Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What version of the disc contains the bonus track? It isn't on the one I have. DCEdwards1966 20:29, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

It's not on the US version, but it's on the UK version and probably others. There's also another bonus track called "Harder Everyday". Everyking 20:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm planning some restructuring for this article; I hate to do it, but I don't see any way around it considering that it's now at 33 KB. The plan is to give Shadow and La La articles of their own (Shadow at Shadow (song)), like Pieces of Me, and condense the info about them in the "singles" section. Possibly this might also enable me to condense the "promotion" section by moving some of that to those individual articles; I'm not sure about that. I'm also thinking about removing some of the info in the "Making of the album and the reality show" section and reworking that so as to remove the stuff about performances, and leave only the info pertaining to the writing and recording of songs. Everyking 05:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Every song on my album has a meaning and something that happened during it," she has said.1 In one interview, she said—responding to a question about why she named her album "Autobiography"—"...Basically, everything that I was going through in my life, ... I would go in the studio and write a song about it, and it was just kind of like ... a diary." (Capital FM, London, September 15, 2004) Responding to a question from Charles Gibson on Good Morning America—"You're 19 years old; how can you have an autobiography at 19?"—Simpson said half-jokingly: "Yeah, you know, it's pretty dramatic being 19 years old; I mean, we have boyfriends, we get our hearts broken..." (July 19, 2004)

This should be removed. Everyking is not allowing anyone to touch the article. --Hemanshu 11:35, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

—"I wanted to have, like, that element of, you know, rock ... the cool thing about, you know, rock is just to be able to go in there and...be free, and just kind of do whatever you want", Simpson said in one interview (Total Request Live UK, September 15, 2004)—

This should also be removed. Move to Wikiquote perhaps? --Hemanshu 11:37, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your opinion has been registered, Hemanshu, but nothing will come of it as long as I'm watching this article. Of course anyone may touch the article, but no one may ram into it with a bulldozer. Everyking 11:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be "My opinion is supreme. Other's opinions don't count". --Hemanshu 15:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uh, guys, can we cool it please? Oh, and FWIW, the {{peerreview}} tag goes on the talk page, not article page. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

in that case, somebody needs to go move it from article to talk page on 24 other articles. --Hemanshu 19:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. Johnleemk | Talk 05:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let it be noted that Hemanshu had the gall to actually block me in order to win this dispute. I demand an apology first and foremost for this treatment. Secondly, I ask those pushing deletionist logic here to explain whether or not they agree with User:Reene that the singles from this album don't deserve individual articles. Everyking 19:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another point. I disagreed with the peer review listing only because Hemanshu was clearly using it to push for deletion of large portions of the article, and because he was putting it on the article page instead of talk. Of course I have no objection to peer review in principle if it is used to better the article; I would love to see other people's input here; I nominated the article for featured hoping to see just that happen. I fundamentally disagree with Gentgeen's cleanup listing, however, and I find it utterly insulting and a waste of people's time to list an article that borders on featured status on cleanup, as if it was some unwikified block of incomprehensible English. Everyking 20:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll take a step forward and actually propose something constructive instead of sinking to Hemanshu's level. I believe the quotes above are very important and informative; they explain both the reason for the title and the lyrical inspiration. I could possibly consider removing the GMA quote if the article gets beyond 32KB and there's nothing else we can remove first. However, I have another proposal to make if we are looking to shorten the article: the "promotion" section includes no information that could not also be given in the singles articles (and in many cases already is). It could be summarized while all the specific information is preserved in the respective articles for Pieces of Me, Shadow (song), and La La. Everyking 21:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As an disinterested party who has never heard of this artist, or Everyking, or Hemanshu, but who nonetheless has a fondness for pop music, I believe that the quotes as presented above are closer to news reportage than illustration. They are undoubtedly accurate, but belong more to an archive than an encyclopedia. "I wanted to have, like, that element of, you know, rock ... the cool thing about, you know, rock is just to be able to go in there and...be free, and just kind of do whatever you want", in particular, seems to me to lack substance - what is Simpson trying to say? What is the core of her meaning? How does it illustrate the point which the article is trying to make? I believe that, instead of presenting Simpson's words in a literal fashion, they should be melted into the text; the phrase above could be incorporated as "The album combines elements of rock and pop. In interview (footnote), Simpson praised the freedom of the former, whilst (insert complimentary opinion regarding merits of pop)", or something similar. "In interiew (footnote), Simpson stated that each song was inspired by an incident in her own life - for example, the song (title) is a harrowing account of an (incident in life) in (year) which (effect on singer)". The criticism regarding her immaturity can be omitted entirely; there's no objective reason why a 19-year-old cannot write an autobiography, and it seems highly unlikely that Simpson was present during the writing sessions in any case. Ashley Pomeroy 23:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

She wrote (or at least co-wrote) all the songs herself, so I imagine she was present, in the same way I was present at my birth. Anyway, the GMA quote is only in there because it helps to explain the subject matter of the album: boyfriends and broken hearts. As I said above, I won't rule out the possibility of removing that one. The quotes, however, do support the article's claims and add more context to them by giving Simpson's own words. Everyking 02:53, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I noticed this article in the Recent Changes yesterday for a while. I read the article and talk involving it. I'm sorry, but I partly disagree with your perception of the role that the quotes play. They do support, but including them into the article like that makes them more of a hindrance. In reading an encyclopedia, if someone wanted to know more about the article's support for claims they would look at the article's sources and judge for themselves whether or not the sources are reliable. This is standard in encyclopedia articles because the writer can possibly pull quotes out-of-context and give them a different meaning, something commonly seen in the media when only snippets of someone's interveiw is used. The footnote idea sounds like a compromise, it would direct readers to see where you got your support for the claims while giving readers the choice to judge how valid the claims are. The Punisher 03:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But they can't really do that, because they're from TV and radio interviews. I would be willing to consider removing a few of the quotes, if they can be shown to be redundant or unnecessary, but definitely not all. I believe good, informative and appropriate quotes play a vital role in a quality article. Everyking 03:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can everyone, as a starting point, agree that at least some of the quotes are good and should be in the article? Does anyone believe that all the quotes should be removed? Everyking 04:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hell, no. If that's the case, anybody interested in removing the quotes from Hey Jude, Yesterday (song), A Hard Day's Night (song), A Day in the Life and Something (song)? All are featured articles (and one was a runner-up in Danny's contest). Let's not go overboard here. Getting rid of some of the quotes would be a good idea, but getting rid of all just takes it too far. Johnleemk | Talk 05:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All right, so at least the two of us can agree that, at least in principle, quotes can be good for an article. I guess it's just that some of the quotes are superfluous? If I was going to identify any like that, I'd say maybe the GMA quote and the TRL UK quote, both near the beginning? As to the latter, I'd really like to have a quote in which she talks about her emphasis on having rock in her album, but I can accept that that particular quote is a bit cumbersome and doesn't impart quite as much info as I'd like. Could we consider simply replacing it with a similar, but better quote, provided that I can find one? Everyking 06:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's better if you state what happened and include an inline reference so people can find out more. For example, here's a quickly-done rewrite of the first two paragraphs of the first section:

The songs on Autobiography are, as the title suggests, strongly autobiographical in nature, dealing primarily with Simpson's feelings and her experiences in relationships. "Every song on my album has a meaning and something that happened during it," she has said.¹ In one interview, she said—responding to a question about why she named her album "Autobiography"—"...Basically, everything that I was going through in my life, ... I would go in the studio and write a song about it, and it was just kind of like ... a diary." (Capital FM, London, September 15, 2004) When asked by Charles Gibson on Good Morning America how she could have an autobiography at 19, she responded half-jokingly that life as a 19-year-old was "pretty dramatic", having a boyfriend and getting her heart broken.

The album incorporates both rock and pop elements — Simpson has stated in an interview that she appreciates the freedom of rock to experiment with one's music, in notable contrast to the more strongly pop-oriented music of her sister, Jessica Simpson. On her reality show, Ashlee emphasized that she did not want her music to be like her sister's or Hilary Duff's. She has cited as influences past women of rock, such as Chrissie Hynde and Joan Jett.

If you can find a quote that illustrates things more, that would be better. Johnleemk | Talk 06:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I reworked things slightly and removed one quote (I decided the 944 quote and the Capital FM quote were redundant, so I removed the former, as it had less info). I also moved up the mention of the fact so co-wrote every song, so it could go alongside the stuff about her inspiration for the songs and their subject matter.

I have to say I don't like your reworking of the rock and pop paragraph, I feel it's misleading, but I see your point. I invite you to keep pointing things out to me; none of the other people griping about the article seem to have any interest in working with me, they just want to take over the article. Everyking 07:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, nobody owns this article — it belongs to everyone. If anything, I think they feel you've been exerting too much influence on the article. I think principally, everyone's at fault here. I would advise that people who find things they feel are POV should ask Everyking to explain. If they feel the explanation is insufficient, they can remove it and put it here for discussion. I urge strongly that everyone discuss before reverting — and don't be ashamed of asking for mediation. Anyway, how did you feel my reworking was misleading? I do hope you get my general point of refining the quotes' core points instead of just quoting them, as this works very well for quotes that aren't too concise, such as that "coolness of rock" quote. Johnleemk | Talk 07:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely it belongs to everyone, which means Hemanshu, Gentgeen and Reene can't just storm in and disregard my opinion and start trashing the article. I have no desire to keep them from contributing to the article, but they've made it quite clear that I am not to continue working on it, and I'll face blocking if I do. Which is heinous on three levels: first, because I'm an editor like anyone else, with equal rights; secondly, because I wrote virtually the entire article myself, and so excluding my opinion is insane; and thirdly, because I'm more than likely the only one among them who is knowledgeable enough to write a proper article on this subject. Everyking 07:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They did not disregard your opinion. They were bold, like all editors are encouraged to. Edits do not need to pass muster for consensus on the talk page. You seem to be overreacting. While Hemanshu blocked you (something I felt was very, very wrong), the others have made no indication of doing so. Also, your second and third reasons for not ignoring you are completely invalid. Writing an article gives you no special status. Neither does "professional knowledge". You are correct your opinion should be heard, as you are an editor, too. But your conduct has shown that you prefer that all edits must be approved by you or face reversion, something which I cannot stand for. Johnleemk | Talk 08:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I'll have a whole crowd waiting to block me next time I revert something. They have all made it quite clear that I am not to edit the article, on pain of being blocked, and I probably shouldn't be editing talk, either. However, I refuse to obey their prohibition, and I won't obey yours either. I am no less a Wikipedian than any of you. Everyking 08:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where have I told you I will block you or I don't want you to edit articles, let alone this talk page? Hell, go out there and edit all you like. Be bold.' Just don't withold this right from other users as well. Johnleemk | Talk 08:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But it makes no sense to tell me this, because I have no objections to others editing the article, as I have plainly stated repeatedly. I am, in fact, the only one involved in this who has made the point that we should all work collaboratively in a spirit of compromise. Hemanshu has blocked me. Reene has said I should be blocked, or desysoped. You said above that my edits are prohibited, which more or less amounts to a threat of blocking, at least as I perceive it. If that wasn't what you meant, you should make that clear. Everyking 08:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your edits are prohibited? What the? Everyone has the right to edit in this article, and no one is denying that. I just find your refusal to accept anyone else's opinion on this matter a bit much - even complaining about Johnleemk's compromise, when it's clear that (correct me if I'm wrong) everyone who has posted here disagrees with your stance on this. Ambi 08:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, he said he wouldn't stand for me reverting anything. Obviously the rest of them will revert me mercilessly; why won't he reject that, too? I accept everyone else's opinions, nobody is showing the inclusive spirit of compromise that I am. Anybody who reads what I've written here can see that. I have repeatedly proposed compromises and I have repeatedly stated that the input of others is welcomed and encouraged. Everyking 08:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I said But your conduct has shown that you prefer that all edits must be approved by you or face reversion, something which I cannot stand for. I specifically set a condition that I would not stand for your reverts if you insisted all edits must be approved by you. Don't hem and haw and say that's not what I meant. I clearly said I cannot stand for the specific behaviour I mentioned then. If you persist with that behaviour, I won't allow it. If you stand down, I have no bloody problem with your reverts, as long as they are discussed. Must I remind you that Jimbo has described a revert as a "slap in the face"? And a prohibition on reverting is still a far cry from my "prohibiting you from editing the article". Johnleemk | Talk 10:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If someone adds something to an article I disagree with, or in this case removes something, of course I'll have to revert. That's why in cases like this we're supposed to use the talk page to work things out. I don't understand why that's such an issue. It seems you're saying I don't have a right to revert bad edits. Everyking 10:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See, there you go again. The article does not belong to you. Neither does it belong to anyone else. Nobody has the right to initiate a revert war over this. You have insisted that all edits be approved by you. If you refuse to retract that, then yes, I am against you reverting this article when you've made it clear you won't respect the edits of others. Johnleemk | Talk 12:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We can't continue discussion on this basis, John. I urge you to read my proposal at the bottom of the page and reply to it, and quit with this insulting stuff about the page belonging or not belonging to me. Everyking 12:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moreover, I have no idea what in particular anyone disagrees with, because they won't raise specific complaints. They just say the article is horrible and that I need to get lost. There is nothing constructive about this, and if I didn't care about the article so much I would indeed get lost rather than put up with it. Everyking 08:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"I am, in fact, the only one involved in this who has made the point that we should all work collaboratively in a spirit of compromise." - What? When I first said on Talk: La La that I was going to be doing some condensing and rewriting on this article, you responded with "I'd really hate to see you do all that work for nothing" and later with "i'll revert you till doomsday" (after which you very kindly broke the 3rr despite knowing that 3 separate users were opposing your reverts to my changes). Get off your bloody high horse already. Reene (リニ) 09:06, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Because what you were going to do was the exact opposite of compromise. It was ignoring my opinion and doing something very radical that I strongly disagreed with. Everyking 09:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you gave no such indication. Here, I'll give you a play by play of how it went, copied directly from Talk:La La, since your memory seems to be failing you:

(the following is directly copied and pasted from Talk:La La.)

I have a question. Why does one song from one album by a random pop star deserve an entire (and rather lengthy) article? Shouldn't something like this go on the album's page? Reene (リニ) 08:49, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

No, because the album page is already filled to maximum capacity. Everyking 09:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please define "maximum capacity". There are much, much longer articles on Wikipedia. This could easily be put on that page. So I ask again, why does this have its own article? Reene (リニ) 09:27, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there are longer articles, but there aren't really supposed to be. It's a guideline that you don't let an article grow past 32KB (unless it's a list), and Autobiography (album) is at that size now. Everyking 09:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Guideline, not a hard rule.

Hey, tell you what, if it bothers you that much I'll go do some snipping at the main article, merge this one with it, and make this a redirect. I'll go do that right now actually. Reene (リニ) 09:50, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I'd really hate to see you do all that work for nothing. Everyking 09:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(end copy and paste)

So, where exactly was me doing something "very radical that (you) strongly disagreed with" ? I was attempting to come to what I felt was a reasonable compromise by keeping the content (with some tweaks in favour of NPOV) while moving it to the main article where it belongs. You outright refused this without even seeing what my edit was going to be like (your "all that work for nothing" comment came before I ever edited the page). So I would like to once again repeat: Get off your high horse. I'm getting sick and tired of watching you climb up on some pedestal while placing blame on everyone but yourself. Reene (リニ) 09:58, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

That isn't where it belongs, Reene. I will carry on no further discussion regarding this issue of merging, because I am flatly opposed to it. I can compromise on matters of article content all day long, but not on the question of whether an article should exist. If you want it gone, list it on VfD and let the community consider the matter. Everyking 10:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article is protected or I would. And it's good to know you're still so for "work(ing) collaboratively in a spirit of compromise", as statements like "I will carry on no further discussion regarding this issue of merging, because I am flatly opposed to it". Well, I'm opposed to the article existing. So where exactly does that lead us? Your opinion isn't any better than mine or anyone else's. I think that's the point you seem to be missing here. Reene (リニ) 10:09, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I, for one, share Everyking's opinion, though he's being *ahem* f***ing unwiki by stonewalling. Johnleemk | Talk 10:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I still fail to see the problem with merging it. The information will still be there (minus the POV), it just won't be on a separate article page. I do believe there will be plenty of room on this article for the information once it has been cleaned up. Reene (リニ) 10:20, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

The information in question relates more to "La La" and less to the album. Otherwise, you probably should merge Michelle as well, unless somehow notability ("'Michelle' will be remembered 30 years from now and 'La La' won't, so merge 'La La' with the album article but keep 'Michelle' in a separate article") comes into play regarding all this. Johnleemk | Talk 10:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Eh what? It is 40 years since Michelle was released and it is remembered. Also, Michelle is one of the British Music Institute's 100 most performed songs of the 20th century - it is notable. La La is not, or at least its' notability is yet to be decided by pop history. - Drstuey 06:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll add a VfD notice to it despite protection if you confirm that if consensus is to keep, you'll respect that and drop this dispute once and for all. Everyking 10:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I'd rather you not abuse your abilities as a sysop again. Reene (リニ) 10:20, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Anyone can list an article on VFD. And likewise, Everyking has no power to tell others to drop a dispute. Johnleemk | Talk 10:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have the power to ask a person to agree to do something out of basic courtesy. Reene should say if she would be willing to drop the dispute or not. Everyking 10:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As VfD is just that (voting on whether or not to keep or delete the page), that still doesn't address my concerns or desires. And what if it was voted to be deleted? This information still needs to be in the main article. And it could very well fit in the main article if some of the crap were cut out of it (like the overuse of superfluous quotes and the 17 week play-by-play). Reene (リニ) 10:58, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)