naming the source, I strongly recommend following the style outlined in the policy governing this, because your current manner of doing it makes the article extremely cluttered. And as discussion on Wikipedia talk:Cite sources has indicated, cite sources for everything &mdash; even uncontroversial details. Wikipedia should not have an opinion. Calling a song "rock-oriented" is an opinion. Johnleemk | Talk 06:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If I cited sources for everything, the article'd never have a chance in hell on FAC, because I didn't source nearly that much on Autobiography (album). Moreover, I've never heard anyone make a case for citing everything. That would lead to absurd cluttering. Everyking 07:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Then people who opposed the article were wrong, because if done correctly, citing sources for everything possible will only make the article stronger. You don't necessarily need to even mention where you got the quote from; you can see how I did it on A Hard Day's Night (song). Instead of directly citing Lennon's quote from Playboy, I merged it into the text &mdash; According to Lennon in a 1980 interview with Playboy magazine: "...". None of the quotes in the article are directly attributed, because it's not a strict requirement. Just add a ==References== section, list your sources, and submit the article to FAC. If you absolutely must have an inline reference, for Pete's sake, follow Cite sources to the letter on this! Nobody can fault you for following official policy. Johnleemk | Talk 07:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe there is a point in merging it, as one of Everyking's main arguments for having this be a separate page is that the main article has "run out of room". You'll notice that I attempted to MAKE room (because I noticed the album article is messy, as you yourself admit) but those changes were unilaterally rejected by Everyking. And that is where the dispute began. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 06:42, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * But the topic is perfectly encyclopedic. Should Michelle be merged with Rubber Soul? Should Back in the USSR be merged with The Beatles (album)? Johnleemk | Talk 06:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I never said it wasn't. What I did say was that it could be placed into the main article and that it probably should. I was rebuted with claims of "the album article is too big" so I attempted to make changes to rectify this, as myself and others felt the article was rather bulky and unnecessarily long-winded in places. I have a question for you: Do you feel a 17-week play-by-play of non-notable album sales and chart positions should be included in the article? Because all I did was say "X number of albums were sold over the next Y weeks while the album steadily dropped off the top 50" or something to that effect (the info about the first five weeks were left untouched, though). I can't recall reading one other article about a band's album or song that includes a play-by-play paragraph like this. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 06:56, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Reene, even if I let you remove the sales and chart info, which is important for anyone who wants to know about the album's popularity and how it changed over time, that still wouldn't have freed up enough room to merge this article there. Moreover, there's no point in merging it. That would just kill info for no real gain. Everyking 07:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The topic is encyclopedic. If somebody can find enough material on it to make an article, why not? There is little, if any, basis in merging this with the album article. Even Michelle has a better claim for this, considering its stub status. Johnleemk | Talk 07:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, that was just the first in a series of changes I was going to make to the article, the next being removing most of the quotations from the article for reasons I'm sure you're aware of. I have the other changes saved to a text file on my computer.
 * How would it "kill info"? Do you know what merging is? It means taking the info that is in this article and putting it into the main article. Then turning this page into a redirect. Wow, whoopdeefrickindoo.
 * If you'd like me to go and merge Michelle with its main article, hey, I'll go do that too. Provided I don't get any complaints from the peanut gallery. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 07:33, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * There are only two possibilities I can see: either you'll make the article much too long by merging, or you'll kill info. Both are unacceptable to me. As for what's on your text file, maybe you should start your own Ashlee Simpson website. Otherwise, you need to work collaboratively and cooperatively with me. Everyking 07:40, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That's funny coming from somebody who flat out says he will not allow any changes to anything he writes. RickK 07:57, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree that articles do not deserve their own articles when they can be merged with others. By such a contention, there are a lot of other pages that ought to be merged, i.e. History of the Beatles, which was split off from The Beatles. My point is that any topic that is indisputably encyclopedic deserves an article if material is available. Rightly, then, we might even have an article like Songs from Autobiography (album). The reason this information exists in the article is because the information all relates directly to the album. The article "La La" relates directly to the information about the specific song "La La" and indirectly to the album. This logic has been tested on VFD &mdash; I nominated Hey Jude (album) for deletion when it was a substub as I felt that the information could be included in the bottom of Hey Jude. The vote was resoundingly for keeping the article even though the information could easily be merged with the main article. Oh, and by the way,it seems to me mediation is needed. Would both of you be agreeable to the idea of having a mediator try to discuss this between you, or possibly even act as a proxy for your discussion? Johnleemk | Talk 07:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think mediation is necessary here. Reene can make any points she'd like to make here, or on the album talk page, and I'll address them. She needs to cut out the aggression and incivility and edit collaboratively, or not at all. Everyking 07:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Then I fear this is beginning to look like a case for arbitration. It may be premature, but sooner or later, somebody will do something stupid. It wouldn't hurt to give mediation a try, would it? Johnleemk | Talk 08:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Collaborative" does not mean "give in to Everyking". RickK 07:58, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Can Rick quote me saying I will flat-out reject any changes to anything I write? On the contrary, I always encourage people to edit articles. Everyking 08:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "It would be extremely unbecoming of me as a Wikipedian to let you remove good information.". RickK 08:17, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I said that, but I was hoping you'd quote me saying I rejected others' contributions, not unilateral deletion of information. Everyking 08:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Your arrogance is suffocating. Everyone has equal rights, so nobody has the right to exclude you, but you have no right to exclude anyone else either. On the other hand, you seem to think that every edit must pass muster on the talk page first, preferably your muster. That's not how things work. If this keeps up, I recommend a revert moratorium &mdash; nobody reverts anyone without discussing it and getting consensus first on the talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 08:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Your insult is duly noted. You are in good company with Reene and Rick here. Everyking 08:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hang on, hang on. Michelle is the kind of song everyone can sing along with, forty years after it was released. I'm no fan of the Beatles but even I know it. Even Ashlee herself won't remember this one three years from now. You cannot even begin to make a case that someone will type in "La la" and expect to find a case study of this song. Personally, I was expecting an article on one of the Teletubbies, and I'm still rather disappointed that I didn't. Dr Zen 08:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Move to La La (song)? Johnleemk | Talk 08:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That's not how the Teletubby's name is spelled. Everyking 08:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * No, you're right, my apologies.Dr Zen 08:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. I find it rather amusing that this song's notability is even being compared with Michelle, especially when you consider (as is noted on the much, er, "beloved" paragraph "Sales and chart success") that this song was down to number 6 on the charts in its sixth week and kept steadily dropping.
 * I have another question now that I am looking at the article. Why is the reality show being discussed at length in an article titled Autobiography (album)? Shouldn't it be moved to and discussed on its own article? That seems like it would be a more logical schism than pushing songs onto their own pages. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 08:39, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * It already has its own article, and what you are saying has already been mentioned in my compromise proposals, which have been ignored. However, the songs will have their pages, that is a definite starting point. Everyking 08:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dr Zen insists on the NPOV tag. Basically, the only way I can see to resolve this and get it removed is to remove things from the article at random, and by trial and error eventually I'll remove the thing that they don't like, because they refuse to tell me what it is they have a problem with. But even then, that might not work, because they still might not say so. How much sense does this make? The burden is not on me to figure out what their grievances are, it's on them to make them clear. Everyking 09:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion on this, Everyking. My personal view is that there is nothing in this article that adds to what is already in the article on the album. I think if you do have an article on the song, you should remove the POV descriptions of it as "rock-oriented" etc or source them. You quote Ashlee as saying she put everything sexually oriented into this song she could think of. Dude, five dollars says she didn't have any part in writing it. At least source the opinions, won't you? Dr Zen 09:13, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. You dispute that the song is rock-oriented? Are you going to ask me to cite opinions that the music of the jazz greats was in fact jazz? Have you heard the song? Everyking 09:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. I dispute that it's a "song". Tee hee. Dr Zen 09:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, then, if you have no legitimate point to make, I get to remove the NPOV header. Everyking 09:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If you remove the header, you have broken the 3RR. There's an ongoing discussion on the article's NPOV. Just because you have shouted down everyone who has raised issues doesn't mean that the issues have been resolved. Dr Zen 09:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And what are the issues, Dr Zen? That is the million dollar question. I ask you to explain why you added the header, and you respond with silly sarcasm. I think you need to have a legitimate reason to add a NPOV header. Everyking 09:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, we'll let the header remain for 24 hours, and if in that time no specific complaints are raised, I get to remove it. I have never seen anything like this. To me, it's indistinguishable from trolling. If I went to some random article and placed a NPOV header at the top and refused to explain why, people would call that trolling. But this isn't? Everyking 09:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you need to put more energy into answering the concerns raised and less into picking a fight with me. I'm out of here and this is off my watchlist. I'll let someone else revert you until you answer the concerns that have been raised. I didn't place the header there. I simply replaced it when you breached policy by removing it. I don't mind being called a troll, BTW. It's in most cases a sign that my correspondent is ashamed of their behaviour and wants to muddy the water. Go back, answer the concerns that have already been raised and stop stirring the shit.Dr Zen 09:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There are no concerns to answer. I'm removing the heading. I'll restore it myself as soon as I see someone raise a specific complaint. Everyking 09:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I note User:Cool Hand Luke has restored the NPOV heading and at the same time protected the article. Well, I look forward to hearing his specific complaints about the article. Everyking 09:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * As just about everyone has stated, whether explicit like nearly everyone else or implicit like I did, the most POV paragraph here is the one pertaining to the song. Wikipedia cannot have an opinion. We don't use adjectives without quoting sources. "Rock-oriented" is an opinion. "Energetic" is an opinion. What's energetic for some is dull for others. You cannot presume that just because your tastes are mainstream, everyone shares your opinion. Johnleemk | Talk 10:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I simply don't agree with that. It seems to me that's a question of the philosophical nature of truth, and whether anything can be objectively stated. I raised the question with Dr Zen of whether we need to cite opinions regarding whether or not the jazz greats actually played jazz. I can hardly think of a greater absurdity. Everyking 10:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * But just the same, I appreciate you actually raising an issue. Perhaps we can still work something out, as long as people are willing to talk about issues and not how horrible I am (and I haven't forgotten your insult earlier). Everyking 10:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a fact that jazz players play jazz. It's an opinion that this song is rock-oriented. Johnleemk | Talk 10:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, you know what I mean, but still, can't anyone dispute that it's jazz that they play? Hypothetically, of course they could. But there's no real world disagreement, so we don't say that. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying, John. Everyking 11:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You can show pictures of jazz players playing jazz. You can play their music. What is "jazz" is so strictly defined that it's difficult if not impossible to disprove jazz players play jazz. However, the lines between rock and pop are so blurred that it is best to avoid directly categorising a song as rock or pop. You can't present compelling evidence that this song is rock-oriented. What sounds energetic and rock-oriented to someone may be boring to another. However, nobody except an insane freak or someone with serious hearing disabilities can deny that jazz players play jazz. Johnleemk | Talk 11:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If people don't think La La really is rock-oriented, then of course we'll treat it as an opinion and introduce a cite. However, I don't see how this is possible. The song is very clearly rock-oriented, as clear as any jazz could be. I didn't even claim it is a rock song, I just said rock-oriented. Everyking 11:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, earlier you said everything should be cited, but now you seem to agree with me that we don't really need to cite simple, uncontroversial facts, such as the fact that a jazz great played jazz. So I think that's progress, if that's indeed what you mean. Everyking 11:13, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I ask you another time, are you acting ignorant on purpose? I meant citing everything in the context of citing everything that is opinion. You argued that you shouldn't have to cite sources for things that are generally undisputed. While facts are generally undisputed, so are certain POVs. That doesn't mean we shouldn't cite sources. I urge you to read our NPOV policy, in particular the part where an example relating to Saddam Hussein is discussed. If the fact that the song is rock-oriented is so bloody obvious, then we shouldn't have to be afraid of quoting a source on it, to roughly paraphrase that portion of the policy. Johnleemk | Talk 12:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. How am I supposed to get anywhere here when nobody does anything but insult me? From here on out I will respond to nothing here that includes an insult. I insist that others treat me with the same basic civility with which I treat them. Everyking 12:13, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Page protected
I saw this request earlier, but the small edit war war had stopped. It started again however, so I'm protecting the page. I don't believe it should be unprotected until the issue with the second paragraph (Everyking and RickK's earlier reverts) are resolved. If that's fixed, the NPOV notice presumably becomes a moot point. Incidentally, I included the notice because an edit war rather implies there is a dispute. Cool Hand Luke  09:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a dispute, but over what I do not know, and I don't believe it's legitimate to add a NPOV header without being willing to state's one complaints on the talk page. It was my understanding that one could rightly remove such a heading illegitimately added, in fact, but I'm not sure of that.


 * I will fix the issue with the second paragraph as soon as someone tells me what it is. The closest I can think of anyone getting to actually telling me the issue is Dr Zen, but then he resorted to silly sarcasm, implying that what he said wasn't meant to be taken seriously. But if I'm right about Dr Zen's complaint&mdash;that it's POV to call the song "rock-oriented"&mdash;then I have no idea what to do.


 * Note, however, that even resolving that issue won't really resolve anything, because Reene insists that the page must be merged with Autobiography (album), so dealing with the second paragraph is a moot point. Everyking 09:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This NPOV-notice edit war is not about merging the page. You'll have to cross the merging bridge when you get to it.
 * I certainly sympathsize. Dealing with vague criticism is dificult, but several people here believe that the dispute has been articulated. The page is also listed on RfC, so eyeballs from other parts of Wikipedia are invited here. Thus, it seems reasonable to also invite anyone looking at the article to participate. In any case, removing the notice does not remove the dispute, so this kind of edit war seemed very strange to me. Cool Hand Luke  10:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * POV stands for point of view. POV is not bias. POV is just that &mdash; a point of view. This article presents as fact that "La La" is rock-oriented, while others may disagree. And FWIW, I will strongly oppose merging this with the album article. Our notions of "notability" have begun to pervade the discussion of what is encyclopedic and what is not. Damn, I starting to sound like an inclusionist (Ambi'll have me kicked out of ADW!). But anyway, my point is, this article is encyclopedic, as it does not fall under What Wikipedia is not, regardless of whether this song is a classic like Michelle or just another pop song. If there's enough material for this article, what's the issue with keeping it? Johnleemk | Talk 10:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You work on a lot of Beatles articles, I know, so how do you handle this sort of issue then? It seems to me that, although hypothetically someone might disagree, we don't need to cite it because there is no actual disagreement. Do you support citing everything in an article, right down to a person's name, just because someone might hypothetically disagree? Everyking 10:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I support citing everything that is subject to opinion. It is not opinion that Paul McCartney's name is Paul McCartney. It's not an opinion that he can play bass. It's an opinion that his music is rock-oriented, or his music is boring. Are you intentionally acting ignorant? The idea is to not tell the reader what the song is. It's to present the facts to them and let them judge what it is for themselves. Quoting Magazine X that the song is "rock-oriented" is a fact. Arbitrarily stating, "This song is very rock-oriented" is an opinion. Johnleemk | Talk 11:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If there is enough room on the main album article, what is the issue with merging it? Especially since that is the main (and only) reason given when I first asked about it. Nobody has yet answered my question. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 10:53, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * There isn't enough room. Everyking 10:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've addressed this no less than three times now. I will not address it again. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 10:57, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * The only thing left to do is list it on VfD, I'm afraid. It doesn't seem possible to compromise on such an issue. Everyking 11:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Information on "La La" should go under its own article because the information directly relates to "La La", and only indirectly relates to Autobiography. Johnleemk | Talk 11:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where we stand
Let me summarize the dispute here, because this page is getting quite long. We will work to a resolution, I'm sure that we will, we just have to know where we all stand. In the first place, Reene thinks that the page should be redirected to Autobiography (album). I strongly disagree with this, and from what I can tell, John does too. I feel that this is not something we can really compromise on, because by its very nature there are only two ways it can end up. Therefore I propose listing it on VfD so as to establish community consensus, but only if both sides pledge to respect that consensus, whatever it is. I'll make that pledge.

The other issue seems to be with the second paragraph, which some users seem to believe is POV. I'm very tired right now, and I have trouble understanding this even when I'm wide awake, but I think the basic issue is that the terms "energetic" and "rock-oriented" are considered POV. Is this correct? So there are two ways we could resolve that, really, if the dispute is really that simple: either everyone can agree that the song is indeed energetic and rock-oriented, and that no controversy exists regarding this, or some of us can disagree with that characterization, and show that there is a legitimate basis for disputing it. For my part, I consider "energetic" and "rock-oriented" value-neutral terms, and I don't see how anybody can disagree with the use of these terms if they've heard the song. If someone does disagree, I'd like to hear an argument to that effect. That way we can stop running in circles and actually get somewhere. Everyking 11:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Regarding terms that refer to subjective, rather than objective, evaluation (such as "energetic" or "rock-oriented"), I'm not sure how we should approach them (maybe we should include them only when reporting someone else's opinion? I'm not sure.) However, consider the Featured Article Louis Armstrong: The improvisations which he made on these records of New Orleans jazz standards and popular songs of the day, to the present time stack up brilliantly alongside those of any other later jazz performer. The older generation of New Orleans jazz musicians often referred to their improvisations as "variating the melody"; Armstrong's improvisations were daring and sophisticated for the time while often subtle and melodic. He often essentially re-composed pop-tunes he played, making them more interesting. Armstrong's playing is filled with joyous, inspired original melodies, creative leaps, and subtle relaxed or driving rhythms. The genius of these creative passages is matched by Armstrong's playing technique, honed by constant practice, which extended the range, tone and capabilities of the trumpet. &mdash; Matt 12:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That's obvious POV, IMO. I mean, "genius of these creative passages"? Johnleemk | Talk 12:59, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * John, will you not respond to me and discuss the problems in the second paragraph? For God's sake, I don't want this to stay protected, but I can't get it unprotected until everyone's concerns have been addressed. I don't see what more I can do, and frankly I'm at my wit's end here. A discussion has to have at least two sides. As for you, Matt, thanks for your input. Everyking 13:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, if John doesn't want to respond to me, that's fine, but then his objections ought not to carry any weight. As for anyone else who may be interested, I've been thinking about ways to improve the second paragraph, and I think I could leave "rock-oriented" as it is, because it is the most rock-oriented track on the album, beyond all question, but I can somehow rework it to cite the BBC's review of Autobiography, in which it calls the song "energetic", as I did myself. I think this is clumsy and unnecessary, and I think it is patently absurd that I'm having to figure out people's complaints myself instead of having them plainly told to me, but it seems to me this ought to put to rest whatever objections there have been. Consequently I've listed it for unprotection; I'll be thinking about ways to implement my proposal, presuming no one objects to it (and if you object, please, please tell me why). Everyking 14:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought I already told you, didn't I? Yes, I believe I did, and you only responded saying you would ignore me because I was (admittedly) uncivil. Johnleemk | Talk 16:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, I polled some Ashlee Simpson fans, and among fans in a certain livejournal community there appears to be "rough consensus" on the point. However, it's still something where intellegent people can disagree&mdash;rather unlike the fact that it's the third single, or a song with such-snd-such weeks on a chart. Cool Hand Luke  20:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to remove the most egregious of the wording that I objected to, but I DO object to your characterization on my Talk page as that *I* started this, when all I did was listed it for Cleanup, and you decided that the wording was perfect. As we can see from your concession above, it obviously was NOT perfect. Now, we can move on. RickK 20:24, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Rick, I feel like I talk and talk and nothing is heard. I have repeatedly said that I don't think the wording is perfect; I can't say anymore. However, I appreciate Cool Hand Luke's willingness to contribute something constructive. Everyking 22:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All those who object to the present article are urged to read my revisions of it that I've done on User:Everyking/La La, see the difference here. Please respond and tell me if I've addressed whatever issues you may have with it. Everyking 09:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Process
Just as a note for the future, it works better to raise the disputed points on the talk page first, before touching the article. It should have been clear from history that the article represented a serious effort by a serious editor, and to mark it as needing cleanup was rather tactless, and resulted in soaking up a great deal of time unnecessarily. I find that a talk page threat of action still gets the desired response, but prevents escalation into edit war. Stan 14:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Stan. I have been unreasonable at points in this discussion, that I will grant, but that was only because I was driven to distraction by having my work and myself insulted to no end while no one was willing to actually talk with me about specific points so I could improve the article. I invite you to look at the revisions I've made on User:Everyking/La La; I believe that they will settle this whole dispute, but unfortunately I haven't really received any responses, and so actual work on the article is put perpetually on hold, because I think sysops are unwilling to unprotect without the stated consent of all participants in the dispute. Everyking 15:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What!? You do know what the purpose of the Cleanup page is, right? It's to list things needing Cleanup.  I said on the my listing on the Cleanup page that the article was POV.  And what good would it have done to do anything on any Talk page, when Everyking has insisted that his prose is perfect?  RickK 21:26, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * If you still are not satisfied that the dispute is settled, then ask for the page to be protected again at Requests for page protection. Apparently, User:Andrevan unprotected it thinking the dispute was settled. Rather 21:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I think we should have waited a full 24 hours for comment on the Everyking's proposal, but no one quickly objected, so we might as well keep it unprotected barring any further edit wars. Cool Hand Luke  21:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, we will wait a while to see if anyone objects to my revisions, and if not, someone ought to remove the tag. I would appreciate if some of the people previously involved in this discussion, John in particular, would state their feelings about the revisions. Everyking 23:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV dispute
"Arguably" the most rock-oriented track. This is weaselly. "The lyrics to the song are highly sexual". This is POV. I say they're not very sexual at all. I don't find French maid's outfits particularly sexy. All Music Guide appears to agree with me, I note. "Simpson said light-heartedly". This adverb expresses a POV. An article should not judge someone's tone. "a subsequent, more successful performance". Is that your description or are you citing it from elsewhere? The "success" or otherwise of a performance is in the eye of the beholder. "This show includes a number of humorous moments". Humour is also in the eye of the beholder. The moments may have been intended to be humourous, but who's to say? "it could also be compared to the Smashing Pumpkins' 1996 video for their song "1979"". I daresay it could be compared with an awful lot of things but you give no reason for choosing this particular one. "X compared it with..." is fair enough. "It could be compared with..." is not. "she also performs it successfully". See previous. I accept that not messing up a lipsynch must be considered a success for some, but I'm not a recognised expert on these things. These are just some of the issues that you should deal with before removing the tag, which you did without consensus, having largely ignored previous criticisms. Dr Zen 02:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nobody responded to me for days, Dr Zen. The only one who ever raised any half-way specific point was John, when he asked me to cite "energetic" and qualify "rock-oriented", and I did that. And I thought you went away after you accused me of "stirring the shit", and after you accused me of "trolling" your talk page when I asked you to stop using obscenities on talk and VfD pages. You are really, really getting on my nerves. Most of your objections are absurd. Sexy and sexual are different things, obviously. You can deny the lyrics are sexy, but not that they are sexual. "Arguably the most rock-oriented" may be vaguely "weaselly"&mdash;not that there's really anything wrong with that&mdash;but it isn't POV, and there is no problem with saying that until or unless I find a good cite for it. Why don't you go hunt for one, Dr Zen? You are calling this a NPOV dispute when in fact the only problems you are pointing to are very minor things that would only be an issue if I was nominating this for FAC. But at the very least, at least you finally raised specific points. I'm actually a little stunned by that. Everyking 09:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "Shit" is definedly not an obscenity. Wikipedia says it's a vulgarity. So sometimes I'm vulgar. Sue me. You are not offended by it but you do find it convenient to once more stir the shit. I have listed (some of) the reasons I think this article is POV. You refuse to address them once more and instead attack me personally. I bet you do find it annoying. Fancy having to defend your review! The very cheek of suggesting it, eh? It doesn't matter that the video struck you as being like the Smashing Pumpkins. This is precisely a POV -- yours in fact. You are, in the context of Wikipedia, nobody. Expressing personal opinions is precisely what Wikipedia does not exist for. Expressing what others have said, maybe, if it is of note. I'm done with you, Everyking. You aren't in the least bit interested in making a decent NPOV article of this and I'm not interested in providing you with any further entertainment.Dr Zen 11:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on "sexual" and "rock-oriented" (to an extent), but I think Dr Zen has a strong point about the comparison. I&mdash;somoene who hasn't seen La La or 1979&mdash;don't understand why they could be compared. Even if you provided reasons, I think there would have to be a strong link to merit mention. Otherwise it seems like name dropping. For example, "Sci-fi Film X can be compared to 2001: A Space Odyssey" is not NPOV unless 2001 is shown to have inpired the film specifically, or have been notably compared. Cool Hand  Luke  10:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Luke, it's never NPOV if it is simply Everyking's opinion. That's the point. If you write that song A is a lot like song B, it doesn't matter that you can substantiate that there is a strong similarity (it would be tantamount to original research if you did). It would never be fit material for an encyclopaedia, no matter how strong the link was. I think you have it exactly right when you say that they ought to have been "notably compared".Dr Zen 11:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. Since the core text of this article was copied from or cut out of Autobiography (album), that 1979 problem has remained without me realizing it&mdash;in the album article, I couldn't really afford to explain that in detail due to size limitations, but I can do that here. I will go and try to explain the comparison in the article. I only ever added that comparison to begin with because I read on WikiProject Albums that we were supposed to make comparisons like that. Everyking 10:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't worry overly much about "weasel words". That's a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. Plenty of people disagree with it being an absolute rule. Sometimes the so called "weasel words" make an article read a lot better and give a more NPOV impression. I would be interested in more detail about the 1979 comparison, seeing as 1979 is one of my favourite songs, and the Pumpkins aren't the first group that come to mind when talking about pop music. Shane King 10:46, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

When I first saw the "La La" video, one of the first things that occurred to me was, Hey, that's a lot like the "1979" video. It has been a long time since I've seen the latter, but I think my memory serves me well, and it seemed only sensible to make the comparison. Both are based on rebellious, troublemaking teenagers partying and marauding around town. Everyking 10:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... vandalist brings up what I thought to be a tired point. But I got to tell you. That such an inane article can be so lengthy makes me wonder what the hell I am contributing to.Yeago 00:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Then you'll be pleased to know I have more work planned. One project of mine is to watch the episode of Making the Video a few more times to collect some more good details and maybe a quote or two. At first I thought about watching TRL every day and recording its position on the countdown each day (it was at 6 today, up from 9 yesterday), but then I missed the debut day (Dec. 1), God help me, and besides, I guess that really might be too much detail. And besides, there'll be plenty more to add without including all that. Everyking 00:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think its quite sad, and I hope that intelligent life doesn't judge us by our internet. Yeago 07:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Would you please stop demeaning a fellow editor? I think it's one thing to state the article ought to be merged or trimmed, but this seems to be nothing more than an attack on personal tastes. Cool Hand Luke  08:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Anyone who has eyes ...
 * Yeago 18:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)