Talk:Twelve Thirty (Young Girls Are Coming to the Canyon)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Twelve Thirty (Young Girls Are Coming to the Canyon). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/themamasthepapas/albums/album/204825/review/5941168/the_papas__the_mamas
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/24761716/hot_scene_the_return_to_laurel_canyon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Mark 12:30 seems like a pretty shaky interpretation
The article says:

"An uncommon steeple clock, stuck at 12:30 (hour hand to heaven, minute hand to earth) makes an esoteric and perhaps unconscious cultural reference to love of God in Mark 12:30,[12] which says 'And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart... ...this is the first commandment.'"

This seems like a pretty big stretch to me. Other than "12:30", what does this have to do with the song? For that matter, how is it any more related to the song than, say, Matthew 12:30 or Luke 12:30 or any other Biblical "12:30"? Or, frankly, any other Biblical chapter and verse at all, "12:30" or not? Or, I dunno, the 30th sentence of the 12th chapter of any random book? --Rwv37 (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: After a few months with no feedback, I just took another look at this, and it actually seems worse than just a dubious interpretation, in at least a couple ways: The user who put this in here has the same username as someone who put the same thing, on the same day, into a blog post's comment, and then cited that comment in this Wikipedia article. So I guess it's "original research". On top of that, this very, very specific interpretation was prefaced by link to an Ed Sullivan clip, supposedly demonstrating the song's spirituality. In the clip in question, Ed Sullivan asks the Mamas and the Papas what makes this sort of music popular -- is it spiritual? The response (from Mama Cass) is that it's "honest". That's the whole thing. So I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia; it's essentially saying "Ed Sullivan vaguely asked if it's spiritual" (and, unstated in the article, didn't even receive a positive response) as a lead-in to jump all the way to "This is about this specific Biblical verse". Rwv37 (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Update #2: This counter-revert: seems pretty absurd to me, frankly. I'm not going to counter-counter-revert it, but I do want to say that I did not revert because I "don't like it". I reverted because it seems to be "original research" (evidence given above, in "Update"), and the video that was linked as "evidence" is nothing of the sort (evidence also given above, in "Update"). Yes, on top of that, I think the claim is highly dubious, but that's not why I reverted it. The recent counter-revert is nothing but putting dubious and poorly-sourced original research *back into* Wikipedia for no reason other than some dude mistakenly thinking I took that dubious and poorly-sourced original research *out* of Wikipedia because I "don't like it". As I said, I'm not going to counter-counter-revert it, but I sure think someone should. --Rwv37 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You were right. My bad. I didn't realize this was here before. I should have checked. I just went by the edit explanations which didn't clarify how horrible those sources were and didn't contain what that editor had written. It's gone now. It was ridiculous. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Great, thank you. --Rwv37 (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)