Talk:The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald/Archive 1

Grammatical quirks
It's helpful if you comment when making major changes. Why was this section removed? --The Interloafer 01:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
The information I got for the infoboxes came from the following sources:, , , , though there are still some sections that need to be filled out. --Interiot 20:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

She
The lyrics sites I can find mostly refer to the Edmund Fitzgerald as "it", but my memory is that Lightfoot calls her "she", in the original version. I don't actually have the recording; can someone check this? --Trovatore 21:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to "As the big freighters go, it was bigger than most" then yes, he says "it". Says "it" in both recordings. Shadow007 05:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I also had a memory of "she may have split up, or she may have capsized; she may have broke deep and took water". Are those all "it" too? Pity, if so. --Trovatore 05:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No it says - "They might have split up or they might have capsized, they may have broke deep and took water". Shadow007 08:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet almost immediately before that, it says,
 * "The searches all say they'd have made Whitefish Bay
 * If they'd put fifteen more miles behind her."
 * I believe 'her' refers to the ship. DragonSparke 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There were no women onboard, so it surely must. Kasreyn 03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Verboten?

The link to this word takes you to a German Wikipedia page. Not very helpful for English speakers. An English word should be substituted for "verboten".

Verboten is a fairly common word meaning 'forbidden.' I believe that its usage in the page is perfectly reasonable. Maybe its American usage is confined to the Great Lakes, but I've heard it all the time throughout my life, so it seems fairly commonplace.

Regrets of length
Bill Milner, who at one time managed the apartment building I lived in during the early 1990s, played sometimes with Gordon Lightfoot. Gordon told Bill that because he gets requests to play the song, he regrets making the song so very long - over 5 minutes. I wonder if Gordon ever tried to compose and perform an abbreviated version? GBC 16:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of reference to "They stopped making Firebirds and Camaros"
The reference in the parodies section to the song "They stopped making Firebirds and Camaros" seemed like self-promotion and added no value to this article. The only reference I could find on Google for this song was this article and one post on a forum with the lyrics. If you feel that this reference is notable enough for inclusion, please provide a reference or more details. Erock R  Ph  17:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleveland
He probably didn't mean it as its ultimate destination, more like its current destination. 24.4.131.142 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Versions?
This article doesn't mention it, but I'm aware that at least one alternative version was released. I don't have any definitive information, but if someone does, I'd add it.Joe JJC (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be referring to the version that was recorded for the album Gord's Gold, Vol. 2. Shadow007 (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Question
What year did Gordon Lightfoot write the song (or what year was it popular/a hit?) -Speedeep 22:27, Feb 22, 2005 (UTC)  THE SONG WAS WRITTEN IN EARLY 1976, AND WAS RELEASED AS A SINGLE LATER THAT YEAR. IT WAS A US TOP-TEN HIT IN LATE 1976. -Markt3, 8/10/05

No, the song was written in 1975, shortly after the Newsweek article appeared. He sang it in concert at least once in 1975, and recorded it in the studio in December, 1975. Vlmagee (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So, is it called "Wreck..." or "The Wreck..."? Consistency needed! - Martpol, April 9, 2005


 * It is definitely "The Wreck". Appears as such on both the LP and CD cover as well as the sheet music. Shadow007 05:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

fact tag in paragraph about the Radio Bart episode of The Simpsons
Do "on the commentary for the third season DVDs" and "in the DVD Commentary for the episode" not qualify as citation? Should this source also be bibliographed? —überRegenbogen (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Artistic Licenses
The line referencing "hurricane strength winds" as artisitic license could actually be removed or at least corrected - sources including the captain of the ship following 10 miles behind the EF measured wind speed of 58, gusting to 70 KNOTS in the immediate area. Note, KNOTS rather than miles per hour. 58 to 70 knots translates to 67 to 81 miles per hour. The 67 mile per hour sustained winds allows reasonable comparison to category 1 hurricane wind speed (minimum 65 miles per hour), and the gusts to 81 miles per hour almost reaching category 2 strength. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.196.130 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, minimum requirement for hurricane force winds is steady-state (i.e., one-minute sustained) winds of 74 mph (65 knots) or higher. Gusts don't count.  Rdfox 76 (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire artistic license section is really ridiculous and pointless minutiae, but it seems extremely minor articles on Wiki are sort of famous for that. Ballooning with amazingly obscure cultural references and overly long analysis. It seems this article should be a single paragraph stating the artist, the chart history and the fact that the song is a tribute to a real life tragic event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.127.248.163 (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the line ""The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" was the first commercial early digital multi-track recording done on a 3M digital recorder." from that section, as it has nothing to do with artistic license (nor is it very interesting, imho, except maybe on a 3M digitial recorder page). Jalwikip (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rogue wave evidence
Someone should incorporate the information in this article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-edmund-fitzgeralds-legend-lives-on-but-with-a-major-change/article1511191/

It says that there is evidence that a rogue wave caused the sinking, and that Lightfoot is planning to change the lyrics of the song slightly in future performances. --Ilnyckyj (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely wrong information on the page
This is not an error: the boat sailed into "the face of a hurricane west wind."

This was what the page said on the subject: Lightfoot says the boat sailed into "the face of a hurricane west wind." The storm was, in fact, no stronger than a gale, with winds below 60 miles an hour.

At the Great Lakes Shipwreck Museum at Whitefish Point in Michigan, it said the winds were clocking in at over 80 miles per hour, with some gusts over 90 miles per hour. This museum researched this ship so thoroughly, that this source is much more reliable than what was said on wikipedia. This incorrectly listed goof will be deleted.

71.83.14.12 (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This article says that the ship "encountered a fierce early winter storm, with hurricane-force winds in excess of 50 knots." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-edmund-fitzgeralds-legend-lives-on-but-with-a-major-change/article1511191/

--Ilnyckyj (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is just a really good song. Quit complaining!

Dave Barry / Richard Jeni
A minor point that could be included if document-able, which I doubt ... was Dave Barry's reference in his "Bad Songs" column taken from Richard Jeni's bit? It's quite possible, as DB once quoted Richard Jeni (and credited him) on A Prairie Home Companion with saying of "A Horse With No Name," "You're in the desert, you've got nothing to do - name the damn horse!" (paraphrased from memory) Lawikitejana (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Complete Deletion of All 'Cultural References'
I protest that these references were arbitrarily deleted in their entirety by RepublicanJacobite on 21 April 2011 as "unreferenced or trivial [italics mine]" I've previously fallen victim to this user's predilection for mindlessly throwing the baby out with the bathwater - a lot of good work by many users is being lost! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.118.227 (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to restore anything that you feel was improperly deleted, provided that it has a reliable source. You seem to feel that your recollections or opinions are suitable as a replacement for reliable sources.  They are not.  If sourced material was deleted, we can have a civil discussion as to whether it belongs in the article.  But, you are advised to keep your personal comments to yourself.  Thank you. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  03:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree my recollections need to be properly sourced but that's the singular beauty of Wikipedia. By CN'ing my contribution, I'm effectively inviting someone among the countless millions out there to confirm it.  To revert potentially-valuable, good-faith entries on sight denies them a voice, runs counter to the Wiki ethos, nullifies one of its unique advantages and thus devalues it as a community resource!   Talk about reverse evolution... 87.86.118.227 (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite, none of those thirty(!) cultural references you recently nixed was mine. My main complaint against you, as italicised above, is that you're arbitrarily and summarily wiping from the Wikisphere anything and everything (in this case, the entire 'Cultural References' section of a culturally-important - although I've lived in the UK for two decades, I'm Canadian by upbringing and grew up on the Great Lakes with this ballad, so I should know! - popular song) that strikes you as trivial, regardless of whether they contain appropriate references. Sources aside, who appointed you Grand Arbiter of the Trivial??? I repeat what I said elsewhere: engage your brain before labelling others' knowledgeable, considered and, in many cases, well-sourced contributions as trivial and then deleting them; in addition, please go easier on reverting unsourced contributions (without notice (!) - why not instead give contributors a fair chance and 'Cn' them either individually or, if this is too time-consuming for you, collectively by section as per the 'Artistic License' section, above this one in the article?); otherwise, one day you may lose the privilege to do these things owing to a chorus of complaints. Thanks in advance from your unwitting victims (up to thirty in a single act of what you would call scholarship and I would call mindless cultural vandalism). 87.86.118.227 (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please remember to be civil in your interactions with other editors. You can easily make your points in a way that's not wandering into personal attack territory.  ...  disco spinster   talk  14:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Cultural references
In the most recent revert, it is stated that most of these "cultural references" are sourced, but imperfectly. Only three of them are sourced, and all of them to websites that I doubt would pass muster at WP:RSN. And then to claim that they are no more trivial than most other lists of trivia in other music articles is a perfect example of damning with faint praise. If these are useful, encyclopedic bits of information relating to the song's impact and continuing cultural relevance, than it should not be difficult to find reliable sources that back up that claim. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 00:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, imperfect references. In most cases these link to Wikipedia articles that *do* have references.  Yes, we all know what WP is not a reliable source, but if we were going to be even moderately strict about that, we'd have to delete most of WP.  And while we could copy those references, clearly not every fact implied in an article can be referenced, that's why we link to other articles.  So do you want a link on every sentence?  Even on non-controversial stuff only a click away?  It's not a wholly unreasonable position, although one I disagree with, but just deleting masses of stuff without doing any work yourself to find missing references (when they're usually only a click away), and expecting other people to clean up, is less than constructive.  At least click through the wikilinks, and then if there doesn't appear to be a source go ahead delete the item in question.  And if you don't want to take the time to copy the other references, instead of just deleting stuff, add a CN.


 * As to damning with faint praise... So be it.  *I've* certainly found information about who has used a song, or done a cover, to be of interest.


 * I will avoid reverting your last batch of changes, pending this discussion. Rwessel (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 87.86.118.227, you are way out of line with this comment. Please read and follow WP:CIVIL, and to restrict your discussion to other editor's edits themselves and not to attack the editor.  I encourage you to strike out your disparaging comments. TJRC (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * - Comment removed but for the record, the issue of blanket, indiscriminate and unaccountable section-deletions in this article was raised by me. 87.86.118.227 (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the comment. However, the fact that you initiated the discussion in no way gives you license to violate WP:CIVIL in it.  TJRC (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ''TJRC, with respect(!) you're missing the irony: my subject-heading above has been hijacked and some of my comments deleted - not unlike the original section-heading and ancillary comments added by a host of contributors in the article itself, yes? :) 87.86.118.227 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just start being civil, please. If your intended use of irony is obscuring your meaning to others, perhaps you should just try to post clearly and straightforwardly., and, of course civilly. TJRC (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * TJRC, I'm not 'using' irony, merely pointing it out. I don't mean you, but have you ever noticed how people who don't like the message try to shoot the messenger (and if all else fails, delete the message)?  Don't let protestations of uncivility 'obscure' the issue of excessive editing (of a subject close to my cultural roots), which I trust will be resolved by consensus, not dictat. 87.86.118.227 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I largely agree with RepublicanJacobite's edits, but for different reasons. My issue is less with the sourcing (though there is that) than it is that every passing reference to the work seems to need to get a line into the article.  Seinfeld fans stick a Seinfeld reference in; High Fidelity fans stick a High Fidelity reference in.  That's absurd, and it's endemic in articles of this nature.  Is it really helpful to someone who wants to know about this song to read a list of instances in which its tune has been used in a "parody"?  That Richard Jeni mentioned it in his stand-up routine?  That it got played at Boston hockey games?  That it gets mentioned a lot on an LA FM radio stations morning drive-time show?  That it almost got used in the TV show "Due South," and then didn't?  Really?


 * Forget the lousy sourcing for a moment; this makes for lousy content. See Wood in popular culture.


 * The one thing I think might be worthy of inclusion is recordings of the song by other performers, because at least those items are actually about the song; and if they're accurate, they should be readily sourceable, so the sourcing should not really be an issue. TJRC (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don’t at all disagree. Probably half or more of the items *should* go.  Unfortunately there are not clear standards on which of these are notable.  Nor do I think a hard-and-fast set of rules is even remotely possible.  So there’s some judgment involved.  A couple of one-liners by a comedian?  IMO, not notable.  A cover by another (otherwise notable) artist?  Almost certainly.  As the theme song for a major TV series or movie?  Likely.  If it’s a central part of a theme for an entire episode of a major TV show?  Maybe.  Perhaps a rule of thumb is that if the use is a non-trivial part of something itself notable.   So I’m not quite sure where to draw the line, but ripping it all out seems too extreme.  Rwessel (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I posted a query at WP:RSN in regard to the sources that are currently used in this section.
 * I agree with most of what has been said above. Covers of the song by reputable musicians would, for the most part, be relevant and noteworthy, if they are well-sourced.  Cruft like "it was mentioned in passing in a Seinfeld episode" is not noteworthy even if it had a good source.  Most of what was in that section falls into the latter category. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  15:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Having received no response here, I have removed the items deemed unreliable, per WP:RSN. Have any reliable sources been found for significant covers of the song? ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  15:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Derivative Works
I put the citation regarding NRBQ's cover of this song here, and have since cited a source. It was removed due to being trivial and unsourced. If you see the need to remove it again, please remove the references to the Dandy Warhols cover, and the other unsourced statement, placed by others, and not just my contribution. I'm a noob at editing Wikipedia, so please explain to me in detail what is wrong with this, and why other unsourced contributions were left to stand, while mine was removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.1.128 (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that a cover versions section is needed in this article, as most well known songs that have been covered by others have this section in their corresponding Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.1.128 (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * First, I'd like to apologize: both this page, and SS Edmund Fitzgerald are on my watch list, and I honestly thought I was editing the page on the ship (which is obviously mostly about the wreak). The Lightfoot song is mentioned, with justification, on that page, but things like covers are obviously not very relevant there, although they can be on the page about the *song*.  So at the very least my edit summary was wrong(ish).


 * I still don't think the NRQB live performance is worthy of inclusion, even lists of covers should normally be limited to fairly notable (in the sense of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:MUSIC) covers. Every band that's ever covered a song should not be in the list.  OTOH, let's discuss it.  *But* a link to a video of the band performing the song is not really a reliable source (again in the sense of WP:RS).  Did NBRQ ever publish the song, either as a single or on an Album?  Basically we would be looking for third party references to NBRQs performances of the song.  OTOH, the informal cover policy seems to allow pretty much any band notable enough to have a Wikipedia article who has meaningfully published a cover, and that seems to include some types of live performance (including, for example, performances on TV).


 * The Dandy Warhols (who, at least at first glance, seem a rather more notable band than NRBQ) mention, *should* have a better reference, but the album article it links to at least has a reference for the songs on that album. No that's not adequate per Wikipedia policy, but at least it's a start, and at least suggests that a proper reference is possible, but I would not object to its removal.  In general, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, is not a justification for keeping something.  IOW, just because A exists when it shouldn't, is not justification that (a similar) B should exist.  And frankly I'm not sure any of the covers listed are actually notable enough to keep, but as I mentioned above, the informal policy seems pretty loose.  Rwessel (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And take a look at what was in that section before it got a major pruning in 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wreck_of_the_Edmund_Fitzgerald&oldid=489682409  Rwessel (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm over a year late on responding, but just back to learning some editing here. The Dandy Warhols are more notable than NRBQ? Say that in certain circles and you'd be at least wearing a beer on your shirt. NRBQ songs were featured on several Simpsons episodes, and the band were animated into the show, which I think trumps the Warhols getting a song into an ad. NRBQ songs have been covered by Dave Edmunds, Bonnie Raitt and other top artists, but I doubt that's relevant here. No, NRBQ didn't publish it, but I think this version is notable for what it is: a straight out parody. Someone in the comments of the YouTube video says it's the musical equivalent of Andy Kaufman reading the Great Gatsby. Also others in the comments make it clear, and I know this for a fact having seen them perform the song myself (but that's original research), that this wasn't a one off thing. They performed it many times. Personally it's my belief that when bands that are notable, and the Q definitely is, perform a song live for many years, that the song has become part of their "canon", regardless of publishing or in print. For example, you won't find a song called Whitefish anywhere on any Yes record, but ask any Yes fan, and he or she will immediately know it's the the song Chris Squire and Alan White performed at Yes shows for years — Preceding unsigned comment added by KimbaBrown (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You ask, and I deliver. I have now included a reliable 3rd party source for the NRBQ reference. Granted it's a blog post, but it explains the reasoning behind NRBQ's method of presenting the song — Preceding unsigned comment added by KimbaBrown (talk • contribs) 00:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Critical reception
Can someone provide (sourced) information on critical reception of the song (i.e., by music critics, as opposed to by the music-buying public, or by musicians covering or parodying the song)? - 72.182.55.186 (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. 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/20160319222559/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.5173a&type=1&interval=20&PHPSESSID=u9874ano8k0c5b6bkp4r8qrbp3 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.5173a&type=1&interval=20&PHPSESSID=u9874ano8k0c5b6bkp4r8qrbp3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021102718/http://50.6.195.142/archives/70s_files/1976YESP.html to http://50.6.195.142/archives/70s_files/1976YESP.html

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) 08:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Why isn’t there a list of crewmen who died on EF?
There was only 29 crewmembers onboard and it would seem a valuable piece of memorabilia to include this list (age and city) in this article. I did find a list on a YouTube video, I would add this to the listing, but I don’t want to go through the trouble of looking through that video, handwriting it then typing it in a table here if (a) the list would be subsequently removed as considered unnecessary or (b) find that there is an easier or more reliable source of the crew members’ names. Bdeneris (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is about the song, not the ship. A list of the individuals from the ship would not be appropriate here. However, given the small and workable number, it would be appropriate in SS Edmund Fitzgerald, and it's not there either. TJRC (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just added it to SS Edmund Fitzgerald. TJRC (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Mixolydian, not Dorian
Since a reliable source was requested, I've provided one: this page, seventh line from the bottom. To be fair, whether the song is in Dorian or Mixolydian isn't immediately clear at the beginning of the song – Lightfoot leaves out the third in his tonic chords so you can't tell whether it's major or minor. Nevertheless the major third becomes prominent by the time you reach the stanza that begins "the wind in the wires made a tattletale sound" – listen to the guitar on the word "railing" for example. I don't actually hear any tonic minor chords anywhere in the song; in other words, it never uses the Dorian mode. Cobblet (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. This sounds like you are actually undermining the absolute certainty expressed by the source you cite. I notice that this source also mention (in connection with other songs) a tendency to sometimes mix major and minor versions of triads on the same degree, so I imagine you may be reacting to that. This "variability" is of course a significant problem in modern (by which I mean 18th century and onward) modality, relative to the original practice from the 8th through the 17th century, where the occasional chromatic inflection did not affect the comprehension of the underlying modal construction, which relied on many things besides the intervallic makeup of scales. Fortunately, a discussion like this one cannot be cited as a reliable source, so the article can treat this song (which I have never once heard myself, so I have no experience-based opinion on the subject at all) with the same certainty as the cited source does. Unfortunately, there are other sources that do say Dorian instead, such as the one formerly cited at Dorian mode, the "Extensive Traditional and Folk Music Encyclopedic Dictionary" at www.traditionalmusic.co.uk, which is just as unequivocal as the book cited here. You have just removed that citation, which means you have made a judgment between two sources. Is this based on obvious reliability criteria, or is this just your own informed opinion? I do myself have an opinion on the relative reliability of these sources, but I would like to hear your reasoning first.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * By providing the book page I meant to demonstrate that my own informed opinion is not undocumented in the literature. That book also appears to cite a reference for its statement, but I don't actually have it and cannot access online the page where that reference is given. I tried to clarify in my comments that this is not a case of "occasional chromatic inflection"; the minor third of the song is never present in the song, and I don't see how any harmonic analysis can construe such a song to be in the Dorian mode if it doesn't contain the characteristic that distinguishes that mode from Mixolydian. At best you can say that the mode of the song is initially indeterminate, but by the end it is quite clearly Mixolydian to me. Since you're a musicologist, I invite you to have a listen and judge for yourself – I'd welcome being corrected. Cobblet (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I was afraid of this (though I had hoped for better). When you provide a book page in order to support your own opinion, against other sources you would prefer to ignore, you are not doing a very good job of refuting those countless other sources that disagree with your opinion, are you? As a musicologist, I am strictly forbidden from actually listening to music and drawing subjective conclusions from my (probably deluded) impressions. Or at least, that is what I have been told. I do not quite understand what prevents you from accessing the book that supports your opinion, but I can access it and I assure you that it does what you desire. Have you tried accessing the other site, with the opposing opinion? If you cannot access it, I can copy the relevant (unequivocal) line here. It says "A good example of the Dorian mode is Gordon Lightfoot’s 'Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald'". Why should we believe the source you prefer to this one?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if that is indeed what you have been told, though I'm not surprised – such is the life of a Wikipedian in 2014, not 2006. I can access the sentence I quoted; but the footnote cited at the end of the sentence is on a different page I can't seem to access. The book in question is a scholarly work written by an associate professor of musicology at McGill University, though it is not a book on specifically the analysis of Gordon Lightfoot's use of modality. The webpage you are quoting contains chestnuts like this entry on money: "there isn’t much, not in folk music. There are performers who can make a living at it, but they are generally fairly famous in folk circles or have a lucrative gig such as children’s folk. The majority would agree with the joke: 'Did you hear about the (insert least favorite minority) folksinger? He was only in it for the money.'" I'd have serious concerns about its reliability, although that appears not to have deterred anyone from citing it in the past, nor you from bringing it up now. Could you direct me to the other "countless sources" you mentioned?
 * What this discussion seems to come down to is the following: is my judgment of the reliability of sources any more reliable than my ability to hear musical modes? The way you've set up the argument, I'm biased toward my own opinion either way, so I can't win. It's a shame if a mistake on Wikipedia is perpetuated because of my inability to fully access a source and other people's unwillingness to use their ears. Cobblet (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Now we are getting somewhere. Up to this point, you have been concentrating on what you can hear, and not on the reliability issue. The McGill professor of musicology has his faults (he writes like a reasonably well-educated 12-year-old), but at least he is credentialed, and his book is from a reputable publisher. By contrast, the web page is, as you say, filled with gratuitous drivel, is unsigned (so it might have been written by anybody), and to top things off, if you scroll far enough down the page, has got one howlingly awful piece of misinformation on a topic that has absolutely no place at all on on website devoted to folk music of the British Isles: moment form (a brief glance at the Wikipedia article on the subject is sufficient to show how far off this webpage is). (I did say at the outset that I had an opinion about this source, though I refrained from saying it is a blistering one, and you will have noticed that I did not restore it to the Dorian mode article after you removed the entry for "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald".) As for the "countless other" sources declaring Dorian mode for this song, they are almost all self-published guitar books. One is published by Lulu.com, but if you know what this is, you will be aware that it is one of those online vanity publishers that will take anyone's money. Publishing with them is the kiss of death, where credibility is concerned. You are better advised to remain in manuscript. When I did a Google search, Dorian outpolled Mixolydian by about four to one, but of course this is like those urban legends: once they've gotten started, they are passed on from hand to hand. It is difficult to know where any of the blogs and self-published guitar books got their opinions from, and impossible to stamp them out (no matter how ignorant or misinformed they may be, they are not violating any laws, more's the pity). From my point of view—not having heard the song in question, nor particularly wanting to, since this would only cause me to form my own views—this is an interesting Wikipedia situation, where the informed judgment of editors must be used to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. There are established criteria for this of course, even if they are neither foolproof nor water-tight. Beyond this, though, you have yourself raised the problem of modality in modern music: it requires an absolutely strict adherence to the notes of a single diatonic scale. If "The Wreck" did begin with tonic minor triads, but later changed to major ones, would this prevent identification of "the mode" (just as a single minor-sixth or major-seventh inflection would do)? Or could we speak of a change from Dorian at the beginning to Mixolydian at the end? I doubt very much if such theoretical hairsplitting makes the slightest diffeence to Mr Lightfoot, or to the vast majority of fans who enjoy hearing him perform. It certainly would not have mattered to pre-17th-century musicians, either. Not only were added leading-tones and similar inflections routine practice, but so was the mutation (today we would say "modulation") from one tonal center to another. After the advent of tonality, the concept of "mode" changed radically, and it becomes a matter of some anxiety to demonstrate that one is not in some major or minor key. One other amusing "fact" that occurs repeatedly in those self-published guitar books is the ridiculous assertion that the Dorian mode is "rare". Yes, and so is the Ionian mode, according to this strict and exclusive definition.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For me the inadequacy of the originally used source is far more obvious than the subtleties in the modality of this song; I assumed the former to be self-evident (I'm glad you concur) and therefore tried to concentrate on the latter. Though I know this is the sort of discussion that frequently leads to much heat and light, this shouldn't be "an interesting Wikipedia situation". If there's a sourced claim that Angela Merkel has only three fingers on her right hand, the first thing we ought to do is to look at a photograph of Merkel's right hand, not engage in an exhaustive examination of the literature and its reliability. But I digress. Cobblet (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I take your point, but there is a big difference between checking the number of fingers on someone's hand and determining the modality of a piece of music. The former requires no expertise, and the latter not only requires a great deal, but is even open to potential disagreement amongst experts, because it may depend on just how a theory of music is constructed. (There is in addition the question of whether it is appropriate at all to apply the theory to a particular piece of music, but I will pass over that here.) In a case like this it often becomes necessary to apply criteria external to the subject matter at hand, when evaluating the trustworthiness of a source. In the present instance, for example, the online source has earned my scorn for (amongst other things) a definition that is the equivalent of "A symphony is a piece of music that begins with the note G", which could possibly be concluded by a real numbskull who has only examined the first bar of Beethoven's Fifth. This, however, is only one example among dozens that demonstrates its unreliability, without even going near the sentence about "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, but we're not exactly talking about the function of the Tristan chord either. Picking on Merkel again, it's one thing to debate the precise shade of blue in her eyes; another to claim that they're hazel. We ought to be allowed to use our eyes to rule out the latter suggestion even if no reliable sources contradict it. Cobblet (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is the "sky is blue" argument, of course (which in your example might be rephrased as "eyes are blue"), but when it comes down to music theory, it is seldom possible to fall back on it, since it is not just a matter of raw perception. It requires interpretation, based on some tacit or explicitly formulated principles. (For that matter, I could not reliably tell you whether Angela Merkel's eyes are blue or hazel, or even violet, because I am afflicted with a degree of color blindness.) You cannot play a recording to just anyone walking in off the street and expect them to be able to tell you what mode or key it is in. You may already be aware of this discussion, on a related subject, now dating back some years:
 * part 1
 * part 2
 * part 3
 * part 4
 * part 5
 * part 6
 * Parts 4 and 6 are especially pertinent.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There's an unwarranted assumption, on this page and elsewhere, that a modern musical composition that's clearly based on modern notions of harmony (especially the relatively-rigid field of [rock and pop guitar-chord harmony], which this song fits into) can *validly* be said to be in any historic mode at all. I'd argue that, if it were validly in one of those modes, its harmonic structure would have to be historic as well (modern dominant -> tonic relationships wouldn't hold true, etc). I'd say this song is in the major key and has a lot of flat sevenths added. That's not a "mode" - it's just a compositional choice. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: Parodies
I wrote a parody (completed 13-Nov-2011) entitled "Jerry Sandusky (The Pervert of Penn State)" but felt kind of skittish about adding it as an edit to the Article page (knowing self-promotion to be something frowned-upon here at Wikipedia) so instead I've mentioned it here on the Talk page.Shotguntony (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline is WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Chris857 (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I kind of figured that. Oh, well...guess I'll just have to keep plugging the parody on Facebook :) Shotguntony (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So how does that make the addition of "The Camaro Song" from WDVE 102.5 (Morning Show) in Pittsburg unjustified? -User:DanTD (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Digital recording?
The 3M Digital Audio Mastering System was introduced in 1978 - it simply could not have been used to record this song. 128.147.28.70 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Back Home In Derry
The song is most famous nowadays due to the fact that the hunger striker Bobby Sands used this tune to set the words of his song I wish I was back home in Derry to. In 1984, Christy Moore sung this version in Ride On (Christy Moore album) and several people have recorded it since. It’s all over YouTube and should be mentioned somewhere in this article. Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)