text:
Talk:Puddle of Mudd

Untitled
Most musicians/bands in the wikipedia don't have their discographies in a table format- for the sake of consistency wouldn't the discography be better laid out as a list as in the case of most other bands? Not that i'm going to war over it :-) quercus robur 23:45 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you - if nothing else, putting things in tables makes them harder to edit

(at least for thickos like me who don't understand the table syntax). I'll change it over to a list. I think plain bullet-pointed lists look nicer anyway. --Camembert

Can someone have a look at the changes I've made? Makes more sense to me than the prior revision, but though I know there's that whole passing a tape to Fred Durst story, I'm not a fan and don't really know it fully. Jimregan 04:55 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

I think this might need a bit of NPOV'ing.

Southern Rock?
I am 50/50 on adding Southern Rock, but i can see a obvious Lynyrd Skynyrd Influence. I will not add it, i will see if anybody agree's. 81.96.254.143 (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright!
I deleted a large section of text because it was directly copied from

 * Why is that an issue? As long as the information is factual, and referenced, why can't it be copied? We aren't writing a term paper here, the goal of Wikipedia is to spread factual information, not to write "original" articles... Supaikku 23:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Not quite. It's an issue because the goal of Wikipedia is to spread factual information that is compliant with the GFDL. Read the page about copyright violations. --BennyD (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Name of band
Is it true that the group added another 'D' to their name in case a real 'puddle of mud' sued them for copyright ?!!

I have heard rumors that this is true, but rumors are rumors. Besides, I don't really care about copyright(unless I'm writing something myself) stuff. Prepsear (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Derek R Bullamore 21:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, non-neutral POV.
So I just deleted a section that accused them of being "talentless". Way to keep NPOV, folks.

Yeah, but the rest of the article is non-neuteal anyway, so to be fair you'd kind of have to delete the entire thing. 68.192.53.216 09:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd say a band as terrible as Puddle of Mudd should really be excused from the NPOV rule, but yeah, you're right: this article isn't NPOV anyway; it has a bias towards the band. --HisSpaceResearch 14:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There should at least be a "criticism" or "critical reception" section, because this band gets A LOT of criticism (almost as much as Nickelback). This article basically just gives a history of the band, with no information about how they sound. Deepfryer99 18:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted a sentence in the early years section (There was too much trouble at stake for him in Kansas City and it was time to move on). Cliche? Pointless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.190.98 (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

History
The history section is a complete mess. It needs to be written in chronological order. I will be making some major changes soon. Such a major band deserves more than this rabble of a page. Jason f90 12:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: the mainstream success portion of History contains the statement "Copies of their album were selling like hot cakes nation and worldwide." I feel this sentence should be removed as it is needless fluff. Comments? --Kfanciulli 05:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wes Scantlin did not have a band break up before contacting Fred Durst. I'm from KC and know Wes personally. Durst told Scantlin he had to drop his band or lose the record deal. He chose the record deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.189.110 (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Major Changes
I've tidied up the whole article and insert MUCH more info. Also, previous band members,demos,etc. Check it out. Jason f90 15:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Puddle logo.png
Image:Puddle logo.png 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 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 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 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

New single
I don't think "We Don't Have to Look Back Now" is confirmed as a single yet. If you want to prove it is confirmed, then make a ref. to it. Although I think this song is in the running for 3rd single, along with "Radiate" and "I'm So Sure"... --Crocodileman (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Nu Metal
What the hell is all this nonsense on this page saying Puddle Of Mudd are Nu Metal. They arent even metal lol. As far as I know this band are mainly Post Grunge and Alt Rock even look on the albums pages and see for yourself. 86.136.0.21 (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they aren't metal. And nor is "nu metal". So I don't see a problem. Prophaniti (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if they are supposedly Nu Metal then since when have they ever rapped or even sounded like nu metal then??? 86.136.0.21 (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Again, a common misconception: nu metal does not depend on a band rapping/using turntables/having clear hip hop style. Most people dispute the genre a lot because of misconceptions about what it actually consists of. As is the case with most musical genres, really. Prophaniti (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added alternative rock and post-grunge in, even though they aren't sourced, to see if that will stop this constant reverting. Prophaniti (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find there is a source for Post Grunge ---> |OF|MUDD&sql=11:anfrxqekldae~T1 86.166.250.165 (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There is now, indeed. So there's no issue with keeping it in, good. Prophaniti (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The source states that they are Alternative Metal aswell so keep that in too.86.136.1.229 (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

theres no way puddle of mudd is nu metal. They dont even approach it. They have no variety of metallic, hip-hoppish, rap, alt-metal, or any other variety of typical nu-metal features. There a post-grunge band all the way trough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.31.13 (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I thought the same too but I guess as longs as Prophaniti has a source unfortunatley there is nothing we can do about it, as this site is often too reliant on sources.86.149.96.211 (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This source says they derive influence from Nu metal: http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/nu-metal/grunge-post-grunge-and-nu-metal.html Drgreen19 (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Puddle Of Mudd aren't Nu Metal
PUDDLE OF MUDD aren't Nu Metal but are Alternative Rock/Metal Hard rock and Post-Grunge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.2.134.69 (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Metal? they arnt even metal! lets just call em Alternative Rock/Hard Rock/Post Grunge/Grunge (early) it seems more practical. 81.96.254.143 (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I just learned I'd had them confused with Default this whole time. Default isn't any sort of metal. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Awards & Nominations
In an effort to move this article towards Featured Article status, I have cited each of their nominations/wins. There was only one that I was unable to confirm: their 2002 Billboard Music Awards nomination for Best Group/duo album artist of the year. Because this could not be referenced, it has been removed. Namosin (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Puddle of Mudd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110113173159/http://www.puddleofmudd.com:80/blog/ to http://www.puddleofmudd.com/blog/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2016
The band did not quit on stage in Doncaster. The band and Wes walked off stage *together* prior to their encore, but only Wes returned to the stage. In videos from that night, Wes is seen saying the band quit, but Puddle of Mudd performed the remaining five shows of their UK tour.

104.1.54.3 (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that, why are those three band members now listed under "former band members"? Bdure (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please provide reliable sources and establish consensus before using the template. — JJMC89  (T·C) 05:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see the official PoM twitter: https://twitter.com/puddleofmudd/status/714988048635670530.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Puddle of Mudd. 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/20130927095844/http://spinitloud.com/?p=162 to http://spinitloud.com/?p=162
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/298702/review/5940725
 * Added tag to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.Net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=19253

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Puddle of Mudd. 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/20150722043123/http://www.kzoz.com/jeff-and-jeremy/2012/07/did-puddle-of-mudd-lip-synch-their-performance-at-the-california-mid-state-fair/ to http://www.kzoz.com/jeff-and-jeremy/2012/07/did-puddle-of-mudd-lip-synch-their-performance-at-the-california-mid-state-fair/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Me
Wasn't the kid that always hung with him Mr Hollywood his little cousin Jordan lee copous because of Jordan's dad having a recording company if so 270-225-5027 I'll be able to do your guys videos again I can even show your recorded the blurry video 2601:485:8100:39B0:1100:2840:632C:7D3A (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Puddle of Mudd


text:
Talk:The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

legacy
Does the influence of a paper belong in an article on the paper, or in other articles entirely? The stuff that is not just quoting from the paper could be in the article on Wigner, but it would then need to also be in other places... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.103.42 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 January 2003 (UTC)

moved
Moved this page to properly capitalised title, thus hopefully making clear that this is about a specific work rather than a general article. --Robert Merkel 23:55, 19 January 2003 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, thanks.
 * But it's about a very abstract work with many implications. The reason the paper matters is that, in practice since 1960, Wigner was borne out.  There is a robust cognitive science investigation of 'is it the experimenter, the experiment, or the experimental phenomenon that is actually described here'. There isa robust discussion of possible alternate cognitions, e.g. other hominid, alien species, artificial life.  The dire situation Wigner pointed to as a symptom has also come true:  string theorists argue about how real the math or the theory can be since it's untestable and so abstract that very few mathematicians can understand it.  So it's still confusing how much to quote and how much to comment, and how much to introduce of the articles very deep significance.
 * we should leave a redirect in place since there are other articles that refer to it with the lowercased title - they'll be fixed as time allows. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.103.42 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 20 January 2003 (UTC)

vfd
VfD discussion for The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences, which now redirects here.

Text copied from The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences. Markalexander100 03:16, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reason to have it under this title. --Starx 03:20, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and speedy deleted it since it was just a copy/paste job. -- Cyrius|&#9998 03:25, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * You might want to go back and take another look. It's back. - Lucky 6.9 21:32, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you're confused. We've got two pages here, Natural Sciences, and Physical Sciences. The "Physical" one is up for deletion as a bad copy/paste job of the "Natural" version, and has been recreated as a redirect by Eric B. and Rakim, which isn't a problem. The article you put the VfD notice on was the "Natural" version, which isn't at issue. Oh, and keep the redirect, it seems like a reasonable mistake to make. -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:15, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it is. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 23:44, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

correctness
Reference 1 to "Mathematics Under the Microscope, Alexandre Borovik, 2006" is not correct. The first part point to a page that no longer exists. More importantly, the quote "There is only one thing which is more unreasonable than the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in physics, and this is the unreasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics in biology." does not occur in the Borovik's book. Maybe in the article, but that's no longer available. I found one reference that suggests that the quote is from Israel Gelfand instead ( http://10outof10.blogspot.com/2007/02/unreasonable-effectiveness-of.html ). Here one Alexandre Borovik (!) attributes the quote to Gelfland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.138.227.41 (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Fixed it. Alexandre Borovik actually qoutes Gelfland in his atricle. The article link now points to www.archive.org, because the original atricle no longer exists. I could not find the original quote by Gelfland, so we have to take Borovik's word for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.138.227.41 (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

misconception
The article as it now stands with the Gelfland quote and the time-conditioned uncertainty that Wigner expressed concerning heredity and physics propagates a misconception that mathematics and physics have little or no role in biology. This was somewhat true until the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA in 1953 and the blossoming of computational biology over the last 15 years. The idea that life and heredity cannot be explained by physical principles is simply no longer tenable. Vitalism died a long time ago. That being said, the key point raised by Wigner remains completely valid and just as mysterious as when he wrote. Why should abstract rational concepts be able to explain biological systems that evolved haphazardly over million of years. Why should our concepts be able to explain the gross properties of galaxies that existed billions of years in the past? What is it about human thought that allows it to transcend space and time and come up with meaningful answers to questions far removed from everyday experience? We still don't have an answer to Wigner's basic question. Toroid (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gelfland quote is still very actual, mathematics is almost useless in biology. Computational biology is a tiny fraction of the field and so far has relatively little impact. The fact is that mathematics fails already in chemistry, we cannot even model simple atoms in a satisfactory way, complex molecules are completely beyond the reach. All we have are very crude "spherical cow" approximations which are mostly useless. Then again I don't find the usefulness of mathematics in natural sciences as a whole particularly surprising, there have long been mutual interaction between mathematicians and physicists. The number of mathematical structures is infinite but there is a strong bias to explore only those which are closely related to physical reality. And despite that effectiveness of mathematics still leaves much to be desired - even a simple 3 body problem cannot be computed exactly. All in all the perception described in the article is more due to bias then anything else.Sergiacid (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, you get what you pay for. The lack of impact in biology is mostly due to the fact that biologists are idiots who cannot and don't want to understand even the simplest mathematics. As long as it's OK to be a shit for brains and have a stellar career in the life sciences, this won't change.137.205.183.114 (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the comment about "mathematics fails in chemistry", a reference that might be useful (somehow) integrating into something is:

 * A commentary on the paper published in 2004 is:

 * 07:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible flaws?
Nice read and a lot of good points. Too bad that it has a ton of pitfalls where the author has logic fail. There's one in practically every paragraph, so I won't list them all but if someone feels like it...

First, this has contradictions early on. 2nd, there's the concept of quantum mechanics, where events _seem_ to be circular, although in principle all paths are taken and effectively are layered (Even if there's multiple futures, time travel is impossible that tries to make 2 contradictary events occur - they simply can't observe each other - this is analogous to a black hole but for double-slit experiments - you can't 'unobserve' events). Feedback can exist that doesn't contradict itself. A self-consistent past and present in other words. 3rd is that it ignores the concept that reality is often layered, in that for example chemistry depends on atomic physics. 73.181.82.26 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comprehensibility
I have a problem with the wording in However, in a passage discussing cognitive bias Wigner cautiously labeled as "not reliable," he went further. Neither did I find a satisfactory way to "parse" (analyze grammatically) that sentence. It is not even evident to the uninitiated that this is Wigner criticizing Wigner, not Putnam criticizing Wigner. --217.226.87.134 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

 * putnam arguably have nothing to do in a section on "wigner's observations" (unless, perhaps, he is Wigner's friend?); he should be moved to "responses". in the meantime, perhaps something like "In a passage discussing cognitive bias (cautiously labeled as "not reliable"), however, Wigner went further" would be clearer? k kisses 14:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Maxwell and waves
About the mention of Maxwell's equations and electromagnetic waves, what exactly is being implied here? The text does not make it quite clear that Maxwell proposed the wave theory, even going as far as proposing that light was an EM wave and even calculating its speed. Then this mention of Hughes for "the discovery of EM waves" is kind of weird, there is no reason not to be mentioning Hertz instead. Also about gravity, explaining the motion of planets was clearly the goal there, and not explaining why things fall here on the surface of the Earth. But I cannot tell, how much of these criticisms would be actually directed to the original article we are talking about, or just to this Wikipedia article?... -- NIC1138 (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Italic title?
I was just about to add italic title when I noticed others had done so, and that it had been removed several times. If this is an article about the paper, it should be italicized. If it is an article about the concept, then perhaps it should be renamed to the "Effectiveness of mathematics", or at least be put in all lower case. If the article is not renamed, please leave this discussion at the top as it is a common edit. Dpleibovitz (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Responses to Wigner seems incomplete
It seems inconsistent to note that there are at least six notable discussions of this paper and only elaborate on three of these responses. This article could greatly improved by expanding the responses section to include all of these- or provide some explanation as to why six are mentioned but only three are discussed. While I understand that the three discussions that are elaborated upon are by physicists and mathematicians that may have the greatest and closest knowledge of the subject, I would be much more interested and engaged by the other responses which fall are by individuals that do not work in physics/math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcodeplane (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

"This conflict"
What does "this conflict" refer to in this statement in the article:
 * Peter Woit, a theoretical physicist, believes that this conflict exists in string theory,...

That needs to be clarified. I would post a template on the sentence requesting more info., but I'm not sure what the best template is. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this will help, but another editor introduced me to the WikiBlame tool, which allows one to find where content was first introduced. Here is the diff. It was introduced by an IP user who hasn't edited in many years using that IP address, so my guess is that you won't get a response to a direct query. The referent isn't clear to me even reading it in its original context. But maybe you'll understand better than I did? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am well familiar with Wikiblame and, indeed, used it before posting this. I would have asked the IP editor myself, but as you noted, that person is long gone. I'm hoping someone who knows more about the subject can say something.  Thanks for your feedback.  --David Tornheim (talk)

1959 lecture version
Wigner originally presented this as a lecture in May 1959. Google books says that this was the first use of the phrase "unreasonable effectiveness". Ahazred8 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/