Shama From MySpace

Welcome...

Hello, Shama From MySpace, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or .  Again, welcome! Patrick (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Her Majesty (song)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Her Majesty (song). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, friend. The Discogs description of the song in question (the Chumbawamba cover) describes it as "denouncing British royalty". Discussing the political content of song lyrics does not "breach formal tone" and my edit hardly constitutes "personal analysis". Please remember to Assume Good Faith, thank you.

I have edited the article with a citation to the Discogs article, (Discogs is already used as a source in the article) so it now says "three new verses and two bridges criticizing British royalty", a paraphrase of the Discogs description. The lyrics of the Chumbawamba version are not subtle ("the royal corpse is barely breathing ... I hope she's the end of the line", and single cover art that features Elizabeth II's eyes scratched out) and do not require much "analysis" to interpret. If you think the political themes of the Chumbawamba cover's lyrics are outside the scope of the article, I disagree, (and would prefer to continue that discussion on the article's talk page) but I would like to note that my current edit constitutes an addition of three entire words to the article. The article already (correctly) makes numerous sourced (including using a Portuguese-language Rolling Stone article that cites a website called "CheatSheet") NPOV observations on Paul McCartney's monarchist and anti-republican sentiments, and my edit is also NPOV. Chumbawamba is a famous band, well-known for their politics, so if their cover is notable, so are its political themes, given the political themes of the original. A personal analysis that violates Wikipedia's formal encyclopedic tone would sound more like this, "Chumbawamba's lyrics re-interpolate the canon of British classical rock to call into question the apolitical nature of..." etc. An encyclopedia such as Wikipedia is not the same thing as a Beatles discography reference guide. (Wikipedia:NOTGUIDE) I would argue that mentioning the Chumbawamba cover but not briefly noting its politics actually constitutes monarchist POV. Thank you for taking the time to make constructive Wikipedia edits and apologies in advance for the confusion. Shama From MySpace (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Discogs is not a reliable source. See WP:DISCOGS. Sundayclose (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Then all Discogs references must be removed from the article, including the one that is included as a source on the sentence "A swing version of the song appears as a hidden track on the 2017 Ed Palermo Big Band album The Great Un-American Songbook, Volumes I and II.". The fact that you are starting an edit war to remove the one and not the other indicates you are not actually primarily concerned with the quality of Discogs as a source, but your primary objection, for whatever reason, is the inclusion of any reference to the republican politics of the Chumbawamba cover in a Wikipedia article for a Beatles song. If that is your objection, just say so, so we can discuss the merits of whether or not it belongs. (Preferably on the article talk page with other editors.) If you seriously think I am producing "personal commentary" or "analysis" of the Chumbawamba song, I...genuinely don't know what to say. I don't know if I would consider it a suitable encyclopedic source, but in less than five minutes of Googling, I found a blog article referring to the cover as "demonstrat[ing]" Chumbawamba's "disdain" for "the institution [of the British monarchy]." Please move further discussion to the talk page of Her Majesty so other editors can comment on the merits of the edit, instead of trying to ding me on my talk page for being a "POV" editor. I am going to refrain from further editing the article for now because I don't believe in edit warring. Shama From MySpace (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Here is a Wayback Machine archive of Chumbawamba's original digital release of the song, where they say "Her Majesty: she's pretty much obsolete. Given away free to UK mailing list to 'celebrate' the Golden Jubilee": https://web.archive.org/web/20020609144951/http://chumba.com/_download.htm. Shama From MySpace (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything about the Chumbawamba "criticizing British loyalty". It would be your personal interpretation, which is original research and not allowed. I also question whether the source is reliable. Sundayclose (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

'Celebrate' in scarequotes is self-evidently a disparaging reference to the Golden Jubilee. Do you seriously not see where I'm coming from here? Also how is Chumbawamba's own website not a reliable source? You appear to be engaging in Wikipedia:OWNBEHAVIOUR. Shama From MySpace (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, it's your interpretation extrapolated from a questionably reliable website. If you want to make this edit, go to the talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS. You and I could argue all day about what the words in the website suggest. You'll need support from other editors. If I'm engaging in WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR other editors will readily see it and correct me. Sundayclose (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Not only am I seeking WP:CONSENSUS, I am also creating a original research noticeboard post. Thank you for your time. Shama From MySpace (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. You'll get more eyes on the issue at the noticeboard. There's still the issue of whether the source is reliable. You might consider seeking opinions at WP:RS/N. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)