Talk:Wild Horses (Rolling Stones song)

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe natasha bedingfield has covered this song. She has released an original song of the same name but I am not aware of a cover of the rolling stones song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.155.169.121 (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Boyle's version of Wild Horses is almost identical to the version by Charlotte Martin, which can be heard here. Charlotte Martin is fairly unknown, so its no surprise that I can't find any acknowledgement to Susan Boyle's arrangement being borrowed from Charlotte Martin, which is almost certainly the case. It would be really good if someone could find some sort of proof and include it in the Covers section. --kikumbob (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Susan's version is musically identical with Charlotte Martin's piano solo version, only Susan's has strings accompaniment addition. It's true, but unless some published critics writes about that, we cannot include such information in the article, that's the WP policy. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this get its own section? There is a section full of artists who have covered this song, so what makes this one so special? Riksweeney (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly, its has surely only been included here due to its current radio play and being in the media. Does anyone have any good reason for this not to be removed? 118.208.1.21 (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agrred' and removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.180.31 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Boyle's version of Wild Horses was included on an album which reached number one in 9 different Countries and reached the top 10 in 20 different Countries and was the fastest selling debut of all time (in the UK). As a single it reached the top 10 in the UK. That is more than enough reason for it to remain on this page. If you still wish to remove it then prove that the reasons I have given are invalid and it is not notable enough to get its own section in the article.

I hardly think a decision to remove it should be made by two anonymous users and one who doesn't even bother to sign his/her comment. If you wish for your points to be taken more seriously you should really consider creating accounts. Alexsau1991 (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPs are part of the "anyone" who gets to edit wikipedia. The section on the Susan Boyle version is lengthy, well sourced, and could be cut down to two sentenced and a link to its own article. The song has a long standing claim to fame outside of Susan Boyle, but her version is currently in the news, enough so to merit an article of its own. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 19:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, Wikipedia states at the top of each edit an anonymous user makes adivising that they are making an edit with out an account and recommends they create an account. As I said in my text, I have nothing against anonymous users making edits (if you actually would care to read it) but these anonymous users didn't make an edit they removed a whole chunk of the article with out actually waiting to see what other users thought, creating an account costs nothing so don't start to lecture me about Wikipedia rules and regs because your addition to the discussion was completely pointless and not needed. And the fact her version is in then news does not merit it the right to have an article of its own, very few covers have there own article (if any). Alexsau1991 (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether they are anonymous or not you should simply deal with the points at hand instead of dismissing their suggestions, which are valid, because they chose not to create an account. I used to have a Wikipedia account but I rarely contribute here anymore so I didn’t see the point in maintaining it, plus I have my own gripe with pedantic Wikipedia patrollers who have little interest or knowledge in the subject they are editing for any other reason besides hobbyism. I agree with both the users above, if there must be a section at all it should be pared down to a paragraph with a suitable link to Boyle’s version which should have all the relevant information contained in its own page, it makes the addition here seems superfluous and curiously weasel like in promotion of Susan Boyle. Also, I thought Wikipedia was meant to be an Encyclopedia, it shouldn't matter that Susan Boyle is currently in the media enough to somehow warrant placing prominent sections in related articles, isn’t the job of linking to specific pages or other relevant articles meant to prevent pages becoming muddy? What happens in a year’s time when the song has left the public consciousness? The section will stick out like a sore thumb. Finally, the chart performance of Boyle's version doesn't seem notable enough frankly for it to encroach on other pages, if you want to create a separate page for it why don't you do it? 84.13.123.166 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC) P.B[reply]

I concur with you - the Susan Boyle cover of Wild Horses need not be covered within this article.

This article deals with the Rolling Stones version (i.e. the original) This section should be ported to it's own article. --FinalCoyote (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The Susan Boyle text belongs right here. To establish a new page for a cover is a little extreme. Even the info. regarding Rolling Stones' covers (of a song like "It's All Over Now" which is arguably more famous now than the original) is included on the original songwriter's page. That being said the Boyle section is rather long, considering the Sundays' version is likely as well known and as worthy of a mention of comparable length to Boyle's. Stan weller (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most people here. Having a huuuge paragraph that states many covers by very famous celebrities, many of whose covers DID peak the charts (many people I know weren't even aware that it wasn't Sunday that did the original version), and then having a Susan Boyle section is silly to me. Her name should be included in that list, maybe a sentence mentioning that it reached a chart if people feel it's necessary, and then that's it. Unless people intend on having each one of those covers elaborated on I don't think just because Susan is current she should have a section. All that information belongs on Susan's page. I would also like to point out that "Because of the digital downloads it did not peak as expected" is weaselly... if that's a word... It's like saying "This song peaked the charts even though it didn't" or at least "This song would certainly have peaked the charts if it wasn't for the digital downloads". Either it topped it or it didn't. Or at least find a quotation. The sentence "Susan's rendition of the song did not fair well on the charts" says the same as the "Weaselly" (still not certain that's a word...) and yet sounds completely different, so that needs to be checked. The fact that it DIDN'T do well also speaks as to why she shouldn't have her own section. 24.91.72.168 (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more vote for deleting the section, for reasons stated above. In addition, it violates NPOV to promote Boyle's version over others—and regardless of her album sales, there is no indication that this particular track was notable. Delete. Bag of Carrots (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth noting that exactly the same situation has arisen on other articles for popular singles such as Lean on Me (song) but, despite the fact that this was done some years ago, no action has been taken here. This is not an argument to keep the current format, however. I'm just pointing out that a descision to cut the Susan Boyle section in favour of a small sentence describing her version because it goes against wikipedia guidelines means that the same action should and should have been taken in these other articles.--kikumbob (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that Gram Parsons claimed to have written or co-written this song. The Stones dismissed his claim and he never pursued it. Can some interested party find some references to this? It would be an important addition to the article. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parsons died in 1973 and the Stones ain't talking........ Blood from a stone ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on

This issue was resolved in September 2019 by moving page "Wild Horses (The Rolling Stones song)" to "Wild Horses (Rolling Stones song)". CuriousEric 16:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I add the line 'The same version is used in the episode 01x01 of the serie "Friends from college" (2017)'. Source: https://www.tunefind.com/show/friends-from-college/season-1/49637#songs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.31.122 (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Connection: The Stripped version of the song is a remake and not the original. All of the infobox parameters refer to the original and not the other one. Since the article barely mentions it and it's not discussed in the AllMusic song or album reviews, a separate section or infobox is not warranted either. If there are no objections, I'll remove the extra chronology. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There are objections. 1. I've seen this done in other articles. 2. Why aren't a separate section and a separate infobox warranted? Isn't the version notable? For example, the Stripped version of "Like a Rolling Stone" is definitely notable, it charted (actually, it charted very high) in the UK. I have no idea why there's no infobox for that version in that article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1)
    WP:RFC
    or I'll remove the extra chronology. —16:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    • A live version of "Enter Sandman" wasn't released as a single, but a live version of "Wild Horses" was. (But okay, I couldn't find any sign of the live version of "Wild Horses" having charted. If I discover that it charted, I will create a separate infobox. In any case, you are free to remove the extra chronology.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the extra chronology myself.
      And thank you for the detailed explanation. Yes, I agree that a new version should be discussed in a separate infobox, otherwise it creates confusion. --Moscow Connection (talk)

I heard this song in a documentary this evening, and got to wondering about whether Gram Parsons had a co-writing credit with the Stones. I know relatively little about Parsons, and assumed the wiki article might touch on the collaborative writing process.

It was with that in mind that I tripped over the below graf in the Inspiration and Recording section. I'm confused; is the implication that some think/allege that Parsons wrote the song (and/or lyrics)? Or is it simply a reference to a rock-and-roll artifact that may or may not include authentic handwritten lyrics to the song? In which case, does it really merit inclusion? I could rattle off a number of Grateful Dead-related collectors items that connect to their songbook, but I'm not about to start doing it!

The song "Wild Horses" appears in Gram Parsons' lyric journal, known to be a sceptical source by fans, shown by Jeff Nolan in November 2017. The Hard Rock Cafe had purchased the journal at a Christie’s auction in the 1990s; it had previously belonged to Ric Grech, a former member of Blind Faith.

If others understand the gist of this graf, I'll be interested to hear more about it.

Microfamous (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]