Talk:Friday (Rebecca Black song)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Single not song

It has been released as a single on iTunes. --Greeneyed soul (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Also available as a paid download at Amazon. --Chachap (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is the song so popular?

Can anyone please explain why this song has gotten so popular in so few days? Is there an actual reason or is it just some random unexplainable thing that has happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.237.63 (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Catchyness, camp appeal, so-bad-its-good, all those kind of factors. Anyway, this is not the place to discuss the song, just the article itself.--EchetusXe 14:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

See "Increase in Popularity" above. 71.22.219.190 (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is that it's not even worse than many of the songs on the charts… – Alensha ^talk 23:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Genre

Can we edit the genre so it doesn't have a slash in it per WP:SLASH? Changing to Teen pop would be appropriate as it would already cover pop as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 188.223.237.135, 18 March 2011

"An adult guest rapper" should be changed to "Patrice Wilson" for evidence this is actually him, view his photo on the profile page on the labels website: http://arkmusicfactory.com/profile/PatriceWilson and also during the ark music intro video at 0:20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBDvyMOJZmo#t=20s

 Done I agree. We know it is him (see above discussion), so it seems silly to have him appear as some sort of anonymous figure.--EchetusXe 21:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone quote

Matthew Perpetua's Rolling Stone article is badly misquoted. The current Wikipedia article states: "Matthew Perpetua described the vocals as having 'a peculiar tonality that inadvertently highlights the absurdity of boilerplate pop lyrics', adding that the refrain 'sounds unlike anything else in pop music.'" Perpetua actually wrote that "When she sings the 'Friday, Friday' hook or the 'fun fun fun fun' refrain, she sounds unlike anything else in pop music." So he's saying her voice (not the refrain) sounds unlike anything in pop music. The point of his article is that the song (including the refrain) sounds very much like pop music, so this misquote is quite misleading. --Anton webern (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Black article

About a week ago, a Rebecca Black article was created and was immediately deleted and salted (see the the logs here). A salted re-direct to this article was created. Quickly after a Deletion Review began and it is still active, although much of the editors' preferences were given before the song began the chart and Black's media appearances. As there is no DRV notice on the redirect to this article, it should be indicated here.--Oakshade (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it should...--Otterathome (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rebecca Black

Oakshade has asked for a deletion review of Rebecca Black. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Otterathome (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"Typical Friday for Rebecca Black" = false

"The concept for the music video is based on a typical Friday for Rebecca Black." This statement is totally unsupported. The reference does not address it at all. Can someone change? Not sure how it should change... "The concept for the music video is based on what is perceived to be a typical Friday night for Rebecca Black" perhaps? - Todayishere (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just found out: she didn't write the words. It was 1 of 2 options and she chose it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367627/Simon-Cowell-loves-Rebecca-Blacks-YouTube-hit-Friday.html The wording definitely needs changed. -Todayishere (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok I changed it to: "The concept for the music video is based on the pre-written lyrics and presented as a typical Friday for Rebecca Black." The references might be messy, but I'll look at those now. - Todayishere (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, her Friday's from now on will clearly be more fun than depicted in the music video.--Otterathome (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok Todayishere (a Saturday, as prophesy in the song predicted), if you want to be pedantic about it then it may be an atypical Friday. I like your final choice of phrase though.--EchetusXe 21:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

FAQ from one of the dancers

I came across this video. It tells us that yes, the rapper is Patrice Wilson, amongst other things.--EchetusXe 21:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this would qualify as a reliable source. Might be helpful in finding more info though.--Otterathome (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

An interview with a person involved in the song has to be reliable. Just because a journalist didn't write down what was said, add their own spin on it, and then publish it, doesn't mean the source is unreliable. The video has been published on YouTube by the person themselves. Sure, if she was saying "the dancing was widely credited as being revolutionary and brilliant" then issues of neutrality would be raised. But these are simple facts we are dealing with, not opinions.--EchetusXe 22:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Lyrics

Could we add the lyrics to the song in a section on this page? 77.1.19.177 (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No. The lyrics of this song are under copyright and cannot be reproduced in full. They can be quoted in very small amounts if there is reason to do so, but we cannot reproduce the lyrics in anything longer than a sentence. Silverseren^C 23:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

M'k, pencil ready … "Frii~day, frii~day, partyin', partyin' ~ yeah ~ fun, fun, fun, fun…" 8} --Chachap (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Fix Rolling Stone Quote

Wikipedia editing is new to me, but I can't understand how the Rolling Stone quote has been left unfixed for so long. It's an obvious mistake which I'll mention one more time. In the STYLE section, Rolling Stone writer Matthew Perpetua is quoted as saying the refrain "sounds unlike anything else in pop music." What he said was "When she sings...she sounds unlike anything else in pop music." It's an important difference because the main point of Perpetua's article is that the song (as composition/production) sounds very much like typical pop. So this misquote completely distorts his point, and also makes for a very poor description of the song's style, suggesting that there's something unique about the refrain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton webern (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done I read it as the refrain as she she sings it is unique. If you think this is ambiguous I will change it.--EchetusXe 19:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think the point is her sound, not the refrain so much. Perpetua just gives that as an example. At any rate, it's not her refrain, since she didn't write the song; it's her sound in the refrain. The clearest solution would be to quote the entire sentence: "When she sings the 'Friday, Friday' hook or the 'fun fun fun fun' refrain, she sounds unlike anything else in pop music." In other words, it's not 100% clear whether Perpetua thinks her sound is only "unlike anything" in these spots or in general. However, I think you'd be pretty safe changing it to: "adding that her tone in the refrain 'sounds unlike...'" (By the way, I think this opinion of his is quite open to challenges. I don't think her tone is that wildly different from some other singers, just a bit more nasal and pressed; "unlike anything" is too strong in my opinion, but Perpetua's the expert witness here, so as long as he's clearly being quoted, it should be fine to keep it.)--Anton webern (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Charts (1994)

Not sure why the “Charts” section indicates the chart is from 1994. What is that, Black’s birth-year? A mistake? Music-biz numeric jargon? --X883 (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I have removed the section, as any chart positions need reliable sourcing. Yves (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Covers of Rebbeca Black's Friday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL2M6VxlTG4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Chelwb6Ja4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DdMmQ0VgzY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xiufZ9YcNU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.211.85 (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We will only include a Covers section if there are covers that are reported on in reliable sources. For now, the only mention i've seen in sources are single sentences along the lines of "Friday has spawned multiple parodies and covers", which is not enough to create an entire section on and we would not include Youtube videos like the ones you have listed anyways, per violation of WP:YOUTUBE. Silverseren^C 01:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Patrice Wilson

Wilson is a woman and is not the rapper in the "Friday" video. The article needs to reflect that fact. 68.82.33.132 (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This page seems to disagree with that. He is clearly a guy and matches the rapper in the video quite obviously. Silverseren^C 02:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope -- Patrice is the shepherd … … … 8P --Chachap (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

For clarification there is a Patrice Wilson who is clearly female, and also a gospel singer with some CDs [1]. There is also Patrice Wilson who is clearly male, co-wrote this sung and appears to be the rapper appearing in Friday and most of the other Ark Music videos I've seen. Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

YouTube View Count

I'm reverting the view count to "more than 16 million…". Right now the YT count stands at 21,778,220, and she's 19th on the iTunes Top 100 Songs (Amazon has TWO entries for the song - which dilutes the actual standing - currently at 67th & 68th - if these two are merged, the sales rank would be higher). However, the Tosh.0 blog post is time stamped 1:00 PM (Friday the 11th; not sure if that was EST or PsT), and if we go on a 'one week' assessment, then the number is closer to 18 million, and the closest 'SOURCED' citation referenced is 16-mil, in the PopEater.com article --Chachap (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed the view count back to 18 million, because a non-arbitrary time frame needs to be set for statement of the count, and that should rightly be 'Friday to Friday' (no, not because it's the name of the song, but reflecting the one week period from when the increase started). The OK Seacrest article (published on Saturday, 3/19) indicates 18 million as a 'Friday' number, then updates that to 22 million to account for "overnight" hits. --Chachap (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not just put that it was 4000 on the day it was that and say then it went viral and it is NOW (current amount) ?? Why does it have to be broken down into what it's gained in a one week span? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.228.10 (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 121.219.121.217, 20 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

View count is 24 million 121.219.121.217 (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: it doesn't say differently on the article. — Bility (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The song has reached at LEAST #32 on Australian itunes as I saw it at that number yesterday (but is now #40 *March 20th*) Are we able to include that it's charting internationally as well as in the USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enquvist (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If it has charted, then there should be an article somewhere either in a newspaper or from the chart website itself. We need that reference if we're going to include such information. Silverseren^C 05:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok cool no problem, the Australian Charts (ARIA) are released each Sunday evening on-line so the song will no doubt feature in either the combined or digital singles chart which can then be used as a reliable source.

Also - why is the Forbes estimate featured if it's proven to be incorrect?? What's the point of it being there when it was never true in the first place? I quote below:

"Forbes originally estimated that as of that date Black and Ark Music had received "easily" more than $1 million from iTunes sales, and $20,000 more from YouTube's revenue-sharing program.[41] However, these sales estimates were later proven incorrect" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.228.10 (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The seatbelt criticism

"One criticism of the music video is that the (possibly underage) operator and passengers of the motor vehicle are clearly depicted as not wearing seat belts, in violation of California law. This is widely regarded as an unsafe and hazardous practice for teen drivers" - Is this really worth including? It is cited to a small blog post off an obscure website for libertarian Republicans.--EchetusXe 19:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed the citation to a more credible source, which also made note of the same criticism. I believe it is a valid point, but if it doesn't meet inclusion guidelines, I understand why it would need to be removed GLaDOS (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I found that sentence a bit out of place, of all the criticisms it seems the least notable. AIRcorn (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh God, how beautiful would it be if she was arrested and fined for not wearing a seatbelt while in a car, using the video clip as evidence. 124.169.218.114 (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Twitter Fake?

I think that we need to remove the references to her Twitter account, but I'm not sure how to go about it. The owner of the account has since admitted that it is a parody account, even putting this in the profile:

"@_RebeccaBlack_ Herp Derp, are you DA REELZ REBECCA BLACK?!!?!1111 #Parodyaccount - If you think it's real - YER REAL DUMB"

Do we have to find a source that says that the account is fake or can we just go ahead and do it? Illinois2011 (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well then, we have an issue, considering that a significant number of reliable sources have also been duped and quoted her Twitter on various occasions. Silverseren^C 15:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Come to think about it... that tweet quoted by all the sources doesn't appear on the official twitter account here. Yes, I have followed her on Twitter.--EchetusXe 16:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The official twitter is MsRebeccaBlack, while the label twitter for her is REBECCAFANCLUB. This was confirmed by her and Ryan Seacrest. The _RebeccaBlack_ twitter has been confirmed fake. SKS (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A Fix for "dead-link"

Why doesn't some just add the proper link for the current [33] instead of tagging it with dead-link?

Here is a live link (owned and provided by abc/disney):

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/unplugged-rebecca-blacks-friday-13167432

duh! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.213.131.190 (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Chart Performance

Please do not remove the Chart Performance section in the article. Since the song was released as a single, it is legitimate to put its ranking on the charts. RIANZ is a legitimate record industry association in New Zealand that is why I do not see any reason why the section must be removed from the page. Isko1901 (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wording Fix

This is a small fix, but I'd still suggest changing this wording under Style: "adding that the tone of her refrain 'sounds unlike anything else in pop music.'" should be changed to "adding that her tone in the refrain "sounds unlike anything else in pop music." My reasoning can be found above, but I don't have editing privileges for this page.--Anton webern (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done SKS (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Two things

First off, here's a new source. Looks like Black has donated the money she made off of Friday to charities.

Secondly, the lede's last sentence begins with "Despite negative reviews", but the existence of negative reviews isn't even covered in the lede beyond the "with most mocking the poor quality of the lyrics and singing", which just makes it sound like Youtube viewers and other online sites were mocking it, completely ignoring any media reviews. There needs to be a sentence added in before the last one that notes the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the video from actual media sources and not just online viewers of it, otherwise the lede is just ignoring the critical reception section. Silverseren^C 19:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not to nitpick, but I would say "donating", not "donated". She just made the announcement. I doubt if all the paperwork has gone through. Or even started for that matter.
• Sounds fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified rapper

Anyone got a name and source for the unnamed rapper in the song? Patriarch (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Been identified by many youtubers as usher (apparently he has let him self go) does anyone have confimation of this?--77.103.64.149 (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not Usher (but a semi-fair lookalike, lol) -- from pictures on the Ark Music web site, it appears to be one of the principles at the company, and according to this Wiki article one of the co-writers of the song, Patrice 'Pato' Wilson. There was a 'feature page' for him shown on the site yesterday that seems to have been removed (?) Chachap (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

here is a photo that would seem to suggest it is indeed Patrice Wilson.--EchetusXe 12:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean that isn't Gary Sheffield? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theycallmebruce (talk • contribs) 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Even though for some reason they look identical, no the rapper in the video is not Gary Sheffield.--EchetusXe 18:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ark Music has an "intro"? video on their YouTube that actually lists everyone in the entire company basically. It also has pictures and videos of most of them, including a few seconds of this mysterious rapper from "Friday", listed indeed as Patrice Wilson. Here is the link...he is one of the first people listed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBDvyMOJZmo --Adam Dally (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, the 'rap breakout' isn't included in the downloadable version of the song -- just appears in the music video (as noted by my 10-yr old, lol). Also, Patrice Wilson is not credited as a 'featured artist', so I'm removing that from the data box --Chachap (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The above statement is correct. When "Friday" is purchased from the iTunes Store, there is no rap verse. Yves (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The internet insists that it is Usher. 50 million users are enough to meet the notability requirement for Wikipedia even if it may not be the case. 173.34.108.86 (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me like we should be more sure about that. Jam1991 (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Unkommon, 25 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I want to update "By March 24, the view count had reached 44 million." and change it to "By March 25, the view count had reached nearly 45 million." To keep it more recent. Unkommon (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Updated to current view count (46M). Dcoetzee 11:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

View Count Updates

My understanding of Wikipedia guidelines is that we report what other independent, reliable sources publish. That means that ideally, we should not be conducting original research using primary sources such as YouTube especially as there are numerous, readily available reliable sources we can cite about the viewcount. I was gently rebuked (by a much more experienced editor) earlier for using YouTube to update the viewcount. I have therefore removed the unreferenced claim of 600,000 comments and added a citation to support the "nearly 50 million" views claim. If the number of comments is notable, a reliable sources will publish it. Then we can quote it. Anyone disagree? DubiousIrony ^yell 06:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In this situation, YouTube would be considered a primary source. Primary sources can be used in some situations. Original research only applies to using a primary source when you analyze, synthesize or interpret the source. But you can make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person would be able to verify by looking at the same source. So, in this situation, can an educated person read the view count on YouTube without analyzing, synthesizing or interpreting it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone can look at the number of views -- it's straightforward; there's nothing to analyze. -- anndelion (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• This issue comes up frequently, though its rarely discussed. Typically, you do see the viewcount get updated based on the youtube stats. When that is the case, we should note the date it reached the count being used.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• In some cases primary sources are allowed. Verification is key. If Youtube stats weren't made public and a wikipedia editor came along and said "I talked to a Youtube official and they told me this video was viewed 10 million times," then that would be original research. Providing a linking to the actual source where it is easily verified, that's generally okay. It's like stating the population of an American town and linking the the US Census data website as opposed to waiting for a newspaper or something to report the same thing. --Oakshade (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Hmm, okay. I was not sure what the community's consensus on this matter was so I brought it up here. I don't have a strong opinion on this matter either way. I was told by a more experienced editor not to do it, so I decided to see what the general consensus was. Thanks for the enlightening comments! DubiousIrony ^yell 04:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• On a related note, it seems we have two places in the article where we state the YouTube video count. In the lead, ("As of March 26, 2011, the view count was over 53 million") and in #Commercial Performance ("As of 21 March 2011, the "Friday" music video has been viewed more than 30 million times on YouTube"). Should we keep both? At least standardize the view counts maybe? It seems odd to present it this way. DubiousIrony ^yell 05:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Since Dubious Irony notified me, let me clarify on the point of my revert. I believe we should keep both sentences. The first describes how quickly the view count increased in the period of a week and the second describes just how high the video is currently. The former though should be cited to a reliable source that states the amount after a week, because any changes on our part to that is OR. However, the latter is something that can be independently verified by our readers, so I don't see any problem with updating in concurrence with the primary source of the video itself. Does that help explain things? Silverseren^C 05:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus here that we can update the current view count sentence with the primary source of the video? It seems that way to me. Silverseren^C 04:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely say so! Jam1991 (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments count

The comments count should be updated to "over 995,000." It's correct now but it's always good to be up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.216.24 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

UK Performance

It ought to be noted that the 'rebecca black story' is the most viewed on the BBC news site, and that the track is number 63 on UK itunes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idratherbeincornwall (talk • contribs) 22:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you give a link to the Itunes page that says this? Silverseren^C 00:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12784330 that's the article that became most viewed, although it's not at the top now. the song remains at no.63 here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idratherbeincornwall (talk • contribs) 16:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's now #6 on the official Indie Chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.203.2 (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Added Swedish airplay

Was this correct and done in a good manner? Thought i should ask since i'm a fairly new editor. Backeby (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you did it right. Silverseren^C 15:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

orginal video removed from youtube

orginal video removed from youtube.you can write about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.35.52 (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Link in the infobox works for me. DubiousIrony ^yell 07:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

update: they removed the whole channel in youtube.

"This channel is no longer available because the user closed their account."

trizzy66 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.35.52 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

now it's work again! --109.66.35.52 (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 204.212.127.180, 30 March 2011

rebbeca auto tunes he voice when singing xDD

204.212.127.180 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. This isn't even a request. – Ajl^talk 06:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Most Disliked Video in Youtube History

As of 30 March 2011, the song has 1,217,317 dislikes. The previous most disliked song on Youtube was Justin Beibers "Baby" at 1,166,884 dislikes. I think the article should reflect this milestone MikoJones (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Already updated with this information. Dcoetzee 20:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Miley Cyrus Bashes Rebecca Black"

Since we have listed important celebrities that have supported Black, I suppose we should also include those who don't support her. At least, the ones that actively say so. Silverseren^C 22:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ylee (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

{Ec}:As long as we don't use the word "bash". We're an encyclopedia after all. :) BTW, that article is based on this source.[2] If your read that source, it looks like only the "It should be harder to be an artist..." quote is about Black. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Associated deletion discussion

A number of redirects to this title were recently created to this article. There is currently a deletion discussion (link here) concerning those redirects. CIreland (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Increase in popularity

The increase in popularity is likely due to a mention by Daniel Tosh (tosh.0) on Friday, March 11th, 2011. The article makes no mention of this. Can someone add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.219.190 (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We need a reliable source (a newspaper or something similar) that states this as a likely reason for the increase in popularity. We cannot just make speculation on the reason ourselves. Silverseren^C 00:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I know for a fact that Tosh.0's blog had something to do with it, I went to the video when it had less than 100,000 views on youtube, and that was actually on Friday. Last I checked it has 7 million on Monday? Maybe I'll be able to find a source.

If you want validation that tosh.o was responsible for the songs success then simply view the youtube video. It says at the bottom "As seen on Tosh.o", youtube automatically posts these links back to the site which has referred the most traffic to the video. I believe you can not get any more reliable than that.--203.97.216.60 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to have it removed from the deletion process, I think it's notable enough. And if it isn't it's probably going to be in a few days.--Dguenther - DGun (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The AfD seems to be pointing overwhelmingly to keep the article, so it probably will be removed shortly. Illinois2011 (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The popular blogsite Songfail (http://songfail.com) featured this song on March 14th, adding to it's popularity. (Floprocker (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC))

RE: The tosh.0 element — many of the sources in the article do mention that aspect, so I'll insert the info ASAP. SKS (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The song's gaining momentum in the UK now. 49 and rising, might be worth adding. 82.43.216.152 (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Increase In Popularity II

This song was NOT made popular due to Daniel Tosh's blog. The primary motivators were word-of-mouth in Tumblr and Twitter. I'm currently looking for a reliable source for this, but for now I propose that the reference to Tosh.0 should be removed. People Magazine is not a reliable source. 71.126.246.157 (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Google News search results beg to differ. Most sources point to the tosh.0 blog being the spark. No one's denying that social networking sites were the fuel; the article itself states it as such. SKS (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This song actually WAS made popular due to Daniel Tosh's blog. For verification view the youtube video, underneath it says "As seen on tosh.comedycentral.com". Youtube automatically adds links back to the main source of traffic for all music videos to encourage sites to link their videos. I am sure there is no more reliable a source of information about a youtube video than from the youtube video itself.--203.97.216.60 (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This song actually WAS made popular due to Daniel Tosh's blog. For verification view the youtube video, underneath it says "As seen on tosh.comedycentral.com". Youtube automatically adds links back to the main source of traffic for all music videos to encourage sites to link their videos. I am sure there is no more reliable a source of information about a youtube video than from the youtube video itself.--203.97.216.60 (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Orange County Weekly cites Michael J. Nelson as the source - http://www.ocweekly.com/2011-03-24/music/mental-notes-rebecca-black-friday/ - and other articles credit both individuals. Nelson is an opinion leader amongst the community due to his role in Mystery Science Theater 3000. Calwatch (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The tweet you are talking of can be viewed at the following url http://twitter.com/michaeljnelson/status/46331722522042369 - The time stamp for that tweet is 11:08 AM Mar 12th. The blog entry on the Tosh.o blog can be viewed at the following url http://tosh.comedycentral.com/blog/2011/03/11/songwriting-isnt-for-everyone/ - The time stamp for that post is March 11, 2011 at 1:00pm which is the day before.

Also, the Orange County Weekly states "Michael J. Nelson apparently was the key to this going huge once he tweeted that it could be the 'worst song on the Internet ever,'". The use of the words "apparently was the key" is not the equivalent of citing him as a source. I also can find no evidence of him tweeting 'worst song on the Internet ever,' in any of his tweets as the Orange Country Weekly states. The closest was his tweet "Let this be on your lips as you head into the weekend *Link on Blacklist* (it also answer the ? "what's the worst video ever made?")" the url of that tweet is stated above.--203.97.216.60 (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Cyber-bullying

Would it not be wise to mention the blatant cyber-bullying nearer the top of the article? I think that the closer it is to the top (i.e. within the first paragraph), the better. I know this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, but as this is currently an internet viral that has had a particularly vicious response with all manner of disturbed and hateful things being levelled at a teenage girl, I think editors should take some responsibility and bring this to people's attention. It would certainly help people think twice and reconsider their actions (prior and post). I can't help but feel sorry for the girl; this could have particularly harmful effects on her later on in life...-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.200.30 (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the section is proper to be in the critical reception section. However, I do think the lede should definitely have a sentence or so that mentions the negative responses to the song, since the lede is supposed to summarize the entire article. Hey, Echetus, you around somewhere? What do you think? Silverseren^C 00:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry for not signing off properly, as I've forgotten how to. Thanks for the reply. Agreed- that's what I was thinking: just a quick sentence or two (or three) in the summary would be great to bring this serious issue to people's attention. There are many haters out there, and I'm sure that, apart from Youtube, Wikipedia will be an obligatory stopping point (undoubtedly to come and trash the page- thumbs up for locking it and keeping out the riff-raff). I've just watched a video by Kyle Cease on Youtube offering her reassurance. Mention of that would be good in the critical response section, indeed in a new section highlighting the cyber-bullying (alongside the Rolling Stone reference). Thanks once again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.200.30 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Cyber-bullying" refers to the use of internet-based communication to harass of a private person for the purpose of frightening, intimidating, or emotionally abusing them. "Friday" is a song made by a legitimate recording artist being offered for sale to the public. Negative comments about or reviews of such a song or artist, even when "vicious" or "hateful," do not constitute "cyber-bullying" in this context, so long as the comments are made as a criticism of the ability of the singer or the quality of song. By making her music available to the public through youtube and offering it for sale, this singer is a public figure for that limited purpose and must be prepared to deal with all the praise and criticism that entails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.217.27 (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha, "cyber-bullying"? She created a terrible, terrible song that was not only unpopular population-wise but also universally ripped into by even the most unbiased, non-agressive reviews. The nicest still coming off as snarky. And major magazine and mainstream media critics giving her full on attacking reviews.

It is not, nor EVER will be, "cyber-bullying" to point out some terrible singers pathetic, teeny-bopper song is terrible. Deal with it. 124.169.218.114 (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

I don't think Wikipedia has any responsibility in this regard. The girl is well looked after, her parents have banned her from the internet so she can't read the hateful comments, and now she is focused on the next stage of her career. She has said she cried over a few comments before coming to terms with the fact that the internet is full of unpleasant people who will make witless comments about public figures to make up for their own personal deficiencies (I'm paraphrasing).

Regardless of our responsibilities or not, any attempt here to calm the puberty-fuelled aggression towards her would fail. The people the original IP wishes to reach out to would be far more likely to vandalize a Wikipedia article than learn how to respect people from a Wikipedia article.

I wrote Justin Bieber#Target for critics, pranksters, and parodies because it is interesting, significant, and an issue that had received some coverage. YouTubers make nasty comments, it is not notable or in any way unusual.--EchetusXe 12:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been bad. I saw something yesterday that even said:

"I consider Rebecca Black's sheer existence to be worse than the earthquakes in Japan. Her voice is already shitty enough to need autotune. If you're going to use autotune, at least have her sing more than two noted. Go die in a fire, you horrible person. Her voice is like a virus that infects and subsequently destroys portions of the human brain. It's like someone bending over and shitting in your ear.

I hope next Friday she cuts herself and dies. What kind of person can't remember the days of the week? Don't even get me started on the fifty-year-old black man in the car passing the bus. If he's going to the same party as her and her frien...ds, somebody needs to call Chris Hansen." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.103.198 (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes well, kids get bullied at school and then go and try to take it out on celebrities by making comments like that online. Taking their anger out on the world, looking for recognition and acceptance blah blah blah, I'm sure a psychologist would be fascinated but it isn't particularly interesting or relevant to the article here. Lets not re-post any more of those comments on here, if I wanted to read comments like that I'd read the messages scrawled in excrement on prison walls.--EchetusXe 22:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Charlie Brooker in this video says it best.--EchetusXe 08:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Constant removal of iTunes chart information.

The following is being constantly removed by to users under the rationale WP:BADCHARTS:

"Within a week after being released on iTunes it has jumped the iTunes sales chart to 19 as of March 19, 2011.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (record charts) is about the "displaying of record charts", which this content is not. It's not being listed here as a "chart" and is presented in the context of iTunes sales (which by the way is over70% of all music sales worldwide) and reliable sources are reporting this. Wikipedia's content is decided by reliable sources, not a few user's opinions of them.--Oakshade (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

References to internet memes within the music video

There is currently a video on youtube which points out references to other internet memes located within the video. Apparently there is a "Susan Boyle" reference, a reference to "All your base are belong to us" amongst others. I will post the url to this video when I find it again, as I have temporarily lost it--203.97.216.60 (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless it's a video hosted on an official news channel on Youtube, it wouldn't fit our requirements of sources needing to be reliable. The sub-policy of that would be WP:YOUTUBE. Silverseren^C 07:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

inspiration

you could include information from this source: http://gawker.com/#!5787213/meet-the-man-responsible-for-rebecca-black maybe add section for inspiration: "I wrote the lyrics on a Thursday night going into a Friday," he said. "I was writing different songs all night and was like, 'Wow, I've been up a long time and it's Friday.' And I was like, wow, it is Friday!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.179.99.120 (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. The information has been added to the article and I've added Wilson's response to criticism as well ah, someone's already added his quote on the song's cheesiness. DubiousIrony ^yell 09:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Heatseekers

According to Billboard.com, "Friday" reached no.1 on the 'Billboard Heatseekers Songs': http://www.billboard.com/#/charts/heatseekers-songs

Anyone care enough to add that to the "Commercial Performance" section? EternalLies 08:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It was originally removed from the chart listing itself per WP:USCHARTS, though I do agree that reaching number one on the chart is important enough for a mention. Probably a sentence in the Commercial Performance section would be best, yeah. Silverseren^C 08:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, reaching number 1 on... something... is at least interesting. I've added it. Dcoetzee 19:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Not very interesting if you understand what the "Heatseekers" chart is. Heatseekers is a chart for uncharted/marginally charted artists, and is useful within the music industry for monitoring acts that have never made it. Pretty much any artist's first charting song will chart on Heatseekers the week before it charts on the main chart, and songs in positions 51-100 of the Hot 100 are quite likely to be on Heatseekers. Once they chart in the top 50 for the first time, they are never eligible for Heatseekers again. Heatseekers is only worth mentioning for groups and artists that are notable for some reason other than charting (i.e., composed of former members of notable groups, or made the news somehow), as in those cases, the Heatseekers listing is the only sign of commercial success. Once the song makes the Hot 100, that's a much better measure of success, and makes the Heatseekers listing irrelevant. Just to forestall the usual argument, WP:USCHARTS applies to discussions of charts within the entire body of the article, not simply to tables of charts. It should only be overridden in unusual circumstances, and this is pretty much a typical trajectory for a one-hit wonder.—Kww(talk) 21:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes complete sense. Thank you so much for taking the time to explain all that. EternalLies 04:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Dcoetzee 19:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Popularity?

Considering the song's harsh critical reception and the like-to-dislike user ratio on the youtube video, I think it kind of strange and misleading that the article states that a growth in "popularity" is what sparked the parodies and remixes. I feel notority would be a more appropriate word, though perhaps the section would be better off simply being rewritten. --Rogington (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge with the artist's Wiki page?

At the moment, Black's encyclopedic relevance is entirely based on "Friday". If she releases another single, or especially an album, it would be appropriate to create her own page, but at the moment, she and her song should be covered in a single article. - Drlight11 (talk) 07:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge. Rebecca Black should never have been created as a separate article due to WP:1E. Ylee (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points.

• A song is a work, not an 'event'. Even if it was, WP:BLP1E says "If the event is significant a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."
• She meets both WP:GNG and the more relevant WP:MUSICBIO.
• If you are still concerned that she is a one-hit wonder, rest assured that she is working on a new album. Whether or not it's a hit, I'd bet my life that it will receive significant coverage in the news.
• Finally, this discussion was already had at AfD.

DubiousIrony ^yell 15:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose You clearly don't know the policies here. WP:1E doesn't count here because the popularity of a song is not an event. A single released is not an event either. She meets the requirements of #1 and #2 (potentially #11) of WP:MUSICBIO, while this song itself meets the requirements of WP:NSONG. She is a notable singer who has released a charted song, showing that both the song and the singer deserve an article. That is how our policies on music work. Silverseren^C 07:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No one doubts the notability of the song and the artist. The question is whether, at this point, separate articles are warranted. From WP:NSONG:

Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

In other words, if we were to remove all information on "Friday" in Rebecca Black beyond a cursory mention because Friday (Rebecca Black song) exists—as we should—would Rebecca Black be a stub? Yes, it would; heck, it's barely past that point now, even padded with a fatuous, one-entry Discography. That's why the two should be merged, with it redirecting to here. Ylee (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(To clarify, the reason I say to redirect Rebecca Black to Friday (Rebecca Black song) and not the other way around, despite WP:NSONG's language, is that this article is the de facto Wikipedia article on both Rebecca Black and "Friday". It's more detailed and updated more often on both topics, not just the song. Once the merger occurred this article would be renamed "Rebecca Black". That's why WP:1E is relevant.) Ylee (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't use WP:NSONG to argue the merging of an article about a singer NSONG applies to articles about songs and this article clearly shows that there is more than enough information about the song here. Secondly, the AfD for Rebecca Black closed mere days ago as Keep, so that makes this entire request improper, regardless of the fact that she handily meets WP:MUSICBIO. Your argument about removing Friday information from her bio is nonsensical, since that would still leave the first and last paragraph in her article, only removing the middle paragraph. She is in the middle of writing another single and has been involved in other things outside of the Friday song at this point. Merging either of these articles is improper. Silverseren^C 21:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are proposing deleting Rebecca Black and merging the information into this article. A community discussion was held on this very matter (being closed barely three days ago) and can be accessed here: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Rebecca_Black. Please review it. The consensus seems clear to me. DubiousIrony ^yell 15:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, no point repeating this discussion at this time. Dcoetzee 21:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Should we mention specific parodies

Hi. Like this one? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

We wouldn't mention parodies unless they have been discussed in reliable sources. Though, I believe that specific one has been quite a bit, so it would be proper to include that one. Silverseren^C 21:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but only if we can cite secondary reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are a couple sources for the Dylan parody.[3][4] Here's a source listing 6 parodies[5] although it's just a listing. There's no depth or detail about the parodies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Symbolism

Rebecca Black just discussed how the song Friday is a symbolic reference to the U.S Foreign Policy, the modern obsession with consumerism and the current economic crisis. [6] Shall we include it? Member of VFD (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The video was a parody for funnyordie.com's April Fools joke.... SKS (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Youtube (2)

I've spotted many instances of the view count being updated with Youtube as a source. Do we really need to do it each day? I mean, we could cite a reliable source and add "As of <date>, the video has been viewed <number>" Updating the view count means we have to do it until the video is taken off? Or, till the popularity of the song fades? Also, isn't updating the view count with no source WP:OR? Leave your comments, and do correct me if I'm wrong :) Thanks. Novice7 (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If we have willing editors who are updating it, I don't see the problem. As for using YouTube as a source, please see this discussion.[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

To summarize the link that AQFK gave above, the Youtube video counts as a primary source, which, due to WP:PRIMARY, may be used if the information being collected from it is non-controversial and is basic data. Using the view count from the video is simple data that anyone can check on and verify and, thus, is allowable to be used and is not WP:OR. Silverseren^C 14:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying guys. My doubts have been cleared. Novice7 (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

UK Radio first Airing wrong

It was aired on talkSPORT on March 12, during Matt Fordes late night show, at around 1.00am in the morning, where they first played the full song and later talked to a number of critics from the US and the UK aswell as members of the public ringing in to talk about their opinions, the night soon became dedicated to the worst songs ever made, with listeners encouraged to ring in and give their nominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.213.86 (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

video update, april 1st

she released a video on aprl first on youtube talking about her inspiration and "hidden meaning" of the song perhaps it should be editted into the page as well? link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LOtQwD6Jb0

• DISCLAMER*

it could have been a joke, due to the date it was published —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.144.51.201 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Why was a link to the official video removed from the article?[8] The account appears to be owned by Ark Music Factory[9] and not some random user. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted Kww. I think he was just mistaken and thought we were linking to a copy of the video hosted by a random user, when that is actually the official account of ARK Music Factory. Silverseren^C 05:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Certainly not an obvious connection.—Kww(talk) 05:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I made the same mistake back when this article was first made. They should really change accounts in order to have an account name that somehow reflects the company name. Though I guess they aren't an official company, per se, so it isn't a high priority. Silverseren^C 06:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good. I was just going to ask why my edit was reverted as a copyright violation. It's easy to hit the 'undo' button and slap 'copyright violation' on another person's contributions. A 10-second Google search would have shown that my edit linked to the official music video. Reading the edit summary would have revealed that I merely restored a link that existed in the infobox, with no complaints, since March 17th. In any case, since when do we decide what constitutes a copyright violation on another website? The link says "music video", not "official music video". If it's a copyright violation then YouTube can take it down. If there's a policy saying that we should check for copyright status before linking to external media, please link me to it. Let's leave the lawyering to the lawyers. Otherwise we will end up with editors reverting people's good faith contributions because they think that a link might be a copyright violation. What's next, removing a link to a research paper if there are allegations that the author plagiarized a paragraph? DubiousIrony ^yell 21:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking to copyrighted works forbids linking to copyright violations. This was a good-faith error on my part, but removing links to copyright violating YouTube videos is a normal part of my editing cycle.—Kww(talk) 07:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As much as I disagree with that policy (for a free and open encyclopedia, Wikipedia seems to love bowing down to lawyers - a single DMCA notice is enough to censor an article for years), I must apologize for the tone of my previous message. I understand now that you were following a Wikipedia policy. I'm sorry if I was out of line, it seems my personal baggage interfered with my ability to assume good faith on your part for a brief moment. DubiousIrony ^yell 04:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Typical Friday?

"The concept for the music video is based on the lyrics and presented as a typical Friday for Black ... In the evening, after debating whether to sit in the front or back of a convertible..."

She has to solve this terrifying paradox every night?! How horrible! In all seriousness, I think there might be a lead for a change there, somewhere? Bahahs (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga quote

People keep inserting text mentioning Lady Gaga calling Rebecca Black a "genius" while speaking at Google. The problem with this is that she never saw the video, making her opinion meaningless. (Chris Brown verifiably watched the video. I haven't seen any sources to indicate that Simon Cowell didn't, but given his background I'd be surprised if he hadn't.) Since I don't want to risk WP:3RR, will someone else please help in keeping this out of the article? Ylee (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga is commenting on the way the video has spread, become popular, and also Black's responses to the criticism against her and how she is continuing forward. True, Gaga's comment is not about what's in the video itself, but you don't have to watch the video to make a comment on its distribution. Calling Black a "genius" for that also doesn't require having watched the video. Silverseren^C 22:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is in fact true of Lady Gaga's comment. BnaiBrithChai (talk)

{ec} Does the fact that she hasn't seen the video negate the fact that she made supporting comments? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The full quote is "I think it is fantastic. I think Rebecca Black is a genius, and anyone who is telling her she is cheesy is full of shit." How would she know whether Black's work is cheesy or not if she isn't actually familiar with it? I suppose that if we absolutely, positively had to have a Lady Gaga quote in the article we could explain how Gaga apparently meant to call Black a genius for becoming popular on Youtube and not her work because she hasn't actually seen it...But what's the point when it already has two other pop music celebrities' supportive remarks? Ylee (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe Simon Cowell is a pop music celebrity. O_o And, because of that, it's better to keep Gaga's comment, who is a real singer. Silverseren^C 22:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Simon Cowell is one of the most notable figures in pop music in the last two decades. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Seren knows that; thus his lame smilie. Poor attempts at wit aside, unless it can be shown why a problematic quote needs to be kept when two unproblematic and otherwise superior (in terms of detail and eloquence) quotes in the same vein are already present, I hope someone goes ahead and removes it ASAP. Ylee (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to clarify that Gaga hasn't watched the video in the article, then do so, but I don't believe it is necessary, since she's making a comment about Black, not the video. Silverseren^C 23:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What's unnecessary is the quote itself. If Gaga's was the only positive comment by a pop music person we could find, I'd be the first to support keeping it in the article with all necessary context. But it's not. Again, Brown's seen the video, and (now that I think about it more) I'm pretty sure Cowell has, too; he accurately describes it as a song about the weekend, which the title doesn't necessarily communicate, and goes on to discuss how it is a "hair dryer song". With their supportive comments, why include Lady Gaga's lower-quality, throw-away remark? Ylee (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you stalking my edits now? Silverseren^C 23:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Her Ladyship is calling her a genius. She is not being sarcastic or humorous, she is being deadly serious. Thus the quote is valid. The fact whether she has seen the video or not is irrelevant. Deciding that she hasn't seen the video and therefore is not qualified to offer her opinions is original research. Just because of what was said on the above 'View Count Updates' does not mean we can suddenly start deciding "yeah I have looked at the video and she is full of shit so we aren't including it". Besides which having a third celebrity completes the sentence. de-dum, de-dum, de-dum. Three examples are flowing, there is just something displeasing about two.--EchetusXe 23:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Stating that Lady Gaga had not seen the video before her "genius" remark isn't OR; see the cite in my first comment. Deciding whether a cite is worthwhile by considering its full context is also not OR; we do that any time multiple citations, sometimes conflicting, are available for a given point. Again, the quote would be worth salvaging—in this case, by providing said context in the article—if it were the only one such extant. It is, however, not. (As for aesthetics, I find comma splices far more displeasing to the eye than not having a third celebrity quote, thank you.) Ylee (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Another pop at Seren? Well in the article text it could read [Despite not seeing the video, pop star Lady Gaga told Google: "I say Rebecca Black is a genius, and anyone who's telling her she's cheesy is full of shit."] or [Lady Gaga told Google that "Rebecca Black is a genius, and anyone who's telling her she's cheesy is full of shit", though she admitted not seeing the video].--EchetusXe 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The comma splice was yours, not Seren's (who I don't know from Adam); it was a cheap shot at your aesthetics claim. Your sentences would be fine (no need to mention Google, actually; "said" or "stated" would be sufficient) if we needed a celebrity supportive quote in the article but, again, why bother with a problematic line that readers need context for when two other pop superstars are already quoted? Ylee (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's my suggested language: "Pop star Lady Gaga supported Black, calling her a "genius" due to the widespread attention generated by "Friday."" The important thing is not whether she saw the video or not, but the reason she described Black as a genius (which the rest of the speech makes clear enough - it's not about production values, it's about impact). Despite that, it's pretty obvious Lady Gaga did not do the research on this one, being apparently unaware not just of the video but the role of Ark in its production. Dcoetzee 21:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel it would be sufficient to simply say that Lady Gaga supports Rebecca Black and leave it at that. I feel the only celebrity quote worth mentioning in the article would be that of Simon Cowell who did see the video and gave more input that just "genius." Jam1991 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As editors, it's not our place to determine whether Lady Gaga's opinion is justified or not. We can only quote her, as has been done. You can agree or disagree with what she said, but that doesn't change the fact that she said it. --Rogington (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Where does this strange notion that Wikipedia editors can't use their brains to determine the reliability of a cite come from? If a movie critic writes an article on "The best films of 2010" and calls Black Swan a "masterpiece", but it turns out that he hadn't actually ever seen the film and went by media reports and what he'd heard from fellow critics about its quality, would we want to quote said critic in the article on the film? Of course not. Ylee (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, she's not commenting about the video, but about Black herself. Silverseren^C 22:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussed above. A work of art, or an utterance, can be "cheesy"; a person cannot. Ylee (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Where are you getting your "cheesy" quote from? I thought we were discussing the use of the word "genius"? Silverseren^C 23:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Scroll back up for Lady Gaga's full quote. Ylee (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I question whether she's actually not seen the video, or at least a part of it. But, either way, I don't see why we can't include her in the people who support Black, we don't have to mention what she stated or anything like that, just her support is enough. Silverseren^C 23:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

How are you and I having this discussion again, when everything you mention is covered above? 1) She didn't see the video. The cite is unambiguous. 2) Context is important. Quoting Lady Gaga's line of support without mentioning the context would mislead readers into thinking that her unlearned opinion on Black's work is as valid as Brown's or Cowell's. 3) Yes, we could say "without having seen the video" or somesuch, but why bother when the article already has better quotes of support from two other well-known pop celebrities? Ylee (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

All your arguments are understandable, but don't you think we should add Lady Gaga in the article, even if the quote may be unnecessary? Sources reveal that she obviously does support Rebecca Black. Besides, she's arguably the most popular singer on Youtube with a large fan base. Levardi (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We absolutely do not want to get into a discussion of whether one singer deserves a quote and another doesn't because of subjective measures. I neither know, nor care, how many records/singles Lady Gaga has sold versus Chris Brown versus Miley Cyrus, or how much each is worth versus Simon Cowell. I do know that they are all bona fide pop music celebrities who have made positive statements regarding Black. One, Lady Gaga, is definitively cited to have not seen the video/heard the song before making the statement. Two, Brown and Cyrus, definitely have, and the fourth, Cowell, has (as I've discussed above) strongly implied that he has as well. What makes Lady Gaga's unlearned statement so worthy that it needs to be quoted in this article? Ylee (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. Cheers. :) Levardi (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A lady walked up to the microphone to ask Gaga a question while in her interview with Google. Lady Gaga probably said she was a "genius" because of an earlier question, about fame through YouTube. True that she has never seen the video, but... why would she want to?! To believe that an innocent ladies question has sparked such an outrage. SM64DSi (talk) 0:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{edit semi-protected}} Lol should be removed from the singes chronology. She confiremed thats not the song. 76.110.165.51 (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Did she? Do you have a source for this? Jsharpminor (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

the rebecca black wikipedia page and her twitter. 76.110.165.51 (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've refactored your comment to improve readability. Please read the talk page guidelines so you know how to best use the talk pages for discussion. The tweet the op is referring to is here. However, most sources are reporting that 'LOL' is the name of the new single (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). A recent article, however, claims “Rebecca does not have a new single titled, ‘LOL,’” her manager tells HollywoodLife.com, adding, “Just to be clear she does not have any new single recorded at this time.” (6). I'd like to hear from some other editors before removing the reference to her new single.

• In light of this new information, should we remove the singles chronology section from the infobox? DubiousIrony ^yell 21:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Bob Dylan Cover

This song is actually a cover of a Bob Dylan song of the same name, I'm not sure people really know that yet but it is. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

^^ That's the funniest thing I've ever read. 66.82.162.10 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh.... no.... Stoopkitty (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dangit nvm, just a ruse haha. The website I got the info from just got an update saying it was a hoax. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This website? Silverseren^C 07:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not Bob Dylan, it's somebody who does a good impression... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.125.120 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The following link seems to prove that the image used was doctored to say FRIDAY, and is actually for Watching the River Flow: http://www.searchingforagem.com/1970s/1971.htm --180.216.119.87 (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it is NOT a Bob Dylan song should be added to the article given all the misinformation (jokes) going around on Youtube where the dylan-like cover version is uploaded.--Zajmedia (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Remix version?

There seems to be different official versions of Friday available. Especially if you watch the Jay Leno performance, they play a clip of the video and the music is different from the original, and when Rebecca Black performs a clip of the song it's almost another song. Any idea what these versions are all about? --FnH (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC- iTunes chart content

The following is being constantly removed by two users under the rationale WP:BADCHARTS:

"Within a week after being released on iTunes it has jumped the iTunes sales chart to 19 as of March 19, 2011."

Should this content be permitted in the article?--Oakshade (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• No Outdated. Anyway I see no relevancy. If iTunes were listed on WP:GOODCHARTS, it would be added as other important charts, but since it is not, I see no major importance. It didn't break a record (e.g. "debuted at number one becoming the first novice in do it"). Many songs chart on iTunes, I do not know why we have to do an exception with this song. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 03:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Tbhotch, an RfC is for "other editors" to weigh in, not somebody involved in the dispute.--Oakshade (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And you bold it's because... BTW, RFC do not prohibits weigh in editors to comment. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact the song went from almost complete obscurity to being #19 sales of the store that represents over 70% of all worldwide record sales in one week seems very relevant, even just from a historic standpoint, and particularly so since multiple reliable sources are reporting it. --Oakshade (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

So I wonder, if this song represented 70% of the record sales of that week, why it is not mentioned instead? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you mean why isn't iTunes, the store representing 70% of all record sales, mentioned? --Oakshade (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even more, why we will mentioned its "poor" debut (c'mon exist much more singles have debuted at top ten on iTunes Store). Why you do not try to search the correct sales on the iTunes Store. The current article states "[it] received "easily" more than $1 million from iTunes Store sales ... However, these sales estimates were later proven incorrect". Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about dollar sales, but simply numerical unit (download) sales. iTunes represents 70% of all worldwide music sales and that's a fact. Sure other songs my major artists have debuted in the top 10, but very rarely does a totally unknown artist. It's not just me who finds that significant, but multiple reliable sources do. --Oakshade (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As Kevin said "Nothing about being reported by multiple reliable sources mandates its inclusion, just makes it eligible" Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a classic Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem and it's not even Jimbo. Thanks for admitting the content is eligible. --Oakshade (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Where? Do not be afraid (becuase your pseudoimportant content won't be added) and do not put word in my mouth. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Tbhotch, you actually stated the content was eligible.[10]. As for your "your content won't be added" declaration, you are not the authority on any matter. --Oakshade (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support I think it's fine. WP:CHARTS seems to be the use of iTunes in chart tables, not article text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying we can use all the WP:BADCHARTS within text meanwhile we do not use them in the charts. Interesting. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, why not? If reliable sources think that iTunes is important enough to include in their coverage, then so should we. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Because charts wind up on WP:BADCHARTS because of inherent distortions in their presentation. iTunes is listed because it's a single vendor chart: it overrepresents anything that has an iTunes exclusive arrangement, underrepresents all others, and completely omits anything that is exclusively distributed through a competitor. Certainly positions on iTunes get mentioned in reliable press, but the underlying information is unreliable. We don't mention Amazon sales positions for books for much the same reason. There are numerous single-vendor charts that are in similar situations. The Galgalatz charts are the most prominent example: they are on WP:BADCHARTS because they represent the airplay positions on a single Israeli network, but the positions are certainly widely reported within Israel.—Kww(talk) 22:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources take much more precedent in deciding content than a few wikipedia users who made a bunch of edits to a style guideline. If multiple reliable sources have decided to include iTunes chart information in their content, that far supercedes the a wikipedia style guideline. Content is decided by reliable sources, not a few user's opinion of them. --Oakshade (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Content is actually guided by WP:CONSENSUS. An RFC is a reasonable way to determine if there is consensus for your change. Guidelines reflect consensus, and, while consensus may change, the guideline against using iTunes has persisted for over four years, since it was first added by Ericorbit, not me. An extensively used guideline that has gone unchallenged for four years can be assumed to represent current consensus fairly well.—Kww(talk) 04:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, content is guided by the five pillars, not style guidelines, which only apply to style. The most relevant policy here is WP:NPOV which states that content should be determined by the weight given by reliable sources. In this particular case, I don't see why style guidelines should take precedence over the weight assigned by secondary reliable sources, nor have I seen any attempt to do so. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Describing WP:Record charts as a "style guideline" comes across as a denigration of its role. It became called that on May 24, 2010. Before that, it was just WP:Record charts, and contained guidance on style, sourcing, and content. It still does. Look at the guideline by weight and mass: under a third of it is about the style of the chart table. The bulk of the article is a summary on the consensus of chart reliability, and guidance on what sources are considered reliable sources of charts and which are not. If you can provide a better name that doesn't include "MOS" in the title, I'll move it there. I didn't make up the "single vendor" guideline, although I strongly and firmly agree with it. The iTunes chart doesn't reliably document anything but the sales popularity within a single vendor's sales. Encyclopedia don't act as promotional arms for vendors, but certainly vendor promotional tools get reported on my the popular press. The restrictions on charts documented at WP:BADCHARTS aren't different from from guidelines about suitable content for lists or any other class of article. No one is trying to override the five pillars: it's just an application of Wikipedia:NOT#IINFO, which is policy: inclusion of charts relevant only to sales of a single vendor is inclusion of indiscriminate information. I'd also argue that the appropriate weight for such information approaches zero: Wikipedia does not serve as a promotional vehicle for Apple.—Kww(talk) 08:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support WP:BADCHARTS is about the use of iTunes in chart tables, it has nothing to do with using such chart information as text within the article itself. Obvoiusly, you'd have to have enough reliable sources to justify doing so, but we seem to have that here and it seems important enough information to include. Silverseren^C 20:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• OpposeNeutral WP:BADCHARTS is not limited to the use of charts in chart tables. Never has been. Never will be. The introductory sentence is "This is a list of charts which should not be included in Wikipedia articles." The introductory sentence in the guideline in which it resides is "This page gives some guidelines for using and displaying record chart information in music-related articles." Iemphasis added) Neither of those sentences gives any indication that the scope is limited to the chart tables. Note that there are specific sentences like "Chart trajectories may be mentioned in the article text" I don't know where the misconception that WP:BADCHARTS applies only to the tables comes from. Such a limitation wasn't the intent when the guideline was first written (which I know first hand, as I was the primary author of the original). If it's on WP:BADCHARTS, it shouldn't be included unless there's something sufficiently unusual to warrant ignoring the guideline: such isn't the case here.—Kww(talk) 22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Kww, you're claiming that WP:BADCHARTS, a sub-section of the style guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (record charts), dictates absolutely no content found notable by mulitple reliable sources are allowed in wikipedia simply because they are related to charts. It doesn't. That's a style guideline on how to deal with the displaying of charts and states very clearly at the top of the guideline (well above the quote you used) that the guideline is to be treated with common sense. That sentence directly after the one you quoted which you conveniently left out states "The chart positions should be organized into one table, and the table should be formatted using class="wikitable sortable"," further deomonstrating that guideline is meant for charts in tables, again, not to ban content cited by reliable sources in prose just because they're chart related. By your razor sharp focus on one word of the guideline, "using," you're just taking wikilawyering to an extreme.--Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent me. Read my words: "If it's on WP:BADCHARTS, it shouldn't be included unless there's something sufficiently unusual to warrant ignoring the guideline: such isn't the case here." Then try to make a reply: demonstrate what makes this case unusual. Tell me why we should ignore the guideline. I'm not saying that guidelines should never be ignored: even policy can be ignored if you make a good case for it. Saying that you found three mentions doesn't make the case unusual enough to ignore the guideline.

Further, the text I omitted is irrelevant: it doesn't say that the only use for chart information is the table, or that the table is the exclusive mechanism: it says the information should be presented in table format. The article does that, so there's no dispute there.—Kww(talk) 23:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to inadvertently cherry-pick a line or two out of a guideline, but we're supposed to focus on the guideline as a whole and in its entirety. I can read it again if you like, but it seems pretty clear that it's about tables and not article content. The sky isn't going to fall if we mention iTunes in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't cherry-pick: I wrote the section we are discussing. I've worked with that guideline as a whole for years. The only issue we have is that someone decided to rename WP:Record charts to a manual-of-style page, which makes it appear to people that don't know the history that it has limited scope. No, the sky isn't going to fall. People can reasonable come to the conclusion that the iTunes mention here is unusual enough to warrant mention, and while I may disagree, that would just be a normal disagreement, and a normal case of overriding a guideline in unusual circumstances. But please don't base your disagreement by deciding that the guideline doesn't apply: it clearly does. Charts listed on WP:BADCHARTS are routinely removed from article text as well as tables.—Kww(talk) 23:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That WP:BADCHARTS sub-section of a style guideline doesn't "clearly apply" to content in prose found notable by multiple reliable sources, and by that style guidelines's first sentence that you only partially quoted, it demonstrates it's a style guideline dealing with the displaying of chart content in tables. Just because in some other cases chart-related content was removed from text doesn't mean that practice applies to every article. Maybe in those other cases there wasn't multiple secondary reliable sources finding that chart-related content notable as is the case here. Again, you're just taking specific words like "using" out of context to construe a style guideline bans certain chart related content in prose even if multiple reliable sources considers that content notable. --Oakshade (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to claim that you know what I was trying to write and understand it better than I do? First instance of WP:BADCHARTS—Kww(talk) 01:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. This is silly. WP:BADCHARTS states "Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer (such as iTunes, Amazon.com or Wal-Mart) should not be used.". Yes, agreed. I use WP:COMMONSENSE to interpret it as "don't use iTunes as a reference for a song's performance" NOT "even if the reliable sources across the whole world are talking about this song's iTunes performance, you better not mention it in the article because it's a WP:BADCHART". Once again: we are not citing iTunes. We are citing reliable sources talking about iTunes performance (1, 2, 3, 4 ad infinitum). Let's be reasonable here. Everyone arguing against inclusion of this information: are you objecting to using iTunes as a source or are you campaigning against all mention of her performance on iTunes? Even if it's a notable, hot topic of conversation covered by reliable sources? DubiousIrony ^yell 06:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• As I've said, people can reasonably argue that there is something special about the coverage this has received, which would include your example of "notable, hot topic of conversation" or "reliable sources across the whole world are talking about it". What I object to is the notion that the guideline doesn't apply, or is somehow invalid to consider. I can source the iTunes position for at least half the songs that have charted on a Billboard chart in the last year. That means a few sources don't cross the threshold of being unusual. If people can persuade me that this is unusual enough to override the guideline, I'll stop arguing. What I find extremely unconvincing is people trying to tell me that they understand the intent of my own words better than I do. WP:BADCHARTS applies to this case. We may choose to override it, but it needs to be considered.—Kww(talk) 08:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't own WP:CHARTS. Further, some degree of common sense needs to be applied here. I edit in multiple topic-spaces and one of the issues I've noticed in our music articles is a slavish devotion to following a rule for apparently the sake of following it. BTW, if you can source the iTunes position for at least half the songs that have charted on a Billboard chart in the last year, then maybe it's the guideline that's out of date. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't argued that I own it, only that I'm in a unique position to know the author's intent when it comes to WP:BADCHARTS and WP:GOODCHARTS. If you want to try to develop a consensus to remove iTunes from the list of bad charts, that could be done. So far, it's been challenged once (as a part of this individual dispute), and there was no consensus developed to remove it. All I'm asking is that you make an argument for why it should be ignored in this case, which you haven't done, or develop that consensus, which you haven't done. It's not like the New York Times is raving about the iTunes position of this song: the sources are etidbits.com, conceivablytech.com, and cnet.com: hardly earth-shattering new sources. WP:COMMONSENSE would indicate that we follow the guideline in this case. What you've been arguing so far seems to be that every fact that shows up in reliable sources should be included in articles, which is neither policy nor guideline.—Kww(talk) 14:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just throwing up a straw man. Nobody here ever said that every fact that shows up in reliable sources should be included in articles. It's in this case multiple reliable sources found the content directly relating to the topic of this article relevant to report it (sorry, there's no WP:MUST BE NEW YORK TIMES RAVING guideline). You're claiming that a few words in a sub-section of a style guideline absolutely bans content in any article, no matter how sourced it is by multiple reliable sources nor in any context. It doesn't. --Oakshade (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not claimed that. Not once. Not even once. I've said that in the absence of an unusual circumstance, we should follow the guideline. I've said that this particular context, and these particular three sources, don't justify overriding its guidance. You've never engaged that argument. It's very hard to maintain a rational discussion when you insist on misrepresenting my words, and arguing against points that I'm not making.—Kww(talk) 16:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that you haven't provided a single reason why this content should be excluded other than a slavish devotion to following some style guideline about how to format charts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Just for record, Kww, you actually did claim that text in the style guideline you personally wrote most of does ban content in other articles even when in this case it was sourced by multiple reliable sources. In response to my statement "There's nothing [in the guideline]even close to banning content related to an article topic from being in the article, which is what you are advocating," your response was "In this case, there certainly is: it's called WP:Manual of Style (record charts)#Deprecated charts, which applies throughout the entire article. It doesn't say "don't include these charts unless you can find a reliable source", it says "This is a list of charts which should not be included in Wikipedia articles."[11]--Oakshade (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A reasonable response to a description like "remotely close". Perfect phrasing on my part? No. Like I said, if you had addressed my point instead of arguing that a few sources somehow automatically override the guideline, this whole thing could have been wrapped up fairly quickly.—Kww(talk) 19:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This likely would've been wrapped up quickly even with your opposition. Your "I really just wanted a few more sources" argument is actually quite new and a vast majority of the time you've been citing and defending WP:BADCHARTS as if that trumps any kind of chart-related content that's reported by multiple reliable sources to ban usage of the content anywhere in the article. You seem to be under the impression that the content could not have been used in this article without your approval. Sorry, we go by WP:CONSENSUS.--Oakshade (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You come perilously close to accusing me of lying: I've been dealing with this in good faith.

• "it shouldn't be included unless there's something sufficiently unusual to warrant ignoring the guideline"
• "Don't misrepresent me. Read my words: "If it's on WP:BADCHARTS, it shouldn't be included unless there's something sufficiently unusual to warrant ignoring the guideline: such isn't the case here." Then try to make a reply: demonstrate what makes this case unusual. Tell me why we should ignore the guideline. I'm not saying that guidelines should never be ignored: even policy can be ignored if you make a good case for it. Saying that you found three mentions doesn't make the case unusual enough to ignore the guideline.
• "People can reasonable come to the conclusion that the iTunes mention here is unusual enough to warrant mention, and while I may disagree, that would just be a normal disagreement, and a normal case of overriding a guideline in unusual circumstances."
• "All I'm asking is that you make an argument for why it should be ignored in this case, which you haven't done"
• "The relevant guideline says not to include it, and my editorial judgment says that there are no special circumstances that warrant overriding the guideline. If you showed me, for example, that the number 1 song on iTunes didn't make a Billboard chart because of some exclusion rule, and music critics were saying that exclusion rule was unfair, I'd agree that you had made a case that there was a special circumstance that justified overriding the guideline. I could imagine numerous special cases that would justify overriding the guideline. Three reviews noting the iTunes position isn't unusual at all: it's normal for high-ranking song, and precisely the kind of coverage the guideline was intended to exclude."

I have repeatedly made the request for someone to demonstrate something unusual about this case. 3 websites, two of dubious notability, talking about an iTunes position isn't unusual. It's typical. 20 sites, including Reuters, the Los Angeles Times, Billboard, and The Telegraph is unusual. Perhaps if you had taken more time reading what I was writing, this could have been settled earlier.

And yes, I did need to be satisfied before consensus could be reached. You were acting against an applicable guideline, not demonstrating any reason that we should, and I would have continued to revert you had you reinserted the material. That means that there would not have been a consensus for your addition.—Kww(talk) 21:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS has been deciding here that your style guideline did not ban the content, even without all the added sources to the three already provided. Had you began ignoring consensus in this RfC and began disruptive and pointy reverting, that would be a different manner on your behavior. Like every other editor, your power is limited, my friend.--Oakshade (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to drop the accusations, and actually read WP:CONSENSUS, the part where it says "Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority.". Silverseren's input was based on a misunderstanding of the guideline's scope, as was A Quest for Knowledge's. Arguments based on misreading the guideline can't be viewed as being of high quality. Most of the other arguments were simply hurling accusations of bad faith in my direction. Once A Quest for Knowledge actually answered my objection, we achieved rough consensus (I'm pretty sure that if you ask Tbhotch now and showed him my position, he'd agree to the material ... I may be wrong on that). You can't achieve consensus unless you read your opponents's arguments and actually attempt to address them. I've done that: I pointed at WP:NOT#IINFO multiple times to show that simply being reported in reliable sources isn't sufficient for inclusion. I pointed at the plain text in the chart guideline to show that it covered the entire article to refute the assertions that it was limited to only the chart table. I took the time to read every argument you raised and explain why it was wrong, and changed my view when someone showed me convincing evidence that my position wasn't well founded. That's how consensus is achieved. Accusations don't get there, and refusing to read and understand opposing viewpoints doesn't get there. It would have been impossible for me to "ignore consensus" had consensus never been achieved, which is where your tactics would have taken us.—Kww(talk) 22:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't just numbers, but most people found the quality of your arguments flawed and unconvincing. It's pointless to even continue this. Enjoy your predicted last word rant. --Oakshade (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Considering the song's popularity on the internet, it seems perfectly acceptable to me to use information concerning it's online sales. --Jam1991 (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You've just provided what I asked for: some evidence that the amount of coverage is unusual. I have never asked for "slavish devotion", I asked for someone to demonstrate that the situation was unusual enough to justify overriding its guidance. If you had done that instead of claiming that the guideline didn't apply, instead of ignoring WP:NOT#IINFO, instead of hurling accusation of ownership, this could have been over a long time ago. Discussions and arguments only work when people respond to the arguments made by their opponents.

I've changed my !vote to "Neutral": I don't think it should be included, but I can see that a case can be made that this a situation where an exception to the guideline can be made.—Kww(talk) 16:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Include Seems to be a widely-discussed phenomenon Purplebackpack89 23:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This RfC has been open for over a month and there is an overwhelming consensus to include this content or permit it. It seems this RfC can be closed. --Oakshade (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)