Jump to content

Talk:Durch den Monsun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

alternative rock band? puh-leeze. 87.20.76.135 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Taoism theory

[edit]

Removing the last edit to this section. Whoever made that edit, please maintain a Neutral Point of View, as this is an encyclopedia. Also, remember to sign your posts with four tildes. (~) 74.132.238.157 (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your knowledge of taoism seems to be rather lackluster, thinking of the Yin and Yang as just good and evil doesn't do justice to the depth of taoist thought, and is a typically uneducated western attempt at synchronism. The Yin and Yang should rather be thought of as feminine and masculine, giving and receiving. And let's not forget that both activities could traditionally be considered "bad". An individual should rather attempt to move with the flow of the world as smoothly as possible, instead of attempting to attempting to make it conform to some personal standard. erroneous 79.136.127.36 (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I've actually been to Japan, and prayed at a Buddhist temple, and I currently hold a Bachelor's degree in Theology. I think I have a little more Ethos on this subject than you do. Your edit did not maintain a NPOV. Whatever (wrong) assumptions you may have about my definition of Taoism are unrelated to the matter at hand. 74.132.238.157 (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really think we should keep this argument above the logical fallacy known as an argument from authority. Let's discuss the facts at hand, not who of us has more experience in the field. If I'm wrong, then it should be a simple thing for a modern theologian to point out the flaws in my reasoning. 79.136.127.36 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asking a theologian such as myself to point out the holes in your ridiculous argument is akin to asking a blind man to count the grains of sand on a large beach. If you'd like, I can arrange for the community college to fax a copy of my degree to you to prove my authority on this subject. Otherwise, you'll just have to trust me when I say I am right and you are wrong and also you have a non neutral POV.74.132.238.157 (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's possible to have a non-neutral POV on an issue like this, we all have different thoughts and ideas on it. I do however think that we should represent all theories in this article. I don't believe that you're helping the debate of the issue by shutting down parts of the argument that you are not comfortable with. 79.136.127.36 (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Taoism Theory from the music video synopsis as nothing can be verified in relation to the theory being directly linked as symbolism in the video. The band, the music video director or any related party has never mentioned the video having symbolism linked to said theory and so saying so in the article, without any published third party reliable source as a reference, is original research and so was removed as such. It is the very same thing as adding one's interpretation of the songs meaning or a songs genre to the article without any published reference to said interpretation. On most band article talkpages you will find genre debates and the reason for this is to seperate each editors own opinion on the song/band's genre from sourceable fact found in reputable music critic reviews (like in Rolling Stone or MTV etc.). It doesn't matter if one's profession/degree or whatever is interpreting such mediums or has knowledge of a certain subject: Wikipedia is about verifiablility on facts and so any information put in articles must be verifiable to reliable sources. If one's opinions or theories (no matter how true or false) are added to the article without sources or if they can't be verified - they are removed as its not fact. Its that simple. If there is no source (and don't say yourselves as a source as that is exacly what original research means which is extremely frowned upon on Wikipedia), it doesn't go in the article. AngelOfSadness talk 19:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse the rude language, but you're being a bit of a 'baka'. What we're doing is not "research", as the themes of the music video are objective. Taoist themes EXIST in the video. What other explanation could you offer? Maybe you should go visit the wikipedia page for ANY NOVEL EVER WRITTEN and have a look at the "themes" section to understand what we're going for here. I'll respect what you've done here, however, and will re-add the material under a different section. 74.132.238.157 (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but the theories have never been discussed in relation to this video ever in published sources hence adding such an analysis to the article is original research per Wikipedia standards whether you like it or not. The themes are very much subjective like ones interpretation of a song etc. as theres no difference between them. Any themes of a novel are discussed widely in published sources (like in reviews for the books in published research papers) hence themes are added to the articles (like how for example American Psycho is based partly on the themes of capitalism and consumerism and that can be very easily verified) but themes which Wikipedia Editors discover/bring up that are unpublished are ommited from the articles as original research. But this isn't a novel article - it is an article for the song "Durch den Monsun" and this discussion really has nothing to do with that apart from what you can see in the symbolism in the music video. By the way, the music video synopsis is just supposed to be a summary describing what happens in the video (and director details and shooting locations etc.) at most so your addition will be removed as being unsourced, unverfiable, original research and borderline irrelevent in terms of what is really needed in the article. If you've noticed not even the songs meaning (which would be al lot more relevent to this article) isn't even in the article. So having a huge section on symbolism in the video would be extremely out of place. By the way, there is a standard for Wikipedia song articles at WP:SONG and articles which follow those guidelines exactly are known as featured articles such as Hollaback Girl, Hey Baby (No Doubt song) and Smells Like Teen Spirit. If you look at the music video sections to any of those articles you will see that no symbolism mentioned is left uncited and with that said hardly any symbolism is mentioned so obviously thats the way all song articles are meant to be per Wikipedia standards and so there is no reason not to follow suit here. Its very simple: I'm merely asking for a source to back up the content you wish to go in the article which links the theory with this song's video as I know its not widespread general knowledge that the symbolism in this video is linked to Taoism. If there is enough coverage about this link, I would see that that would be grounds to place it in the article. But currently as there's no source I don't see why such a minority,or rather a rarely discussed, take on the video should get a bulk of the article without a source there for the readers to check/verify for themselves if they wish to look up more about the link. AngelOfSadness talk 21:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Durch den Monsun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Durch den Monsun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Durch den Monsun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Durch den Monsun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Durch_den_Monsun&oldid=1201430600"