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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz 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.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz 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.
Rather than use the article page for openly debating the original idea behind the composition (something which in jazz, especially, is almost irrelevant, as band members continuously play around with sounds and give each other ideas, riffs, etc.) such debate should take place on this discussion page - which is what Wikipedia wisely includes it for - and any sourced or referenced item included on the article page. I have date-tagged the debateable item and would be interested to know what sources are forthcoming - either way. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not agree with the content of the article, there are at least two civilised ways of sorting it out. One is to delete it, and preferably leave an explanation here, and the other is to leave the item in the article and to debate it here. Crossing out the text and leaving it in the article is not the best way of editing. Personally, I'm all for taking out the reference as I think it is irrelevant, but the fact that someone has bothered to include it makes me want to give them at least the chance of defending its inclusion. --Technopat (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not even that its irrelevant, but that its incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.10.179 (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
