Talk:James Brown Is Dead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Brown Is Dead article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Electronic music Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Electronic music, set up to organize and expand entries on Electronic music.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

An entry from James Brown Is Dead appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on December 29, 2006.

Contents 1 Lead section 2 Pop will eat itself 3 Proper capitalization 4 Good questions 5 Why are these together? 6 Diagree with Split 7 Who is the artist that provided the vocals for the rap version? 8 So is he dead or not?

[edit] Lead section

I found your topic interesting. However, the lead section does not seem to be clear as to the point of the topic. Take a look at Paul is dead and you immediately understand the point of the "Paul is dead" reference. Are the James Brown is Dead and James Brown is Still Alive references a literal debate as to whether Brown is alive? Do the debaters know that he is alive but still engage in this debate thread through lyrics as homage to Brown? The article seems to be more about interrelationships between lyric references to James Brown rather than an alive/dead debate. -- Jreferee 18:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Are the lyrics a copyvio? or quoted for criticism? thanks! (this prevented me from selecting it for DYK because I wasnt sure) ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop will eat itself

Why mention Pop will eat itself? what is the link to "James Brown is dead"?

[edit] Proper capitalization

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names, the proper title of this article is James Brown Is Dead. Specifically, the policy states:

In band names and titles of songs or albums… Note that short verbs (Is, Are, Do) and pronouns (Me, It, His) are capitalized.

I have requested an adminstrator move of the relevant pages, as both have edit histories now. I would ask that editors who specialize in song articles carefully read the cited policy, as such articles almost always require title changes due to lack of awareness of Wikipedia (or even basic English) capitalization rules. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Alphachimp, for executing the move. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good questions

The article is about the song "James Brown is Dead" and to a slightly lesser extent "James Brown is Still Alive", specifically in regards to how they relate to each other and to other (lesser known) electronic dance music that references Brown. Except for having a connection to a 20th/21st century musician and the words "is dead", this article has little similarity to the Paul is Dead article.

These two songs plus "Who the Fuck is James Brown?" comprise, by far, the most prominent electronic dance music references to Brown and three of the more prominent references to Brown in any genre. I knew of no other songs with James Brown in the title or whose subject is him exclusively though I speculate that had he died young like Jackie Wilson or Marvin Gaye there might be one or both.

The discussion of Pop Will Eat Itself is relevant to this article as it establishes that references to Brown were made in electronic dance music prior to the "...is Dead", "...is Still Alive" and "Who the fuck is..." trio of songs from 1991. However, it is appropriate to give mention to any and all references to Brown in electronic dance music within this article just as an article about a historically-important person might mention non-notable associates or relatives or an article about a significant place might mention neighboring places that aren't worth articles.

It a fortunate correlation that "James Brown is Dead" is (my opinion) a cool name for a Wikipedia article while "References to James Brown in electronic dance music" sounds totally sucky. ◄HouseOfScandal► 09:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are these together?

It makes sense for each of these separate singles to have their own article, and the only reason for combining them is because they all references james brown. Yet, there's no notable phenomenon to justify "list of songs that reference james brown" in the same way that Paul is Dead spanned numerous songs and published speculation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diagree with Split

"James Brown is Dead" was the hit song. The other two 1991 songs are viewed as a response to it and while relevant to discussion of "James Brown is Dead", they aren't very Wik-worthy or interesting on their own. They are interesting and Wik-worthy in the context how these songs for a sort of trio (same year, same country, same subject). House of Scandal 23:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• The creation of such a trio is original research unless you can find another source discussing them as a group. I'd say they're worth articles of their own because they are singles released by notable groups--that makes them notable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Even considering L.A. Style's connection with Vengaboys, I don't think any of these three groups are notable aside from the discussion of this trio of songs. While I understand the points you raise you probably understand mine as well and we probably agree there's some gray area here. There are so many other fish to fry on Wikipedia, “fish” being articles badly in needs of edits or that have other problems bigger and more obvious than those you see in this one. This article made it to DYK because its relatively fun and interesting and any problems it has are not horrendous. I wish you'd please just "let this one" go and we can both go fry other fish for New Year. ◄HouseOfScandal► 00:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I just made two changes per your objections. I think the original research tag can now be removed. Of all articles on Wikiepdia, why are you chosing this one to pick apart piece by piece? ◄HouseOfScandal► 00:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know you, Night Gyr, but you seem like a total and complete downer. : P This article was - for me - hilarious to read from top to bottom. Moreover, these are NOT notable groups on their own - go and google them. Go! Google them. Find another record by any of them. None? Didn't think so. : P It's not entirely uncommon for people to work under aliases for one release and adopt another for the next, either - paticularily in Europe. 67.85.178.227 00:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Right, so you merge them to the single musician. The KLF had half a dozen different names. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:08, 31

December 2006 (UTC) Oh my gosh - you're difficult, you wolly. For what its wroth, Discogs.com reveals a couple more releases by each production team - but they're obscure. So, so obscure. Unencyclopedic. Anyway - digression! These three recordings/groups are of encyclopedic value only in relation to eachother. If we were to split them up, the resulting stubs (read: short, poorly worded paragraphs containing no information other than what is already here) would undoubtedly link to eachother. You'd be better off lobbying for a change of the title to something more representative of what the article chronicals. Something like "James Brown is Dead/Still Alive" or "James Brown's Mortality and Its Widespread Signifigance in Modern Electronic Dance Music Throughout the 1990's" How about it, toots? User:67.85.178.227

• I agree, this doesn't need or deserve a split. Splitting would ruin what currently stands as an effective title. It kinda seems to fall under Splitting a page: "A relatively trivial fact may be appropriate in the context of the larger article, but inappropriate as the topic of an entire article in itself.". While I can see why a split might be called for, I don't think it is necessary, and Please do not bite the newcomers. Tialla 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As the creator of this article, I think its inappropriate for me to remove the tags its been given (right?) Someone please remove them. The independent research objection has, I am almost sure, been satisfied by the changes I made. ◄HouseOfScandal► 06:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. : P user:67.85.178.227

[edit] Who is the artist that provided the vocals for the rap version?

I could have sworn I had this album and it credited the rap to "Sister Hazel" but I cant find any mention of it online now. Anyone have a source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.122.88 (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] So is he dead or not?

I am kidding. -- House of Scandal (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)