Talk:Rainbow Connection

Can we talk about "The Rainbow Disconnection"?

"The Rainbow Disconnection" is a minor transposition by the artist or artists Sad Kermit and can be found here: https://soundcloud.com/sad-kermit/sad-kermit-rainbow-1 . Is an addition to mention this version noteworthy enough for an edit to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.148.82.252 (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

What is with the Carpenters Focus?

Why is the left box about the Carpenters version? Shouldn't it be for the original? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.82.163 (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And how could it be recorded by The Carpenters in '75, when it was nominated for Best Original Song in '79? No citation is included here, either.--12.34.246.72 (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's possible, since the Carpenters didn't release the song until after 1975. But all indications are that Williams wrote the song for the movie, which I'm sure wasn't in production in 1975 (which would have been before the premiere of The Muppet Show). Powers ^T 12:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't find other "Carpenter's focus" but I removed this...

A version of "Rainbow Connection" was recorded by The Carpenters in 1979 during a hiatus after the release of the album Christmas Portrait, and packed away in a box labeled "Only Yesterday,. It was not uncovered until 1995, when it was remixed and remastered for the release of the album As Time Goes By. The song charted at #47 in Japan in 2001.

The only thing I found regarding this was here at the official Carpenters site, and the information does not match :

http://www.richardandkarencarpenter.com/SN_TheRainbowConnection.htmDerekbd (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Last "External Link" is dead.

U Tube has removed the item due to copyright issues. Cithara (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Rainbow Connection doesn't usually have a "THE"

The muppets don't use a "THE" - I think officially there is no THE but many covers have a "THE".

That's how the article is named on the Muppet Wiki. -- 134.241.28.252 (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it is. I believe Muppet Wiki uses the ASCAP or EMI database to determine song titles. The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences also agree that it's "The Rainbow Connection", which provides further evidence that that's how Ascher and Williams registered the title. On the other hand, soundtracks (including both The Muppet Movie soundtrack and The Muppets soundtrack) use just "Rainbow Connection". Given more people are familiar with the soundtracks than with the official songwriters' registry database, I think "Rainbow Connection" is likely the WP:COMMONNAME. Powers ^T 14:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This article should seriously by called "THE Rainbow Connection". -- 173.76.124.124 (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Commercial

This song also appeared in a commercial for an online job site. I dont remember which one, Hot Jobs I think, but it was in the last 10 years 24.188.213.121 (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Just found it: http://adland.tv/commercials/hot-jobs-yahoo-rainbow-connection-2003-030-usa - not sure if it's appropriate to mention it so I'll leave it to this community to decide 24.188.213.121 (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm going to tag this article for non-neutral POV because of the following sentence:

The song lost the Oscar to "It Goes Like It Goes" from Norma Rae, a win that some critics decried.

Although two good sources are cited in support of the last part of that statement, no balancing statement expresses the point of view that "It Goes Like It Goes" deserved the Oscar it won. The result is that this article presents the biased POV that "Rainbow Connection" may actually have deserved the Oscar which "It Goes Like It Goes" won. Such bias is unacceptable in a Wikipedia article.

I feel strongly that the last part of that statement—"[...], a win that some critics decried"—should simply be removed, since, frankly, I doubt that any citable sources will be found for the balancing POV. Nevertheless, the balancing POV does exist. I just watched Dionne Warwick's performance of "It Goes Like It Goes" at the Oscar ceremony, and both her performance and the song are beautiful. Although my opinion is no more notable than anyone else's, I agree with the majority of Academy voters that "It Goes Like It Goes" did deserve its Oscar. To suggest to WP readers only that it did not is unacceptable.

Perhaps no professional critic ever expressed that balancing POV in print, but anyone who listens without bias to both songs will see that choosing one over the other is entirely a matter of personal preference; the two songs in themselves are about equally worthy of an Oscar. It is important to tell readers that "Rainbow Connection" was nominated for an Oscar but "It Goes Like It Goes" won the award; but the opinion that that decision by Academy members deserves to be "decried" should not remain in the article, unless a balancing opinion is also presented.

For the time being, though, I am just going to tag the article for NPOV, and give the editor who prefers "Rainbow Connection" over "It Goes Like It Goes" an opportunity to supply the missing balance. If that balance doesn't appear in a reasonable amount of time, maybe I or someone else will remove the problematic phrase.

The editor who added that phrase and its supporting citations added on the same day a similar statement to the "It Goes Like It Goes" article, so I am going to tag it for NPOV as well, with a link on its talk page to this comment so I won't have to repeat the whole thing there. The fact that that editor did not insert a similar statement into the article on the also-nominated and also better-remembered song "Through the Eyes of Love" suggests that his or her bias is more for "Rainbow Connection" than against "It Goes Like It Goes"—so leaving the discussion here is appropriate.—Jim10701 (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This dispute is too small to put scarce time into Jim. The statement concerned is quite accurate and supported by references, and is little other than a note that the Song could be considered Oscar Quality. No serious controversy or insult to the actual Oscar winner is implied. Please reconsider yourself and let your dispute go. There is so much else more pressing to be flagging and spending hundreds of lines contesting. 81.133.41.61 (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You have expressed your opinion that I'm wasting too much time and effort on something you consider trivial. You're entitled to that opinion, but it doesn't address the bias in this article. If you'll read what I wrote before, you'll see that I had no problem with the accuracy of the statement or with the quality of the sources cited for it.

It satisfies two of WP's three core principles (verifiability and no original research) in that regard. The core principle it violates is neutral point of view. It gives only one side of a controversial issue, an issue which you consider trivial but I do not. Saying that the song that won the Oscar did not deserve it is insulting both to the writers of the song and to the Academy voters who chose it for the award.

I couldn't care less about any of these songs, but I care very much about neutrality; the specific point matters much less than the principle. I still think the statement should be removed until a reliably sourced balancing statement can be found and added. Since you think this discussion is trivial, you may want to avoid wasting your time participating in it.—Jim10701 (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As a casual reader of the article, I didn't find the phrase biased. It seemed to report an interesting fact that some critics weren't happy with the choice. As I read on and saw the popularity of Rainbow Connection I thought that perhaps the wrong choice was made. Perhaps It Goes Like It Goes could be expanded with points about its future success rather than removing an interesting fact about the award. 71.198.7.163 (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your point of view as a casual reader, but you're confusing two separate matters. This article does provide ample evidence that "Rainbow Connection" achieved much greater success than "It Goes Like It Goes" did, and for some people that proves that "Rainbow Connection" should have won the Oscar that year. That's fine, and it may be true, but it's irrelevant as far as the neutrality of the statement I object to is concerned.

I don't have any opinion as to which song should have won. As I said above, I couldn't care less. I care that in this statement this article presents only one side of a controversy. Until the other side (that "It Goes Like It Goes" did deserve its Oscar) can be stated with equally reliable sources, this statement should be removed.

If a Wikipedia article presents one side of a controversy, the core principle of neutral point of view requires that the other side be presented as well. Since a plurality of Academy voters heard both songs and gave the award to "IGLIG", that side of the controversy definitely exists. Until both sides can be presented here, neither side should be. The preponderance of evidence that "RC" was the more successful of the two songs will be enough to convince readers like you who think that matters, without prejudicing them with the opinion of critics from only that side of the controversy.—Jim10701 (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

…Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with you that reporting the fact that "It Goes Like It Goes"' win was controversial, if true, is inherently POV. And similarly, the fact that "Rainbow Connection" is a well-liked song, well-liked enough that many critics think it was better than the song that beat it out for an Oscar, is an objectively-true NPOV fact about "Rainbow Connection"'s popularity. You say that "both sides" aren't presented; but I don't see that; merely reporting the fact that "It Goes Like It Goes" actually won the Oscar (even though not really relevant to this article!) establishes the opposing perspective. That said, I see how the current phrasing ("some critics decried") can sound POV, though; it's vague, and you could probably find "some critics" to decry just about anything. So I guess the question is really whether this award was more controversial than your typical Oscar for Best Song. AJD (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to have been any action on this in a while. As far as I can tell, Jim10701 is the only editor who feels that the sentence is problematic. I think that the cited sources support the sentence, and I'm not convinced that there is a real controversy here which needs to be balanced. Jim10701 says that "I doubt that any citable sources will be found for the balancing POV". If there are no citable sources, then the "balancing" POV is non-notable by Wikipedia's definition. Either there are citable sources for the opinion that "It Goes Like It Goes" merited its Oscar (in which case either they should be added, or the sentence suggesting otherwise should be deleted), or there are not (in which case the cited sources are a fair representation of the reliable sources on the subject). In short, unless such sources can be provided, there is no need for the neutrality tag here or at It Goes Like It Goes. I'm going to be BOLD and remove them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional Cover Artist

Kenny Loggins covered Rainbow Connection on his album Return to Pooh Corner. Love this version and that CD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_Pooh_Corner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.162.211 (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rainbow Connection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727130509/http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/games/songs/movies/rainbowmp3.htm to http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/games/songs/movies/rainbowmp3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

La La Land

Why does "Audition (The Fools Who Dream)" from "La La Land" sound so much like "Rainbow Connection" from "The Muppet Movie"? There must be a story here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.253.101 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)