Template:Did you know nominations/Asia Minor (instrumental)


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Montanabw (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Asia Minor (instrumental)

 * ... that "Asia Minor" was banned by the BBC because it parodied classical music?
 * Comment: The lede was written last year, which is why the references are there even though they are not required in a lede.
 * Comment: The lede was written last year, which is why the references are there even though they are not required in a lede.

5x expanded by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 15:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Date, size, refs are fine. However I'd like to propose a more clear ALT1, below. It will need a separate review, unfortunately. Through I see now that instrumental song is a red link... and the category Category:Pop instrumentals is missing a main article. I am not sure if the correct term for this is instrumental, song, both or something else - and I'd recommend that the article's lead properly defines that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  18:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ... that song "Asia Minor" was banned by the BBC because it parodied classical music?
 * I deliberately omitted the fact that it was a song from the hook because it was quirky and would thus attract readers (why would the BBC ban half a continent, i.e. Asia Minor, and what for). The article instrumental song doesn't exist because it is at Instrumental. However, a hook you can pass - yours is grammatically incorrect:
 * ALT2: ... that the song "Asia Minor" was banned by the BBC because it parodied classical music? -- Laun  chba  ller  18:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I added quotation marks around the title, which must be there unless you want to make an April Fools' Day hook. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  03:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Which I do not, so thank you.-- Laun  chba  ller  06:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Per DYK Reviewing guide In addition to at least 1,500 characters of readable prose, the article must not be a stub. This requires a judgement call, since there is no mechanical stub definition (see the Croughton-London rule). If an article is, in fact, a stub, you should temporarily reject the nomination; if the article is not a stub, ensure that it is correctly marked as a non-stub, by removing any stub template(s) in the article, and changing any talk-page assessments to start-class or higher. — Maile (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Is C-class pushing it?-- Laun  chba  ller  07:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Verifying the stub was removed. — Maile  (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to say I've verified the hook to its source and to my surprise the BBC really was that stodgy on this subject. Striking original hook because it's clear ALT2 is meant. EEng (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Update review: I confirm that date and length are OK. I have struck ALT1 because it is superseded by ALT2. ALT2 is acceptable and short enough, and checks out with online citations #2 and #7 (I agree, EEng - #7 is a fascinating read). The article is objective, neutral and fully referenced. All online citations checked for possible sources of copyvio and close paraphrasing. None found. Issue: QPQ needed, please, Launchballer. When the QPQ is done, this nom should be OK. (Or would you like me to donate a QPQ to speed up this nom?) --Storye book (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not in this case, because I am fully obliged to; I've done this one.-- Laun  chba  ller  11:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you, Launchballer. QPQ done. All issues resolved. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have returned this from prep as the source for the hook looks questionable and the text in the source looks like a possible copyvio. Gatoclass (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's wrong with it. What's your problem with it?-- Laun  chba  ller  09:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Gatoclass. Thank you for your explanation, but I believe there is a misunderstanding. Firstly: The Independent, the Guardian and the Observer are the only remaining UK serious and authoritative newspapers in existence, since Murdoch bought up and trashed up most of the rest. If the Independent is not an authoritative source, then no newspaper is. Secondly: The British Government has a Thirty-year rule in which its archives are open to public view and publishing after 30 years (excepting only those pertaining to national security and certain aspects of the Queen's private life). The BBC is under the control and auspices of the same government, and I take it that the 30 year rule pertains there also, since BBC records are public records. The 1960s are well outside the 30 year rule. If I understand correctly, in the UK we can photocopy and quote (with due credit) up to 5% of copyrighted materials anyway, and the quotations in the source article could not possibly exceed 5% of the masses of material in the BBC archives. Therefore in reply to your above comment, the source is not at all questionable - in fact it is highly authoritative, and the source text cannot be a copyvio. --Storye book (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Pulled by mistake. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Excuse me, Storye book, but you don't get to decide for me whether or not my concerns about a nomination have been met. Your analysis above is not relevant because the problematic source is this one which is used as the source for the statement that this particular record was banned by the BBC. I was unable to find any sign of an editorial board for the website, it appears to be a private blog, and the entry in it about Wisner appears to be lifted from The Billboard Book of One-Hit Wonders by Wayne Jancik, published in 1998. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Gatoclass, I now see that citation #2 is no good, and I would be happy to see it deleted from the article. I had understood that you were complaining about #7 which backs up the banning-of-parodies-of-classical-music bit. I accept that #7 doesn't back up the bit about the specific banning of "Asia Minor" (which was the intended function of #2). It would have helped us, though, if you had specified source #2 in your previous comment. So now we need either another source to support the first half of ALT2 (unlikely), or we need another hook. Peace and love. --Storye book (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct Storye book, I should have specified the source I was referring to, my apologies. Gatoclass (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. --Storye book (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New hook needed. --Storye book (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe I stated that I wrote the lede last year and thus expansion is based on that. Had you read the main body of the text you would have found that the hook is sourced by reference #8. All uses of reference #2 have been replaced with reference #8, though I see no harm in replacing the text of reference #2 with "Jancik, Wayne (1998). The Billboard Book of One-Hit Wonders. New York: Billboard Books. ISBN 0-8230-7622-9" (as copied from List of one-hit wonders in the United States).-- Laun  chba  ller  11:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Launchballer. I checked the new link for citation #2 (which you call #8). I am happy with it. The author is recommended by Marc Shapiro here, and I'm happy with that. Citation #7 shows that the hook is very likely to be true anyway, so I have no reason to disbelieve the new citation #2 about the BBC ban. @ Gatoclass, please could we have your opinion on this? Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg I'm not crazy about the new source either, but I guess there is enough confirmation in the sources overall for this nom to scrape by. Gatoclass (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've pulled it again. Really, this is pure WP:OR, taking one line from a website (whose author is praised, on his own website, by another author, which is apparently sufficient to become a reliable source as well) and combing this with a general article which doesn't mention this example. A doubtful source stating "maybe they felt the classics shouldn't be messed with" should not become "was banned by the BBC because it parodied classical music" on DYK. An educated guess is still a guess. Fram (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * After reading the article in the Independent regarding music that the BBC banned in 1961, I think the hook probably is true, but (unfortunately) it is not explicitly stated by any source. Let's try an alternative hook:
 * ALT3 ... that the song "Asia Minor" was banned by the BBC in 1961, but still reached No. 35 on the UK Singles Chart? --Orlady (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the objection to the previous hook was that there isn't a solid source for the statement that the song was "banned by the BBC", in which case the proposed alt has the same problem. Gatoclass (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Way Back Attack may give an educated guess as to why it was banned, but it does say that it was banned. A different article, The Independent, states that 1961 instrumentals were banned for 'mutilation of the classics' and this was a 1961 record, that was an instrumental, that was a remake of a classic. I don't see what the problem is, but tomorrow morning I'm going into Sutton library and having a good rummage round.-- Laun  chba  ller  16:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I found one, but it wasn't easy. In a borough's biggest 'depot' library of numerous floors, only three books mention it, of which two are passing mentions, and precisely no books whatsoever cover just instrumentals! Instrumentals are just as song as vocal tracks! Rant over - better?-- Laun  chba  ller  21:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that the song "Asia Minor" was banned by the BBC because it parodied classical music?
 * ALT3: ... that the song "Asia Minor" was banned by the BBC in 1961, but still reached No. 35 on the UK Singles Chart?
 * Symbol question.svg Thank you, Launchballer. All the hooks featuring Asia Minor being banned by the BBC now have that bit checked out with offline citation #8, kindly provided (with commendable determination!) by Launchballer. Due to the extended discussion I have copied and pasted the remaining ALTs together above, for convenient comparison, and struck the duplicates to prevent confusion. So ALT2 checks out with just offline citation #8. To accept ALT3 we have to assume that offline citation #8 says that the ban was in 1961 (can you confirm that, Launchballer?) The no.35 bit of ALT3 checks out online with citation #6. So I could either pass this with ALT2 only, or if "1961" is confirmed I could pass it with both ALT2 and ALT3. --Storye book (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that offline citation #8 said that the ban was in 1961, however I find ALT3 a bit too dry and factual.-- Laun  chba  ller  19:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Thank you, Launchballer. All issues resolved. Good to go (at last!) with ALT2 or ALT3. Nominator prefers ALT2 and so do I. --Storye book (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)