Talk:You Can Call Me Al
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
[edit] interpretations
Why do people keep deleting the possible interpretations of the song? As long as they are valid, and could be used to understand the song better, who are they hurting? The Beatles' "a Day in the Life" has 3,000 words written about it, many of them speculative; Bohemian Rhapsody has an almost note by note analysis - is this just Paul Simon bashing I'm witnessing here? AshcroftIleum 18:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NOR (no original research). If these interpretations have been published, then they can go in the article with citations (it's the unpublishedness, rather than the speculativeness, that's the problem). It's true that NOR is often poorly enforced on Wikipedia, especially in articles about songs, but since it's a fundamental Wikipedia policy the only solution is to increase, not decrease, enforcement of NOR. --Allen 21:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] irony
this isn't the place for me to say it, but it is funny that Al Gore used this song back in his vice presidential bid, since the song (it seems to me {although i wouldn't write this in the article proper, lacking basis, besides my own judgement}) is about a pair of homeless men.
on a more serious note, i don't see anything wrong with wikipedia writers trying to interperet this song, so long as their motives and the limits of their expertise are made clear. this is usually done by titling a section "possible interpretation" as is done in the film articles.
