Misplaced Pages

Talk:Lithium (Nirvana song): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:32, 3 October 2006 editKafziel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users24,921 edits Requested move to []: oppose rename← Previous edit Revision as of 20:13, 6 October 2006 edit undoU-Mos (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,546 edits Requested move to []Next edit →
Line 26: Line 26:
Now that ] have a song called ], should this article be moved to ]? ] 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Now that ] have a song called ], should this article be moved to ]? ] 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
*I don't think the Evanescence song should have an article at this point. As it is, it's unsourced crystal ball stuff, and there's no reason to suppose it will be significant enough to support an article of its own apart from the main album article. Rather than renaming this one, I'm inclined to put the Evanescence one up for AfD. It fails ] which, although it is a proposed guideline, seems to be backed by consensus and by ]. ] ] 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC) *I don't think the Evanescence song should have an article at this point. As it is, it's unsourced crystal ball stuff, and there's no reason to suppose it will be significant enough to support an article of its own apart from the main album article. Rather than renaming this one, I'm inclined to put the Evanescence one up for AfD. It fails ] which, although it is a proposed guideline, seems to be backed by consensus and by ]. ] ] 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
But if the Evanescence article remains...? ] 20:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:13, 6 October 2006

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

WikiProject iconSongs Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Where did you read the meaning of the song? Elsewhere I couldn't find any two people agreeing on it, however most of them don't think it's about religion.

I simply gave the surface meaning of the song; that at least deserves some mention. Further interpretation may or may not be needed; I'll leave that open to other editors to decide on. -- LGagnon 19:57, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

The only clue for which this song should be considered about religion is the line "Light my candles in a daze 'cause I've found God". It's not quite obvious. I think this song has no "surface meaning", but it's intentionally hard to interpretate.--Army1987 11:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, what I wrote is the meaning most often attributed to the song. I don't think it should be removed, since many have interpretted it that way, but if you want to add other interpretations then you can. -- LGagnon 15:23, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I am a bi-polar victim, and have taken Lithium in the past, and I just think the unusual line about god may be in fact just the opposite of what is stated in the article in general. In that, it is an allegory to Lithium and other pharmicuetical drugs being a substition for religion in Kurt's usual "mocking" songwriting style. When you take mood stabilizers, you still feel the euphoria of a manic upswings and depressive downswings, so in essence the pills do not really have the effect they are made out to have, and most of the time you feel like a zombie (hence the "candle"), and you feel let down. But, of course, Kurt's lyrics are always over analyzed, but in contrast, hard to decipher. Don't know if Cobain experienced these medicines, but In my experience, the song is basically a description of life with bi-polar disorder, although thickly veiled in some lines. The chorus to me seems to be about a love relationship that the disease may have ended.

Just thought I'd throw my two cents in. Keep up the good work Misplaced Pages. I would register and help out a little more, but I'm afraid my personal problems keep me from doing something that I would enjoy, like sharing my personal knowledge and views with people, since my view of the world is so cracked at times.

Thanks, Eric

O.K., I've decided to register. I have extensive knowledge of some rock music, so maybe I can help out in this area. Sincerely, Eric

"Interpretation" section is completely subjective and unsourced.

One of two things need to happen to this section; either the assertions within need to be cited, or it needs to be removed. Unsourced, subjective interpretations do not belong in this entry. ---Jackel 03:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move to Lithium (Nirvana song)

Now that Evanescence have a song called Lithium, should this article be moved to Lithium (Nirvana song)? U-Mos 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think the Evanescence song should have an article at this point. As it is, it's unsourced crystal ball stuff, and there's no reason to suppose it will be significant enough to support an article of its own apart from the main album article. Rather than renaming this one, I'm inclined to put the Evanescence one up for AfD. It fails WP:MUSIC/SONG which, although it is a proposed guideline, seems to be backed by consensus and by WP:MUSIC. Kafziel 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

But if the Evanescence article remains...? U-Mos 20:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Category: