Talk:Cold, Cold Heart

This article is rated Start-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

R&B and Soul Music Stub‑class

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Miaja?

What is the word Miaja doing at the beginning of this article? And who died at the age of 39? Certainly not Norah Jones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.38.141.175 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Paul jargon needs to be deleted.

Those additions should be challenged. This is re-writing history. Hank has been credited as the sole writers for 70 years! You allow some unreliable source to come forward and change that? Mind you the source admits all evidence is BURNED ! And all who could challenge it are dead. This is disgraceful. No wonder why Wikipedia is not considered a scholarly source. You should ban yourself for allowing this history to be falsely re-written Rockojr2488 (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting all of your removals because of your violation of the hard policy WP:Neutral point of view. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. The article should be reverted to its former state. And then this part can probably be added as an "Alternate history", "Authorship controversy" or something like that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, when I came to this article a couple of days ago, I didn't notice this discussion and didn't know that that strange paragraph I saw in the lead was added very recently. I just saw that the lead section contradicted the rest of the article and tried to do something about it. Now, when I know that the paragraph was a very recent addition (and I also think that its placement in the lead violated WP:NPV), I think the article should be reverted to its former state and then this new paragraph can be added as a separate section somewhere below. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are objections to the new version, I reverted to the pre-October 26 one. Binksternet's October 26 addition is also retained. I just moved it to a new "Controversy" section. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

This article has to comply with WP:FRINGE if it is to include any material on alternative authorship that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views. Of course I am referring to the Paul Gilley material, which cannot be given undue weight disproportionate to its coverage in mainstream scholastic sources. I'm not even sure if it can be included at all. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OR discussion.

I added a ref to a statement that had been deleted on the grounds of WP:OR. User Binksternet immediately deleted it with no explanation other than "blog." While blogs are usually not acceptable sources for most WP pages, WP:Parity gives greater leeway in discussing fringe claims such as this, so I have reverted the revert. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]