Talk:Ohio (Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young song)

Article title
Why is this article titled "Ohio (Neil Young song)?" It should be titled "Ohio (CSNY song." If there are no objections, I will move it in a few days. KitHutch 13:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Since no one raised objections, I moved the page to Ohio (CSNY song). KitHutch 20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Song not widely banned
The song was undoubtedly banned by some radio stations at the time, but my recollection is that it received heavy airplay both in larger cities and in college towns. (By 1970 opposition to the Vietnam War had grown widespread. In his campaign of 1968 Nixon had promised to end the war, but two years later it was still going strong) --Blainster 10:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Police state
The reference "When it was released as a single in 1970 it was banned from some radio stations because the lyrics challenged the concept of a police state," seems wrong to me. Were Nixon / his supporters proposing a police state ? This needs to be reworded. -- Beardo 20:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, that doesn't make much sense to meOreo man 05:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dallas Taylor?
The link for the drums on this song redirects to a current Christian rock musician, who probably wasn't even born when this song was written. Anyone know who really did the drums for this song? TheCheeseManCan 19:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer: It was Johny Barbata. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.90.66 (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Should have been done long ago"
This bit from the article surprised me:
 * "Should have been done long ago" echoes the sentiments of right-wing supporters of the war and their view of hippie protesters as traitors, as voiced in interviews of the time such as CBS Television's The Common Man.

I always assumed "should have been done long ago" referred to the "gotta get down to it" line, i.e. that we gotta gotta get down to what should've been done long ago. --Saforrest 17:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. The present interpretation frankly seems a little absurd and would be a complete departure from the mood of the rest of the piece. Granted that is only my opinion, but that's precisely my point: the current interpretation seems to be nothing but someone else's opinion. Given that there are no interviews cited to back up this proposed meaning behind the lyrics, it would seem appropriate to remove it. Any objections? --Artrusv5 20:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree I say remove any opinion parts of this article. KitHutch 20:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy Smokes! This article is missing a HUGE and remarkable fact about this song!!!
I'll get back after a little research on the exact number of days, but.. this song was written, recorded, records pressed, distributed to radio stations, and getting major airplay, within 10-12 days of the Kent State massacre. Paul 216.170.33.149 21:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OhioSingle.jpg
Image:OhioSingle.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 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 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 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Crosby vs Wikipedia
Crosby claims in his first autobiography (Long Time Gone) that (a) Crosby was there when it was written, (b) Neil Young wrote the song after watching the news about Kent State on TV, and (c) that Crosby had handed him a guitar (not clear if this was meant to indicate that Crosby thought Young should write a song or that Young was immediately inspired and needed the guitar handed to him -- or both.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.156.186 (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's Stills keening "Why? How many more?" and so on at the end.  It sounds like Stills to my ear.  Anyone have documentation confirming that it is indeed Crosby? Cbben (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the boxset, it mentions that Crosby was the one that sang "How many more?" at the end of "Ohio" KitHutch (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Dubious?

 * How is the quote dubious? It cites the liner notes to an officially released compilation. Those notes are in turn cited by other reliable sources.

Is there something I'm missing here? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 07:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

James Rhodes
Regarding the line " Tin Soldiers and Nixon's coming" someone added the fact that the National Guard was under James Road not Nixon. I think that completely misses the point. I don't think it's relevant for two reasons one yes but it's a song lyric. Song lyrics aren't scholarly articles that can have to be parsed. Young could easily be talking about the wider context of Nixon's coming. The wind is not grammatically correct nor does it need to be. It seems the author thinks the line should read " Tin soldiers that are actually National Guard under the command of James Rhodes, and the cambodians can clearly see Nixon's coming and has escalated the war so the Vietnamese revolutionary should see Nixon's coming Nixon's coming and he has  a known to stain for student protesters and just coming in that regard"

It is in no way relevant to the song that's a National Guard at Kent State was there because James Rhodes sent them, not Nixon. I think it would be stretching credulity to think that James Rhodes had not talked to Richard Nixon before he sent those troops in. That's likely the case and therefore Nixon had given tacit approval. If not, there would be something in the Nixon archive or something on the tapes mentioning he thought it was a bad idea. The line is merely there to provoke an image. And he provokes one of the most Vivid images of any protest song ever and does so in 5 words. So, I'm going to go delete that part and refer do this on the talk page as the reason why. Jackhammer111 (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)