Talk:Midnight Rambler

Fair use rationale for Image:Letitbleed1.jpg

Image:Letitbleed1.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 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Letitbleed1.jpg

Image:Letitbleed1.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) 06:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

dubious dating

what is the source of the february 9-10 recording date?? that's not specified in any of the three listed references; until further notice i'm changing it to "early 1969" and "february/march 1969" to coincide with the timeisonourside database. there are also sources that state it was recorded circa april/may 1969, which in some ways seems more likely. Sssoul (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

http://keno.org/stones_lyrics/midnight_rambler.htm February 9 & 10 dates come from this source. Stan weller (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for explaining - with all due respect many of the details on Keno's fine site are debatable; lots of sources state that the Glimmer Twins trip to Positano wasn't until april 1969, and studio photos that look like Rambler sessions certainly look more like april/may than february. it doesn't seem worth including/referencing all the different hypotheses, though, so until someone comes up with indisputable documentation, i propose leaving it at "early 1969". Sssoul (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:LetitbleedRS.jpg

The image Image:LetitbleedRS.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Brian Jones' Percussion

At what point in the song can you hear Brian Jones and his percussion part?

WikiPro1981X (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"weeell you heard about the Boston ..." BAM! Brian added timpani to Charlie's drum - at least that's what i've been told. Sssoul (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Who gets CREDIT for adding the Nov 25, 2012 Concert?

To whoever the editor was of adding that Mick Taylor played w/ the Stones on 11/25/2012, I say, "Nice work!". I checked the "History" of the article and there was no name provided. I like the way this article and other Stones articles are written. Nothing's perfect, we could always add more detail to this article, but I was impressed that someone was paying attention enough to add this recent history of the song. Nice job of updating this. I think it's vital, informative and objective enough to footnote a link that shows, specifically that Mick Taylor played with the Stones on 11/25/2012.V Schauf (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Prerequisite

In the quote "the control of women's sexuality was seen as a prerequisite" the word should be perquisite, not prerequisite. Of course, if Pinker really wrote "prerequisite", then it is a correct quote, but might well be annotated with "(sic)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neals384 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

It is most certainly highly debatable that one author’s opinion published in a book constitutes a “controversy”. I’m doubt this meets the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia entry. A controversy would require that the issue attained some notoriety and public debate and I’m quite sure that this did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:41:200:5260:74BC:52E9:D059:BD06 (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia:Criticism makes it clear "there is no requirement to include criticism or controversies in an article" and I think this is hardly noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion given its reliance on a single source. Frankly, this paragraph reads more like a plug for one author's book than a legitimate controversy section. I note the edit history indicates it was deleted once but reverted without explanation. I'm going to delete it again. If someone feels the need for its continued inclusion in the article, they should bring their rationale to the discussion page. TempDog123 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)