Talk:Tears for Fears/Archive 1

Archive 1

So-called "fan" websites

While, generally, fan sites are inappropriate for linkage on Wikipedia, it seems to me that, at least in this case, the sites linked to in this article are not really "fan" sites, but instead are websites that contain a lot of information for anyone who wants to know more. It seems that the fan site ban is to avoid linking to worshipful sites that contain little value. In this case, for example, "Memories Fade" is more like an online encyclopedia than a typical "fan" site. I think the links should stay. Rabidwolfe 14:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

They are still fan websites regardless of how informative they are and links to them are inappropriate for Wiki articles. The "Memories Fade" website is certainly nicely done, but it is still a fan made website and is not official. The TFF pages on Wiki (including their entire discography) already have sufficient information for Wiki purposes, and the main page already contains links to official TFF sites (which are permitted). If you read through the Wiki policy re: external links at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links you can see what should and should not be included. If we make an exception for one fan website, then we have to do it for all. Kookoo Star 16:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit too draconian. The Wiki link has the following criteria for links: "What should be linked: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." Fan sites are under "to be avoided", not "outright banning." It seems like they should be considered on a case by case basis, not on a "scorched earth" policy. As the guidelines say "Each link should be considered on its merits." That's what I think should be done. Rabidwolfe 19:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm staying firmly outside of this revert war, since I'm obviously a biased voice. However, I will note that a careful examination of memoriesfade.com will reveal it's more detailed AND accurate in its content than the so-called "official" fan website (which I notice still remains in the links section). Also note that the official Curt Smith website (www.tears-for-fears.com) has a link to and an endorsement for memoriesfade.com on its homepage. I believe the a link from Wikipedia is relevant in the context of the guidelines that Rabidwolfe excerpted above. MemoriesFade 20:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The word "avoid" does not mean "decide for yourself". It means "to keep away from". You cannot use the Memories Fade website as a source of information because it is an unofficial, third party website. It has its own opinions mixed in with the facts (read some of the content about the albums and singles...it is full of conjecture) and it does not quote its own sources of information. There are also potential issues with copyrighted material on the site, and linking to it from Wiki could be considered to be "contributory infringment" (read the policy page again that Kookoo Star mentioned above). Dont get me wrong, I loved reading the Memories website too and I can tell that the person who made the site (Donyo?) invested a lot of time and effort building it. But it is still a fan site and it is still inappropriate to include or promote fan websites as sources of information on Wiki. The only time that third party sources or links might be included in this context is for professional reviews or interviews from widely recognised publications. Donyo's site includes a lot of TFF reviews, but they are merely transcribed and are still therefore third party copies. If a review were to be relevant to a Wiki article, it should be a link to the actual source (Rolling Stone, San Francisco Chronicle, etc) if it is available online. It's all to do with accuracy, authenticity, and copyright issues. Also, external links have to be justified. Considering the level of detail on the main TFF article, the TFF discography article, as well as separate article pages for every album and single they have released (with picture sleeves) - is more information really that necessary? Much as I love them, Wiki isn't here to promote TFF, it merely provides general information about them and their work because they are notable in some way. I agree the official TFF sites are nothing brilliant, but they dont contravene any Wiki policies. As for the official fan website - it is exactly that: official. It has been endorsed by Roland Orzabal who is familiar with the lady who runs it (although she hasn't been running much lately!). To be honest, I don't really care either way whether it stays in the list of links or not as it is not an absolute requirement. MassassiUK 22:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation of "avoid" in this case (avoid is not the same thing as "never deal with" - instead, in this case it seems to mean "generally stay away from"), but your overall argument seems sound. So, if you feel that strongly about it, I'll let the removal stand. Rabidwolfe 22:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, which ever one of you has created a new account in order to continue the edit war - forget it. It now wouldn't surprise me to find that all three of these accounts are the same person. MassassiUK 10:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

TFF dot com is the webmaster of tears-for-fears.com, and I'm sure you have a means of verifying that, as well as the fact that the login has existed for quite some time. I can vouch for the band's endorsement of the site as well as the fact that the band acknowledges that there is information on that site which they themselves do not have. The band themselves provided some information for Memories Fade, and in fact, the new official TFF web site (under construction) is integrating all of the information on Memories Fade into it with full acknowledgement and endorsement of the webmaster's work.

We are trying to deal with this debate professionally, and becoming suspicious and paranoid about multi-login merchants does a disservice to your opinions. This is the same sort of zealotry which labeled a link to Curt's personal blog "spam" solely because it is hosted on Myspace. If you want to continue this discussion offline please write me at webmaster at tears-for-fears.com Tff dot com 11:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)TFF dot com

If and when the fanmade Memories Fade website becomes incorporated into a fully official TFF website, then the link can be restored (or, more appropriately, a link to the new official website). Your personal vouching for something is not proof of anything I'm afraid. As it stands right now, the MF website contravenes Wiki policy on listing personal websites as external sources. These policies are in place for a reason. There is also a blanket policy on MySpace and other social networking sites. It is unencyclopedic and usually quite unnecessary to include them if there is already an official web site listing or sufficient information on the article pages. Curt Smith's Myspace page adds absolutely nothing that would enhance the Wiki articles and is little more than just a blog filled with gushing fan messages. You might want to label this as zealotry if it suits your agenda, but I could just as easily label the motives of those in support of keeping the fan links as blatant self-promotion (the fact that there are Amazon banner links on the MF website from which the site owner would profit from adds more to the motive of self-promotion). Wikipedia is not the place to promote things beyond general discription - even just by linking to it. The artist's own official website can get away with that, but nobody else otherwise we could have millions of fan website links on Wiki pages and it would lead to virtual bloodshed trying to argue which ones are worthy and which ones are not (can you imagine how many there are out there for people like Madonna?). MassassiUK 12:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Boy, I graciously acknowledge you are right, and instead you accuse me of sock puppetry. Paranoid much? I have no other accounts on Wikipedia. You seem to be a bit too on the attack over such a small matter. Rabidwolfe 13:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty laughable to criticise Memories Fade for having Amazon banner links when every page of Wikipedia now has a "Donate Now!" banner on top. The site owners are certainly raking it in from that, after all. So that critique is a red herring, as is the the Madonna comparison, because unlike her, there are not hundreds of "bloodshed"-worthy sites to contend over for TFF. Curt's blog contains the latest official news from the source itself (future plans, current projects, record label issues, etc), despite your claim that it adds "absolutely nothing", and despite the fact that it could be linked to without contention if hosted on another site. So these are all uninformed and false arguments, and your zealous adherence to them has still failed to prove the unworthiness of MF's inclusion. At the very least, none of them justify the vitriol of the deletion or the bizarre presumptions of MLMs, "promoting agendas", and "bloodshed". My sole "agenda" is to present the facts in as straightforward, simple, and authoritative a manner as possible, no matter where those facts happen to be stored. Your view, on the other hand, says that all facts are equal but some facts are more equal than others, which has ironically caused this Wikipedia article to be far less authoritative than it used to be. Keep up the good work; soon we won't have to worry about Wikipedia at all, as its moderators will have self-righteously regulated it out of existence. Tff dot com 18:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only have you failed to make your case, but it is clear that you have missed the entire point of this discussion and there is absolutely nothing in your last posting that changes that. The simple fact is that fan websites are inappropriate linkage on Wiki. It is policy. Accept it. If we allow one fan website - no matter how well made it is - it opens the door for all of them. This is a policy that is relevant to ALL fansites for ALL subjects, and we cannot make an exception just for the Tears For Fears ones. If you cannot see the problems that would cause, then I suggest you steer clear of Wikipedia altogether. I have already gone to great lengths to explain to everyone involved in this discussion why the policy is there, no matter how hard you have tried to dodge it. There is nothing stopping information that might be included on fansites being used within the Wiki articles - as long as the relevant FIRST PARTY references can be added if required. Despite your belief to the contrary, the articles would be no less authoritative without the links to non-official websites. But you cannot use third party sources as it is unencyclopedic. You claim that your sole agenda is to present the facts in a straightforward, simple, and authoritative manner. I believe the article pages already do that sufficiently and anything more really would be overkill, so I can only assume that your true agenda is more to do with promotion. However, as I have already pointed out, if the MF website is to eventually become a part of an official TFF website like you claim, then you really have nothing to worry about because when that happens it will not infringe the policy nor will it encourage the addition of other unofficial fansites since it will effectively no longer be one itself. MassassiUK 20:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The point of my case is: if a web site is officially endorsed, factual, professional and authoritative, and is not a "s0-called fan site" in either content or appearance, there should be no problem with its inclusion. (Your sarcastic belittling of Memories Fade as a "so-called fan site" suggests you have a spleen to vent against fan sites in general, which is your prerogative, but take it out on a site that warrants it.) Your zealous bigotry against the best TFF site on the web for trivial surface factors begs the question of why Wiki needs human moderators at all. Your view insists that professional, authoritative facts - even first-party information from the band member himself - do not count if the "surface" of the web site does not meet your approval. What's next - Wiki does not allow links to sites, authoritative and officially endorsed as they are, solely because they are run by Scots, or homosexuals, or Jews? After all, if the information was valid, it should be posted on an English/straight/Christian web site. Tff dot com 10:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already answered your query in full detail above. If you choose to ignore what was said to you or attempt to twist it round to suit your own agenda, that's your problem. MassassiUK 11:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You have not answered my query at all. You have thumped your Bible. As has been said from the start: Memories Fade is not a fan site. It is officially endorsed, professional, authoritative, and is not a fan site in content, appearance, or intention. It never has been. At the moment is the most comprehensive source of information on the web, one which incorporates data going back to 1994 and has proven worthy to be included in the new official site. Until then, its inclusion as a simple link does not induce "bloodshed" or inappropriate behavior. And as contrary to your claim, links to the main first-party reference CANNOT be added as that reference is located on another "banned" site, the need for access to basic factual information is even greater. Your own agenda in condemning any site containing information about a band as a "so called fan site", regardless of content, appearance, intention, official endorsement, or the number of years it has been linked to without contention from any other Wikipedia user, is obvious. Tff dot com 12:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already answered your query in full detail above. If you choose to ignore what was said to you or attempt to twist it round to suit your own agenda, that's your problem. MassassiUK 13:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I sort of started this, so let me say two things: 1.) I created the heading "so called" not to denigrate, but because I felt that Memories Fade wasn't really a "fan site" and seemed more authoritative. I was trying to be positive, not negative. 2). MassassiUK seems to have a "the barbarians are at the gate" mentality. MassassiUK's first few arguments above seemed reasonable, but he or she has gone off the deep end. 3.)MassassiUK has not actually answered any of TFF.com's points, instead MassassiUK has only repeated him/herself over and over again, with ever increasing levels of paranoia. I'm switching my position back to thinking that Memories Fade deserves a link. In any case, I'm requesting some dispute resolution here.Rabidwolfe 14:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to say something. Regardless of how this dispute is resolved, "MassassiUK" has been subjected to considerable abuse within this discussion. All s/he is trying to do is uphold Wiki policy - which is something we all should be doing as Wikipedians. MassassiUK has stated the position on fansites extremely clearly (certainly far better than I ever did), but s/he has had to repeat themself because other people within the discussion are refusing to listen and accept Wiki policy. Regardless of whether you personally agree with Wiki policies or not, the user known as "Tff dot com" (and later "Rabidwolfe") have stooped lower and made this a personal attack by suggesting that MassassiUK is a self-righteous, over-zealous, sarcastic bigot with some kind of a mental health problem ("paranoid", "going off the deep end"?). There is no evidence of MassassiUK being any of those things, and this is an APPALLING way to conduct yourselves within a discussion, and you have both shown yourselves to be childish and unprofessional just because you couldn't have your own way. "Tff dot com" should be particularly ashamed of his or her self since they claim to represent one of the official TFF websites and they have therefore brought that site (and its client) into disrepute by behaving in this manner in a public forum. The way in which that user also removed the link to his or her own alleged site was also incredibly childish, although admittedly it is hardly any great loss and its removal does not impact one bit on the comprehensive nature of the Wiki article. BADLY DONE, the pair of you. I will also assume that you both lack the maturity to apologise to MassassiUK for the personal remarks you have made. Kookoo Star 14:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering I made no personal attacks on MassassiUK, but s/he did make more than a few on me (accusing me, with no proof, of sock puppetry - especially right after I said I found his/her argument persuasive, for example). It seems MassassiUK needs to apologize for being so vitriolic about the whole affair. I was all set to agree, but MassassiUK was so abusive towards and dismissive of TFF.com, I was rather repulsed. And I have yet to be directed to a page on Wikipedia that says "all links to fan sites are banned, no matter what, with no exceptions" (or words to that effect). "Avoid" is just not strong enough of a verb, and even then "avoid" is linked to various characteristics fan sites might have, not fan sites in every case, no matter what. Rabidwolfe 15:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So basically I was right and you do lack the maturity to apologise. You most certainly have made a personal attack by labelling him/her paranoid and going off the deep end. Suggesting that people have mental health conditions because they don't agree with your standpoint is abuse. MassassiUK has not been vitriolic at all, s/he has merely remained steadfast to the policy in question and refused to allow either of you to bend the rules. As for the sock-puppetry "incident", MassassiUK did not directly accuse you of anything and I believe s/he was right to question the validity of the "tff dot com" account as it had never been used before and the first ever postings made from the account were to effectively step in for another Wiki user who has had to bow out of this debate for "conflict of interest" reasons. Of course it is going to look suspicious as it is one of the oldest tricks on Wiki, and I am still not entirely convinced of its true validity or impartiality myself. This isn't paranoia, this is common-sense. As for the definition of the word "avoid", you might want to check out Dictionary.com and type in the word "avoid" for clarification. It seems perfectly clear to me. Kookoo Star 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm even responding to your rant (BTW - it doesn't help your point to accuse other people of immaturity while being immature yourself). I have not accused anyone of mental health problems - in fact, I will say right now that I did not intend to do so, and if anyone took it that way, I apologize for any unintentional implications. As for "avoid", in this case I'm talking about the connotation of the word, rather than the denotation. Avoid has the denotation of "stay away from" but the connotation is not as strong as other verbs would be. It's like the difference between "pretty" and "beautiful" or "attractive" - in the dictionary, they'll all have similar definitions, but in real world usage, there are differing connotations. Also, the wikipage that deals with "fan sites" does not say "avoid fan sites" - it says "avoid sites with the following attributes." What if the fan site has none of those attributes to avoid? Since that pages says "Each link should be considered on its merits" - it seems to me that is what should be done, rather than straight up ban on any an all sites that can be labelled as "fan." Rabidwolfe 15:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems the more you write, the further you dig yourself in. I'm not going to waste my time getting into yet another circular argument with you regarding what constitutes a fansite and what the word "avoid" means, any more than I would debate what the word "immature" means. My postings today are more concerned with the manner in which you and one of the other Wiki users have conducted yourself in this debate, and I believe I have made my point quite clear. Kookoo Star 16:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that's funny! Kookoo Star and MassassiUK have both, magically, edited the same Wikipedia articles on subjects as random as "Falcon Crest" and Bonnie Tyler, and "Koo Koo" is a Debbie Harry solo album, which is also an obscure category which Massassi has contributed to. What soulmates you must be! Either that, or the ranting accusations of sock puppetry and mental health issues were a clever peek at your game. From early on in your unreasonable behavior suggested that you were more troll than editor, and now it's been confirmed in delicious public detail. Keep talking to yourself on this and on your talk page - it's quite entertaining. Game over. Tff dot com 16:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That was a little harsh, TFF.com. I (more or less) agree with your basic point, but the tone was harsher than I would have preferred (it may be possible that Kookoo Star and MassassiUK are friends or lovers or spouses or siblings or any number of other reasons for why they would have the same interests). Perhaps we should all agree to let it go for now, and revisit the problem in a week or something? Tempers seem to be a little too high. Anyway, I've put in a couple of requests for dispute resolution, so we can see if that pans out. Rabidwolfe 16:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Although we have never met, it is true that MassassiUK and myself have contributed to a couple of the same topics. It's hardly a state secret since contribution logs are kept for all editors and anyone can see them. Looking at these logs, it appears that MassassiUK and Rabidwolfe both share an interest in Battlestar Galactica. Does this mean that they are one and the same person? Perhaps they belong in Sybil's Big Chair! As well as the topics that "tff dot com" listed in his/her last post above, MassassiUK and myself have also both contributed in some way to the Thompson Twins pages, but all of this only highlights the fact that we have a shared interest in some 80s popular culture (obviously including TFF). There is nothing irregular about this as many Wikipedians share similar interests. It is not evidence of anything and it is far less questionable than a previously inactive Wiki account conveniently springing to life just to take part in an edit war. I do actually agree with Rabidwolfe on one point though...we should let this matter rest for the time being before it descends any further. Kookoo Star 18:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Band name

They have certainly never been abbreviated as TFF in the UK to my knowledge. Sfgreenwood 14:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As this is a band name, shouldn't it be "Tears For Fears" and not "Tears for Fears"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.243.199 (talk • contribs)

Looking at the album covers, the name has been represented in both lower and upper-case with the 'F' in 'For' sometimes capitalized, sometimes not. I think the current title is as correct as any variation. -- Jon Dowland 13:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

is there any connection between the name of the band and the melody of the chorus of "Mad World" to a commonly mistaken line from Cat Stevens' song "Matthew and Son" that is often heard as "He's got people who've been working for "fear of tears" (fifty years)

No one asks for more money cuz nobody cares

Even though they're pretty low and their rent's in arrears" the melody is definitely the same in both songs on that part though... 68.233.140.140 04:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Both Orzabal and Smith were quite clear in the early years where the name came from. Neither has the Cat Stevens song ever been mentioned or even cited as a general influence. There might be vague similarieties but the rest is wide of the mark.. Karst 22:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Curt's solo stuff/Mayfield, etc.

Is the endless section on Curt's solo endeavours really necessary in this TFF article? Not that Curt's solo material shouldn't be refernced, but the level of detail here is only appropriate for an article on Curt Smith, not on TFF as a whole... 172.134.39.198 04:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on this. Curt Smith already has a separate page and his solo career should be primarily detailed there. This wouldn't apply to Roland Orzabal's work though as he kept the TFF name throughout the 90s and therefore it is still appropriate to the TFF page (although details about the Tomcats album and his production work outside of TFF should be kept to a bare minimum on the TFF page).MassassiUK 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TearsForFearsElemental.jpg

Image:TearsForFearsElemental.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other 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 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tears for Tears - Raoul.jpg

Image:Tears for Tears - Raoul.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other 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 04:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The hurting.jpg

Image:The hurting.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other 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 06:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tearsforfears-everybodyrunsworld.jpg

Image:Tearsforfears-everybodyrunsworld.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tearsforfears-tearsrolldown8292.jpg

Image:Tearsforfears-tearsrolldown8292.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Everybody wants to go to war

Famed 80's and 90's radio DJ Richard Blade of KROQ Los Angeles said that the song Everybody wants to rule the world was originally named Everybody wants to go to war. There was a song called Two Tribes Go To War by Frankie Goes To Hollywood that came out around the same time and to avoid confusion they changed the lyrics and song title from Go to war to rule the world.

--Steve Schlesinger71.254.170.179 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting bit of info, but I've never actually heard the band themselves claim this, so we can't really use it in the article. 79.66.27.155 (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

MySpace Website

Could the editor(s) who keep adding the external link to the MySpace fansite please see Wikipedia Style Guideline on External Links to Avoid, Number 10. This MySpace website is not official and does not contain any significant copyrighted material that cannot be included in the article. It is a fan website consisting purely of personal opinions by a non-notable fan. As such it adds nothing to the article and since Wikipedia is not a directory of links shouldn't be here. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bit of an ommission

I can't actually work out from this article who's the singer in the band. For such a well-maintained article it seems a strange thing to be missing. I can't work out what instruments the two main people played either. Help! Jumble Jumble (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

They are both singers and multi-instrumentalists. But you are right, it could be clarified. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Requires Review for NPOV

Among all of the excellent factual information there are too many of opinionated, critical comments about the group's music and its members' personal life. Those statements are unsubstantiated, present a subjective point of view or both. I identified some of them and deleted others. Further effort is needed to bring this deserving entry to Wikipedia standards. TippTopp (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Identification

This is valid for most Wikipedia articles regarding bands: how come there's no identification of who plays what, or even their faces? That's the first thing I ever want to know about a band, and I can't understand why this kind of information is usually omitted. - 187.20.79.83 (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If there isn't any immediate info on band members, all you have to do is click on their names and you will have all the info you need about them. --Λeternus ^(talk) 13:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1