Talk:Objects in the Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are

Original research claim

As far as I'm concerned, the article either describes the primary source, or attributes interpretation to reliable sources. If the anon from MIT would like to identify specific problematic phrases, rather than unhelpfully slapping a tag at the top, then we can address them. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Much of the music and lyrics and plot sections are original research. Phrases like "darker in tone", "dramatic intensity", "more emphasis", "seemingly intense", "more romantic imagery", "growing intensity", "mournfully", "bleak" are all non-obvious descriptors that need sources. 18.56.0.34 20:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your more helpful comments. I will defend all of your examples:

• "darker in tone"/"mournfully"/"bleak" -- The verse is about physical abuse. It's not even interpretation to call it darker in tone. "Bleak" can be verified by watching the primary source. There is even a still to show this.
• "dramatic intensity"/"growing intensity" are clear descriptions, :although someone with better musical knowledge might know a better expression). The music/singing becomes noticeable more dramatic. It's pure description that can be verified from the primary source.
• as described by the lyrics, the relationship is "seemingly intense".
• The guitar in the instrumental bridge is indeed given "more emphasis" as the section progresses.

All of these are pure description that can be verified from the primary source. The above adjectives are perfectly OK. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, all of these are evalutions of how you interpret the song based on the primary source. If you disagree we can get a third opinon. But stop taking down the tag which says there may be orignal research and notifies everyone else of the dispute. 18.56.0.34 20:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's up for GA review anyway, so I'm sure a third opinion will be along shortly by a more experienced user. None of the above are "evaluations" -- they are plain descriptions that anyone with ears can verify. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt matter how plain you think it is. The song Wikiproject says Do not include "original research" such as opinions about a song, or interpretations of the lyrics or even statements about what the song is "about", unless they can be provided in the form of quotes that can be cited from sources with some authoritative insight 18.56.0.34 21:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion. I am not suggesting that the interpretations are plain. I am asserting that these are plain descriptions. e.g. the guitar becomes more intense. Or would the "guitar is given more prominence" or "becomes louder" please? The JPS^{talk to me} 21:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

In the strictest sense there is original research and editorializing in the article. It appears that the authors are reviewing the song rather than just reporting the facts. But can you do one without the other? I have been concerned that most plot summaries at WP are essentially OR, and that in order to summarize, there is some subjectivity in the evaluation of the plot etc. That being said, I don't see this article as being outside the normally accepted practices at WP. Yes, we forbid OR, but in practice we actually accept a great deal of OR. --Kevin Murray 21:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A plot summary doesnt evalute the plot at all, it summarizes it. No plot summary talks about the video's imagerey, or the metaphors used in the video. The songs Wikiproject specifically says not to include "original research" such as statements about what the song is "about", unless they can be provided in the form of quotes that can be cited from sources with some authoritative insight.18.56.0.38 22:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you have a stab at editing it yourself, since you seem to know where the problems are. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thatd be removing a large chunk of teh article, if you dont object 18.56.0.38 22:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I would object to hit and run removals. I invite you to tweak the wording, leaving a suitable replacement. I have just made a couple of tweaks to reduce 'metaphor'. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If you dont think it should be removed then provide a secondary source for ti. As I said twice the songs Wikiproject says that articles shouldnt talk about the meaning of a song unless there are reliable secondary sources provided. 18.187.0.107 00:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There are secondary sources, cited at the appropriate points. I've tweaked the article slightly anyway to remove some any problematic aspects. Anyway, a third opinion, a process which you suggested, has found that the article is acceptable. The JPS^{talk to me} 08:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The third opinion made a bad analogy to plot summaries, ignoring half of the points I made, and the user hasnt commented since I challenged it. Neither you or he have addressed the fact that the song Wikiproject specifically says Do not include "original research" such as opinions about a song, or interpretations of the lyrics or even statements about what the song is "about", unless they can be provided in the form of quotes that can be cited from sources with some authoritative insight. Even though Ive mentioned it 3 times now. Im still waiting on that one 18.63.1.20 22:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If youre going to remove the tag, at least comment on how it meets WP:SONG. The third opinion didn't mention it at all and made a bad anology to plot summaries and he still hasn't commented on my response. And the ga reviewer didn't address the dispute at all. As I've asked 4 times now, how does this article comply with WP:SONG? 18.187.0.101 22:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And I have replied many times above. Please stop trolling. OR is a GA criteria: he didn't comment on it because he must not have thought it was a problem. I'm sorry, but it is beginning to bedifficult to take your comments in good faith. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't comment about the "Original research claim" because i thought the Anon had gone away. Besides he was claiming there that the use of adjectives is OR, and i disagree.
I do not care about WP:SONG, i understand that it would be stupid to allow ALL songs to have an explanation and a plot summary, but in this case a lot can be said about the song's imagery and metaphores. So, as Kevin Murray said, i considered this article's OR acceptable. -Yamanbaiia 22:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would think I had "gone away" since I had commented thatd very day. I never said using adjetives was OR, ubt that comparing things like which verse's imagery was more romantic was OR. How much there is to say about a song's literary devices has no effect on wehther or not secondary sources are needed to analyze them. And OR is never acceptable. Wikipedia:No original research is aptly titled. Its not "No original research unless there's a lot that can be said" for a reason. As I pointed out, a plot summary referenced to a primary isnt OR because the information is directly extracted. If character X dies, that can be sourced to a specific page #, where the book will say that character X dies. Nothing in the song says that the third verses imagery is more romantic thatn the seconds. And for future reference, Id really appreciate not being inaccurately refered to as a guy. 18.187.0.96 06:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Everything seems to be in order and i don't see why this shouldn't be a good article. Great work! Only comment:

• "The season is winter, when "dreams would freeze," and the fall of the sun." this sounds funny but perhaps it's just me, maybe: "...freeze, and the sun is falling"? --Yamanbaiia 10:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll take a look at th phrase you mention ans fix it. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Dispute over whether this article contains original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The JPS (talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon, your claim is very broad. Could you please justify your claim by providing a list of the specific phrases to which you object. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

See #Original research claim, where I gave you a list, and you didn't even dispute that some of teh examples where OR. 18.63.1.10 05:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Unhelpful, as the article has been tweaked since then. And if we're going to be repetitive: two independent reviews. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Both reviews said that there is OR in the artilce and then gave some poor reason that OR is okay. Neither person has replied to my comments about why OR isnt okay in articles (mainly the policy titled Wikipedia:No original research.) Some of the things I mentioned were never addressed at all, like "romantic imagery". Pretty muc I object to all of the parts that analyze the song or give intrepretive descriptions, like saying that it uses patehtic fallacy. 18.238.6.220 07:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've always said I'm willing to improve the article. I've removed those two examples. I trust that this now meets your approval and you can get on with learning how to use apostrophes correctly? The JPS^{talk to me} 12:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Strike that, Reverse it!

might i point out the obvious that the song's version is the REVERSE of the automotive expression? this should be stated explicitly -- saying it is "derived from" is too vague. especially when i see blog posts all over the place saying that steinman's version MATCHES the long-known phrase!

on a car mirror things appear FURTHER AWAY than actually are. in steinman's song things appear CLOSER than they are (or should be).

at first i thought it was a colossal goof a la "catorce" and "mamba", but it matches the lyrics, so i guess it was intentional. 209.172.25.117 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Pianist Inconsistency

Reading the article, the intro refers to Roy Bittan as the pianist on this track, but the personnel section says that the pianist was Bill Payne. Anyone know which one it was and can update the article to be consistent? Nrms (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: To be moved. Note: requires admin assistance, which I will request at WP:RMT. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Objects in the Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer than They Are → Objects in the Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are – "Than" is used as a subordinating conjunction; it conjuncts two clauses. Per WP:NCCAPS, "Than" should be uppercased. Sources do that: Book #1 Book #2 Book #3 Amazon. Billboard uppercased every word, so its reliability is put in question. Edit: Of course, "Than" is also a preposition, which precedes and indicates something about an object, thing, or person. However, "They Are" doesn't look like an object. George Ho (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support, not capitalizing this one word makes the seem odd. If capitalizing was good enough for Meatloaf it's good enough for SoyBurger. Randy Kryn 00:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"makes the" what, Randy? George Ho (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Makes the article name seem odd", which I know isn't a reason but an observation. I'm still having problems with the computer, typing something, parts of the page erasing, the pointer jumping around, quite the nuisance. Randy Kryn 10:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.