Talk:Bad to the Bone

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Songs This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

I think that after the name of the song we should add "(Song)" or "(The Song)". To distinguish the song from the album. I'm making the edit but I wanted to enter a talk about the edit also. --

I've added a sentence about this to the article, and reorganized the whole section. However, it could benefit from further consolidation and referencing. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "authorship claim" section should be deleted. The reference notes that "it is hard to separate truth from fantasy" and is essentially an unverified claim.

• Agreed. Not even the author of the cited article did any fact checking on that claim. The musician also claims to have given up a role on the A-Team in favor of Mr T, claims to have encouraged Whitney Houston, claims to have been instrumental in the Solidarity movement. Further, an internet search doesn't reveal any evidence that James Pobiega asked for credit on the song, let alone filed suit against Thorogood. In short, it's not only an unverified claim, it's hardly a claim at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CD0:5820:60E9:6F85:43B4:4706 (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How could the song make it to the movie "The Paradine Case (1947)" Spielmann (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to a revert, I've again placed the Waters reference in the Lede proper. It was previously dangling below, and not in the Lede, per-se. No argument with any other editor re: content - rather odd positioning, This needs to be stated early on: in the LEDE. Please respond here with any objection. Let's not play the '3 revert rule', where a matter is obvious. Hanoi Road (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually of the opinion this should be removed and placed into the article proper somewhere - the lede is supposed to summarise the article itself, not be a dumping ground for any exclusive information. The article makes no further mention of song composition at all. If - as you say - this is such a commonly held belief then you should have no problem finding reliable sources and creating a decent composition and writing section for it.

I'm also against your comment of "Let's not play the '3 revert rule', where a matter is obvious". This is not a

WP:BLUE issue, and you need a source to keep it included - especially if you want it in the lede when it isn't anywhere else. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I've cited Fender. There are countless others. Information this essential (that the song is substantially an adaptation of important original work) certainly belongs in the lede, and nowhere else. I agree the lede is not a "dumping ground" (?), but it does need to state essential facts succinctly. In this case, borderline plagiarism (which is not in dispute - by anyone) most certainly qualifies as an essential fact. As such, it belongs where it is. Hanoi Road (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Whilst I appreciate the effort you're going to here, you also clearly don't fully understand what a lede is for - making statements such as "Information this essential (...) certainly belongs in the lede, and nowhere else". Please read up on

I don't want to get into any sort of 'contest' over this, but I really do think this needs to be referred to in the lede. If it's then essential that it be elaborated on within the body of the article, I'm all for that. I'm surprised, for example, that no reference is made to Waters' (well documented) annoyance that his work had been 'adapted' by Thorogood. It can easily be argued that this article isn't just about a song, but its very contentious genesis, as well. Google 'Bad to the Bone, Mannish Boy' and you'll see what I mean. I am absolutely not set against giving more weight to this in the article; quite the contrary. But if someone takes a quick look at the opening lines and doesn't have the time to read further, they need that critical fact up front. And 'appropriate weight' is a fairly subjective term. Hanoi Road (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop prevaricating, and do work on the article body to support your view. You're absolutely right that "this article isn't just about a song, but its very contentious genesis, as well" - but it's up to you to make it happen. It's not up to me to google and agree, it's up to you - as the person who wants to keep contested information - to sift through google and update the article, possibly by expanding the Authorship claim section to include the necessary info.

It just seems weird that you're to be making no effort to improve the article, and instead are arguing here that it needs to be improved. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now you're being ridiculous. I made the change last night, provided a citation today, and will expand it in the article when I get some time. There's no clock ticking here. No bombs are going off. Hanoi Road (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the image showing the 45 rpm come from? Fantasy piece? Foreign release? It shows a catalog number that isn't consistent with anything EMI America put out, plus it shows the lp length, not the 45 length. Google turns up literally nothing for that catalog number on this label. 76.188.87.232 (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]