Talk:Molly Neuman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Current ownership of Lookout! Records
Neuman co-owns the Berkeley-based Lookout! Records with her ex-husband and former PeeChees singer Christopher Appelgren...
First of all, this needs a source and a citation.
Second of all, I know that a few years ago, Lookout! had a third co-owner. If I recall correctly, her name was Cathy Bauer. She may still be a co-owner. --anon.70.23.170.185 (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- The most recent news item on the Lookout! Web site was written by Cathy Bauer; she identifies herself as a co-owner. I have updated the article accordingly. --anon. (same as above) 70.23.174.160 (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Molly Neuman" (the song) by The Queers
Scentedgum removed the following sentence, which I had added, apparently claiming the article I cited is "unpleasant":
The Queers included a song, "Molly Neuman," on their album Pleasant Screams.
[Reference] Waggoner, Eric. "Punk as Folk", Seattle Weekly, June 5, 2002. The Queers recorded the song before it became public that Lookout! Records had fallen behind in paying royalties to them and other artists.
Not wanting to reinsert the sentence and the reference unilaterally, on March 8 I posted the following on the Wikipedia help desk:
[edit] Mentioning a song that's about the subject of a biographical article
Is the fact that there is a song about the subject of a biographical article considered trivia? Should that fact be included in the article? In the article about Molly Neuman, I noted that The Queers recorded a song titled "Molly Neuman." Someone removed that sentence. He or she explained that he or she did so because it was "unpleasant"; I know that can't be a valid reason for removing something, but I wonder if it amounts to trivia and should not be included for that reason.
[Unrelated question SNIPped] --anon. 70.23.131.111 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I received the following reply:
I personally don't see anything wrong with the sentence you added - while it could be considered trivia, it's not as though you're adding a whole section dedicated solely to trivia, and it is relevant. If I had to guess, the editor who removed it was objecting to the link, which mentions the names of several other Queers songs, which are certainly... colorful. However, again, I don't see much issue with that, as that's what the songs are called, and Wikipedia isn't censored. I would discuss this with the user who removed it, at User talk:Scentedgum, and see if there was some other reason for the removal. Note that this user hasn't made any edits for five days, so they may not be active any more. If you don't get a response, feel free to add the sentence back in, justifying your position in the edit summary.
[Answer to unrelated question SNIPped] Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have started a discussion here rather than on Scentedgum's talk page so that other readers of this article are more likely to see it.
So, if no one has any legitimate objections to my reinserting the sentence and the reference, I will add them again. --anon. 70.23.174.160 (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
