Talk:Here's to You (song)

Update to "Use In Other Media"

The song as recorded by Ms. Baez appeared in the opening and closing to Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes. Would citing the game itself for this usage constitute a violation of WP:NOR? --130.65.221.46 (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Dubious statement inserted without citation

A dubious statement was inserted in the first paragraph alluding to new evidence regarding the Affair without any citation (even after the citation needed tag was added). This leads me to believe it was intended to call into doubt the article's factual basis. This line should not be added until this "new evidence" is cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.117.251 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Biased input of 'lawyer John Beardsley'

The article Sacco and Vanzetti provides details of various peoples' perspectives on the question whether the two were actually guilty. This includes Beardsley. Just picking out one voice of dozens in this article and thus declaring the songwriters' attitude as 'questionable' - is practically wp:original research. So either one inserts all these perspectives here again (but why when we already have a WP article for this) - or we remove this chapter. We might add a hint that there are varying perspectices on the story in the Sacco and Vanzetti article. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please explain what you think qualifies one out of dozen positions taken from Sacco and Vanzetti to be cited here. Basically, please restrain from editing controversial content without reading the talk page...We might add a hint that there are varying perspectices on the story in the Sacco and Vanzetti article. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

To merely hint that "there are varying perspectives" is uninformative. This would be like a broadcast journalist stating "others disagree" at the end of an unprofessional or mendaciously incomplete news segment. Whatever the intentions of the author, the article on Here's To You as originally written is sophomoric in that it amounts to a hagiography of Sacco and Vanzetti, the principal and only subjects of the song. Therefore, adverse evidence (some of it, not all of it) is required to provide readers with a balanced perspective. Here's To You is an almost religiously biased song about the Sacco and Vanzetti execution, and with your deletion, the article is almost as unbalanced as the song. For this reason, I will reverse your deletion. May common sense prevail! --Simeonsanchez (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Sacco and Vanzetti already provides all published attitudes to the case with regard to encyclopedic relevance. Obviously you are the one here who is swimming against the stream and fighting for one out of several positions to be cited in Here's to you, and adding non-neutral comments like 'questionable'. For this reason, I will reverse your edit. May common sense prevail! Also moving this discussion from my talk page to where it belongs. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

None of this matters - the article is about the song. Just write "The song is a tribute to two anarchists of Italian origin, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti who were sentenced in a controversial trial that took place in Massachusetts the 1920s." François Robere (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

M. Robere's 3'rd party opinion above is not a bad one. I maintain that the article, as originally written, is hagiographic in nature. This is for the simple reason that it does not offer any hint as to the possibility of Sacco & Vanzetti's guilt, which is not a matter of bias but a matter of reason and evidence. The matter of their potential guilt is also tremendously germane to the background & significance of the song. To severely shorten the "Background" section may correct the problem, but the article would then be very terse indeed. Thanks for your input Francois! Simeonsanchez (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This article does not need to offer a "hint to the possibility of Sacco & Vanzetti's guilt" because it is

• not the task of an encyclopedia to do this kind of research and
• an article with various positions and sources about published positions on this question does exist.

Simeonsanchez, the appropriate solution for you would be to produce your own song about the Sacco-Vanzetti case, and if this achieves the respective media attention, one could write a WP article about it. You are trying a shorter way, and this won't work. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

There aren't "varying perspectives" if you read the main article. The state later renounced the decision. That's just personal grievances and it's not even clear the song is a tribute since it's for a film. It's just not appropriate material for a song page. Wikipedia is the bridge the trolls live under, sadly.--184.20.10.253 (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Troll guarded paragraph

Today I tried to address the out of place (inappropriate) monster paragraph (discussed above) in the background section with the following but it was immediately reverted before I could fix a typo:

Anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were wrongly sentenced to death by a United States court in the 1920s for robbery and murder.(references removed)

--184.20.10.253 (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Upton Sinclair Letter

I removed a paragraph that referred to a letter written by Upton Sinclair that would consider Sacco and Vanzetti guilty, because:

1. Any detailed discussion of the guilt question belongs in the correct article, unless it has bearing on the song itself, which it has not;
2. Said article does mention this item, but it apparently did not lend it much credence; I'll assume this has been discussed thoroughly on that page, which currently does not sport an NPOV banner;
3. It appears to me to be a weasely way to suggest a consensus on Sacco and Vanzetti's guilt that apparently does not exist.

78.91.103.181 (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)