Talk:Into You (Ariana Grande song)

Synthesis

We do not have a reliable source which states the song received the overwhelming adulation of every living being on the planet, rage inspiring hatred or anything in between ("acclaim", "positive reviews", "mixed-to-neutral-to-wishy-washy reviews", whatever). Instead, we have various reviews saying what various individual critics thought of the song. Adding those sources together into one statement is synthesis. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

IP editor: This claim has been removed by at least three different editors (SSTflyer, Chasewc91 and me). The article has now been semi-protected. Now would be the time to discuss the issue, rather than continuing to edit war. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ever since I started to contribute and/or develop articles here on Wikipedia, by everything that I read, I have always used a good article as an example to know how can I improve and contribute in the best possible way. Whenever an editor is editing an article, we need to understand which topics we are going to approach at the top of the article, and the critical reception part has always been useful and very important for the reader. Featured articles such as "Love the Way You Lie", "Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song)" and even "Imagine (John Lennon song)" (to name only a few) have always presented a critical point of view. It's very important and in every good article here on Wikipedia (with very few exceptions) the critical reception is present at the top. I have worked on many articles and most of them that received a good article status were approved with the critical consensus at the top (which was always said to be extremely important). I have observed that though is important to sum up, it's not good to exclude the critical consensus, because though they differ in their opinion about a song, in all of the articles that are approved to be "good", the contributors always know how to deal with different opinions.

In this case (and on the "Love Me Harder" article, which was also taken away, even though both songs were positively reviewed), it's very easy to interpret as "Most music critics gave positive reviews for the song, with some praising as a highlight - because it was true - and others praising its hook - which is confirmed on the reception section). My main reason to edit on Wikipedia is to improve articles and reaching them for "good article" status, but with this kind of exclusion of a very important part which is the critical at the top is going to be very hard. For every song/single article on Wikipedia, with different reviews, it is necessary to find a critical consensus about the song, and it's not a hard task to take it away like that, I have always done, and it's what make an article to stand out. It's simple, we can't generalize, but it's necessary to exhibit what critics said about the song in general. FanofPopMusic (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Or I can sum up all I said stating that 16 out of the 16 reviews on the reception section gave the song positive reviews ("the song received positive reviews from critics" or "music critics gave predominantly positive reviews for the song"), 4 of them called it a highlight (" some of them picked it as highlight) and most praised its catchiness and hook. Therefore, we can sum up so the reader have an idea that: music critics gave predominantly positive reviews for the song; some of them picked it as a highlight and others praised its catchiness and hook. FanofPopMusic (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You are trying to say or imply that most critics liked the song. You do not have a source that says that. Now you are suggesting combining the 16 sources to say something that none of them say. (Incidentally, the statement would be "Wikipedia editors selected 16 reviews and a Wikipedia editor decided that all 16 of them were 'positive'." That is not an encyclopedic statement and it is synthesis. Your impression that other articles, even featured articles, do something similar does not override WP:SYN, which is part of one of our core policies.

A non-SYN statement is, "Joe Smith of Today's Pop Songs said the song was 'one of the highlights of the album'." On the other hand "A Wikipedia editor found that most of the 16 reviews selected by Wikipedia editors to use here 'praised' the song's hook and called it 'catchy' or some variant of that statement that the editor decided was similar enough to lump in with the others" is synthesis.

If you feel it is necessary to find a critical consensus, I invite you to find one. Don't build one out of multiple sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You claim that I don't have a source, but how come all of the good and featured articles of music here have at the top what critics thought about the song and they don't need to add a source to imply what's already there. Every article about a song has critical reception section, therefore, it is necessary to read that section and sum up at the top, it will never reach all of the critics, but the most important, that's why it is used "some of them..." "and others...". This was never an issue, but now ever article that I contribute few editors try to find an issue with what was never an issue: the critical reception. FanofPopMusic (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I claim you do not have a source because you have not provided one. If you have one, please provide it.

I am not prepared to discuss what "all" of the good and featured articles say. I am discussing this article and our policies, not what you say you found in the 1,500 good song articles you reviewed for that comment. Having done that careful study, perhaps you should bring up the issue at the Wikipedia:Village pump as a clear exception to WP:SYN, which is part of a core policy.

I am not prepared to discuss "every" article about a song. If this page is the only one of those hundred thousand articles that follows policy (as you are saying), again policy might need to change.

You are using the weasel words "some" and "others" to offer a source for you unsupported attributions. Who said that somebody. "Some" scientists have said the Moon landings were faked. "Other" scientists say the entire space race was faked. Still "other" scientists say the Earth is actually flat and orbiting the Earth is simply impossible. It's all "true". Yeah, it isn't all of the scientists, but, IMO, it is the most important ones.

The issue here is our core policy, WP:SYN. At the moment it states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Until you establish a consensus to change that, I would ask that you not combine material from multiple reviews to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is explicit, AllMusic picked it as a highlight, Slant a standout (two important magazines already), The Verge called it the catchiest tune, Idolator and Digital Spy named it a massive song, Pitchfork labelled one of her best singles to date. Six reviews that we can say at the top that some critics - six is a good number for 'some' - called it a highlight at least, and the rest of the reviews - I edited, therefore I read the whole reviews - were all positive, so why can't I sum up saying that the song was positively reviewed, since all of the reviews were positive, not even one was negative to have an issue about it?. FanofPopMusic (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You do not have a source explicitly saying what you want to say. Instead, you are combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You have a source that explicitly says that AllMusic picked it as a highlight. You have a source that explicitly says that Slant called it a standout. You have a source that explicitly says that The Verge called it the catchiest tune. As a result, we can say those things. You do not have a source that explicitly says that "The song received acclaim upon its release" or that "Music critics gave positive reviews". That is against our core policy. As a result, we cannot say that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The sixteen reviews are positive and yet they are not source? So when we have an article saying what's the song about, lyrically, it's not enough too? When we have a reviewer claiming that the song is "pop", the other "R&B", we just don't combine them? Which one is more accurate, which one is "better"? So, we combine them and put "pop * R&B", but there's not the case with the reviews, all of them were positive (a matter of interpretation) and yet they are not enough to simply say that the song was positively reviewed? It's senseless, if we don't know how to interpret if the song is being negatively or positively reviewed than I don't know how can we reach an agreement. For me this is not a question of ego, I don't gain any money out of it, I'm simply wanna help, but this (and every article that I contribute now) is making me feel overwhelmed, because it's turning into a "huge discussion" out of a explicity simply thing. FanofPopMusic (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The sixteen reviews are not a source, they are sixteen sources.

Yes, a source says it's pop and another says it's R&B, we say it is "pop" and it is "R&B". We do not say it is "pop R&B". That would be combining the sources to say something new, something that neither source says.

It is simple. Joe Blow says it is a good song and Jane Smith says it's catchy? Say that Joe Blow said it's a good song and Jane Smith said it's catchy. Don't say "Critics said it's a good, catchy song." - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Critical reception at the top is always important to make an article to stand out and most importantly, to make readers understand what the article tries to convey. Every article of music here on Wikipedia, at least good ones, tends to have a sum up at the top, talking about the writers, the song's genre, the commercial part and, of course, the critical reception. This part tends to have what the majority of the critics thought about the song, if the song received favorable/positive/negative/mixed reviews, highlighting what some critics thought about the song (if it's a highlight, if it's a filler, etc.) and some adjectives or specific details about it ("catchy", "great hook", etc.) as a simple sum up. In this article (and in some others - that's why I'm adding this template in others that have the same issue), there's an issue, since I revamped the whole article, with reliable sources, and at the top, as usual, after reading again the critical reception, I take what is more important (if the song received favorable or mixed reviews and what some critics think about the song, as what any other good user does) and add it. However, everything about the critical reception at the top was taken and I know how work and effort I put into adding these statements, and I want to contribute more and more on Wikipedia, but every article that I tend to add a critical reception at the top (which is part of good articles here and there's more than 200 examples) is taken away even if what I add (if it's positive or not and some highlights that critics claimed about the song) is the usual, as any other user add. I want to make sure that is correct adding what critics think about the song at the top, and most important, my edits to be reverted and the critical reception part to be add again at the top of the articles, because it seems like every article that I revamp and put a simple sum up about the critical reception is taken away as a big issue, but it's not at all. FanofPopMusic (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Let's take a look at "Like a Prayer" :) That page doesn't summarize reviews at all, and since review summaries do often seem to run amok with WP:Synthesis, I can see why. Material Girl mentions debate, but doesn't explicitly summarize any music reviewers either (again understandable, since the reputable reviews probably approaching tens of thousands at this point). However, "Like a Virgin" throws us a bone, reading ""Like a Virgin" received positive reviews from contemporary as well as old critics, who frequently called it as one of the defining songs for Madonna." I can't help but notice that in this case, the summation is of only positive reviews - so the issue is simplified here by the fact that the vast majority of coverage seems to be positive, not mixed, and so the sentence is uncontroversially accurate. But with the song/album pages you say you've had problems with, how do decide if the overall tone of the reviews was positive, mixed, or negative? I assume with each page you're referring too, you've done the research to get a feel for the reaction among the music press at large, not just the links on Wikipedia - so I might might only recommend adding a review summation if you feel very confident you are actually summarizing the sum total of all major reviews online. Honestly, without that, not mentioning reviews in the introduction at all may be the way to go, instead relying on chart rankings and awards to give readers a feel for how the song was received. That's my two cents. Yvarta (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• We do not have a source that says this song received positive/negative/mixed/mixed-to-negative/mainly sarcastic/mostly offhand/ironically vague/indisputably adulatory reviews from a few/some/most/every critic. We have an editor who wants to combine a handful of selected reviews to say something new, the song "received critical acclaim". So, the song received enthusiastic public praise from "critics". Before we can address whether the reviews were "enthusiastic praise", we need to address the unattributed attribution: Who gave this "enthusiastic praise"? We do not have a source for this.

We do, however, have a core policy which states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." WP:SYN

Our core policy WP:NOR is boiled down to a brief summary which states, in part, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." WP:NOR

That "critics enthusiastically praised" this song is combining the sources to say something new, which is a direct violation of our longstanding core policy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that ALL of the sources gave the song positive reviews, all of them, I'm not implying just because I want to imply, I read all of the album/single reviews and put it on the article the parts where is pretty clear the opinion (positive or not) about the song, and all of them were positive. So I'm not assuming that the song was positively reviewed, all of the sources claimed that, better yet, praised the song. So why can't just simply put that the song was positively reviewed since it's not a presumption made by me, it's a fact by all of the reviews in the article? If it's necessary, we can add the references to these "positive reviews" statement at the top (but they are already sourced in the reception section, so why the issue?).FanofPopMusic (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello again FanofPopMusic, for this song, may I perhaps recommend a more bland wording along the lines of "The song met with a generally positive reception in the music press," with every single reputable review linked inline directly afterwards? If you truly can link every source worth reading, then I agree that such a statement would be accurate, and it would be sourced. Unfortunately in most cases, there are simply too many reviews to summarize. However, sometimes articles in reputable sources will summarize the body of reviews for us. For example, I've seen Rolling Stones articles that make generalizations such as "the song was lambasted by the press as a lyrical disaster," or "the song received an overwhelmingly positive response." If you are lucky enough to find such a quote for a song you're working on, putting that quote in the introduction (with proper attribution) would be another accurately sourced way to generalize critical reception. Yvarta (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Yvarta, you seem to be suggesting taking multiple sources and combining them to create a new statement. Please explain how that is not a direct contradiction of our core policy, which states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Greetings, I think you might interpreting WP:Synthesis in an overly strict manner. There are many cases on Wikipedia where an intro collects many sources to make a summation of a section. For example, many song pages state "the track charted well on various Billboard charts," with four or five links directly afterwards linking to chart rankings that are generally positive. With your interpretation of WP:Synthesis, even that would be creating a "new" statement. Yvarta (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not implying anything, it's not hard to understand, it's in the article, here at Wikipedia we need to read and interpret things. Every word on every review on this particular song is at least positive, so concluding what's already in the article that the song received positive reviews is just a matter of good interpretation. FanofPopMusic (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

As I have not read "every" review on this song, I cannot say what all of them say. As "positive" is a subjective term, you cannot say that the reviews you have read are "at least positive". No, you are not trying to "imply" anything, you are reaching a conclusion about what "critics" said, by combining multiple sources to say something that none of the sources explicitly state. You want to say that the critical reviews were positive? Give us one source that says that. At present we do not have one. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I have read ALL of the reviews, as I do every single time I conclude something, and as I told before, it's a simply matter of interpretation. Critic 1 - AllMusic - picked it as a highlight - highlight means something that stands out - and was positive with the fruitful partneship with the producers. Critic 2 - The Verge - the catchiest song of the album - which is a positive note - and also praised the producers. Critic 3 - Complex - called it irresistible - which means something so good that you can't resist - and praised its production. Critic 4 - Idolator - praised the beat, the chorus and called it massive club tune. Critic 5 - Digital Spy - called it a massive (again) banger and praised the hook. Critic 6 - EW - praised the monstruous hook and chorus. Critic 7 - RS - highlighted that it is destined for dancefloor and expressed a favorable opinion about her vocals. Critic 8 - NME - named it a "club anthem to be." Critic 9 - Slant - called it a standout - something that it is exceptionally good. Critic 10 - Pitchfork - named it her best single since Love Me Harder. Critic 11 - MTV News - said the song brought more heat than anything from the album. Critic 12 - Billboard - praised the infectious beat. Critic 13 - Radio.com - was favorable with its production and called it a recipe for a hit. Critic 14 - Arizona Republic - praised her vocals. Critic 15 - AV Club - While calling a sultry track, its production was praised. Critic 16 - Spin - was positive with the chorus and verses. By interpreting the reviews (and when it's necessary I go to a dictionary to emphasize that it's correct to affirm something), it is a fact, simply stated by the interpretation, not the assumption, that music critics gave positive reviews for the track. Summing up, some called it a highlight (critics 1, 2, 9, 10) and others were favorable towards its production (critics 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15). Again, this is not at all an assumption, it's a statement of the facts. Giving you one source, having all of the sixteen confirming that, it's an understatement - they're already there, to intepret what is so clear is very easy. The reviews are not difficult and they are very clear in their statements about the track, they are very explicit about their statement, I just show that. That's why I can't see the problem. FanofPopMusic (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that you have read every review by every music critic in the world. None of the sources say anything about "critics". You are combining sources to say something new. After deciding that these 16 reviews are the only reviews that exist, you decided they are all "positive" and decided to call those reviews "critics". You call it "interpretation". Wikipedia calls it synthesis. To prove otherwise, you will need to provide one source that supports the statement by itself. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

As stated on MOS:INTRO, The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is "a summary of its most important contents." On WP:LEADCITE, per Wikipedia rules, the sources are not obligatory on the lead section, so you can't claim that I need to give you a source to confirm what's already shown on the article by reliable sources. And later it is also claimed that the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source, and this particular song didn't present any controversy (not even on the reception part). FanofPopMusic (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

MOS:INTRO and WP:LEADCITE are both part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, a guideline. As the page makes clear, "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies." WP:SYN is part of Verifiability, a core policy. We cannot combine material from multiple sources to say something that is not explicitly stated by any source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm worried you're not getting it, FanofPopMusic. It's actually pretty simple. On Wikipedia, you don't get to "conclude" anything, no matter how many reviews you've read. You present what quality sources say, nothing more, nothing less. If several independent and reliable sources praise the article's subject, then they are to be presented accordingly (in a manner that's neutral and considering due weight). Assessments/generalisations/conclusions without direct attributions and extensive coverage such as what you propose are not allowed. This RfC is pointless given policy is quite clear about this. Either you find sources stating "this song has been met with overwhelming praise by all notable critics in the planet" (this is sarcasm, if you're somehow unable to get it either) or you desist from your unreasonable endeavour and instead settle for presenting a brief overview of the most relevant reviews. Several sources have positive things to say about the song, so great, present them in the article. It's a different thing altogether to draw conclusions from your interpretation of a summary of the sources, which is what you're wanting to do. Please try to understand this and move on, as I'm sure you have more valuable work to do here. Fighting against the way we do things is not the way to go. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I got the sarcasm, but didn't understand why it was used in a serious conversation, to diminish myself, maybe? Anyway, my only point was to keep the "Music critics gave positive reviews for 'Into You'" at the top of the article, only that. I didn't conclude, it's a matter of interpretation, and I just presented them in a neutral point of view, as usual. And, as you said, Several sources have positive things to say about the song and I simply presented them. FanofPopMusic (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Say what the source says, not your impression of what the various sources taken together say. What Joe Blow of thisweeksbiggesthitever.com said about the song is verifiable. What "critics" felt is synthesis, unless (as sometimes happens) a reliable source says "critics gave the song rave reviews". - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support the use of very carefully worded review summations in the lead. I believe FanofPopMusic has a good underlying argument, just a poor grounding in guidelines to make their point. Reviews deserve to be mentioned in a lead. How do we summarize a review section without breaking guidelines? You can use vague wording such as "the song was reviewed in the music press." How boring and useless is that? "The song received a variety of responses in the music press." A bit more useful, but still vague. "The song received diverse reviews in the music press." Now, according to the above interpretation of WP:Synthesis, this would be breaking a guideline. Who are we, as WIkipedians, to say the bulk of coverage is "good," "bad," or "mixed"? But we have to draw these conclusions on our research, and we do all the time, when trying for example, to balance controversy sections, and find which views are "fringe" and which are "mainstream," based on the number of available sources and their content. For example, if a politician says something, how do we summarize public reactions? "Mixed public reactions," "met with praise," "met with controversy?" We have to draw these judgements sometimes, so long as we do the research to ensure we're not extrapolating or guessing. Yvarta (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• If the reception section includes multiple sources who gave positive reviews (and there's not a reason to suspect bias), it's not synthesis for the lead to summarize them as "received mostly positive reviews." It's WP:BLUE. Synthesis would be to say that without any (or just one) sources, or to say "received only positive reviews." Argento Surfer (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Combining multiple sources to say something that no one source says is ALWAYS synthesis. That is the definition of WP:SYN.

You seem to be saying we need "multiple" sources (which we can combine to say something new), not one? So, for example, in your opinion we can say that every Star Wars received negative reviews? The essay you cite (not policy or a guideline, BTW) says we don't need sources to say things that are common knowledge, like "the sky is blue". If the reviews for any song is on that level, I've never heard of it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the definition of SYN is to take two sources and combine them to say something new. Taking a source that says "This song is heavily inspired by Musician A" and source that says "Musician A is inspired folk music" to say "This song is inspired by folk music." Taking multiple sources that say the same thing and saying "most sources say X" is not synthesis. It's WP:CALC without numbers.

And yes, saying that every Star Wars received negative reviews is valid, if there are 7 reliable bad reviews cited (or less, if they cover more than one film). In that particular example though, it would be an issue of WP:Weight, not SYN. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You have a source that says Jane Smith called it a a "bangin' dance track". You have another source that says Joe Blow said it was the best track on the album. You do not have a source that says critics gave it positive reviews, acclaim, comments that might be called favorable or anything else. You want to combine the sources to say something the individual sources do not say: "Critics gave the song positive reviews. This is not the color of the sky. This not 1 + 1 = 2. This is critic A said "bangin'" + critic B said "better than a selected set of other songs" = critics gave "positive reviews".

Yes, some critics gave reviews that in your opinion are best described as "positive" rather than "negative". If we all accept your false dichotomy, your interpretation and the selection of reviews here, we have a POV that the limited number of editors here agree on. It's still a false dichotomy, your interpretation and a sample of unknown origin. If, OTOH, we had Metacritic's summary, we would have Metacritic's labels, Metacritic's methodology and Metacritic's sample which we report as Metacritic's label. Even with that sourcing, we attribute the summary. You are attempting to put yourself in the role of a review aggregator and state your opinion as a fact. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The who and vague tags wouldn't apply, even in your less-than-ideal example. Maybe I haven't been clear, but the comment "It received mostly positive reviews" should never stand by itself. Both Jane Smith and Joe Blow should be cited if not quoted. That also eliminates the "sample of unknown origin" issue you raised.

Of course I'm putting myself in the role of review aggregator. Any time I add content to an article, I'm aggregating information from sources of my own choosing, sorting out relevant bits, and reorganizing it in a way I think makes the most sense. Anyone who disagrees can, at the least, slap a bias tag on the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we say this reviewer said this and another reviewer said this other thing. That is very different from forcing their comments into a dichotomy and spitting out a new, unsourced statement that makes them stand-ins for all critics everywhere. "World leaders condemned U.S. actions" comes to mind. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I notice that in every one of your examples, you make a more definitive statement than I've suggested. "World leaders condemned U.S. actions" is not the same as "Some world leaders condemned U.S. actions", just like "Critics gave the song positive reviews" is not the same as "The song received mostly positive reviews from critics." The qualifier makes all the difference. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Very well, "The Allies' actions received mostly condemnation." Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito condemned it, the Allies are a primary source, no other leaders spoke about it. Whatever. The basic point stands: We have a source that says Joan Smith called it the "most bangin'est dance throw down eva!" So we say that. We have a source that says Joe Blow said it was "the best song on the album". So we say that. Judy Schmidt said it was "Grande's best single in decades"? We say that. When we combine material from those multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of them, that is WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This is not the color of the sky, supported by an essay somewhere. This is synthesis, directly against a core policy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, good - Godwin's law still holds true. Putting aside any WP:BIASED issued raised by this latest example, let me point you toward SYNTH is not summary, and also SYNTH is not just any synthesis. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was definitely comparing you and the situation to Hitler and the Nazis. The Synthesis Trials after the war are legendary. How this has anything to do with WP:BIASED is unclear. If it makes it clearer, read it as Roosevelt, Churchill, et al. condemning Axis actions. Or we could have "Historians say... (something absurd stated by several historians, but ignored by most)".

Yes, those two sections of an Wikipedia:Essays are fun to read. I could cherrypick (but not Wikipedia:Cherrypicking) essays to support my opinion as well. (Actually, Wikipedia:Cherrypicking could be involved.) Instead, I'll stick with WP:SYN. It's WP:POLICY. In fact, it's one of our Five Pillars. We have multiple sources that say different things. If we combine them to say something that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources, such as "Critics generally thought it was the most bangin'est sound ever recorded", it is synthesis. Which piece don't you agree with: multiple sources, combining or not explicitly stated? - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You call it combining, I call it summarizing. SYN may be POLICY, but use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines. I don't consider myself an idiot, so I feel confident to evaluate a review and decide if it's positive, negative, mixed, or neutral. Sometimes, they even use explicit scores or ratings to make it easier. I assume WP:GOODFAITH, so I expect other editors to also accurately evaluate multiple sources and adequately summarize them before going into futher detail. You're giving examples that are obviously questionable. I notice that, in this particular case, you don't seem to have any evidence that a (properly qualified) summary would be inaccurate. The CR section quotes 16 reviewers, and all but one appear to be explicitly positive. Are you suggesting that 15/16 is not "most"? Or, perhaps, that these 15 were cherry picked, and that you could easily find 16 that are explicitly negative? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It is possible to summarize without combining, as is frequently done with a plot summary. It is also possible to summarize while combining material. You wish to add a summary that includes combining material from multiple sources to say something that none of the original sources say. That is synthesis. Yes, 15/16 is "most". Are you saying that these 16 reviews are all of the reviews that exist (another editor was certain he has read all of the reviews) or have you somehow determined that the 16 we have are a representative sample? The edits that started this discussion said "The song received acclaim upon its release."[1] and "Music critics gave positive reviews for "Into You" praising the song's hook, Martin's production, and calling it one of her most catchiest songs."[2] You are arguing that most of the sample of reviews we have here are more positive than negative, which is very different from "received acclaim" or "critics gave positive reviews and (critics praised) the song's hook, (critics praised) Martin's production and (critics called it) one of her most catchiest songs." I read most of the reviews as saying the song will be popular, neither admiring nor approving of it. It's "catchy", the "best on (the album)", sure to be a massive club hit, an earworm, etc. You see all of those as admiration. I see them as sales and airplay predictions.

I have no doubt that you feel your synthesis is reasonable and unbiased and it is great that you are assuming the same of other editors. I would note, however, that over the past month alone, we have had several very different opinions:

• "The song has received critical acclaim, with praise directed at the song's production and Grande's vocals."
• "'Into You' received universal acclaim."
• "The song has received critical acclaim."
• "Critics said Ariana is gonna slay the charts with this one."
• "The song has been widely praised by critics."
• "'Into You' received positive views."
• "The song got mixed reviews."
• "Critics gave the song mostly positive reviews."
• "The song received acclaim upon its release."
• "Music critics gave positive reviews for 'Into You' praising the song's hook, Martin's production, and calling it one of her most catchiest songs."
• "'Into You' is expected to make a lofty rise on the Hot 100 this upcoming week, probably into the Top 10! Ariana is back to slay the charts."

I'd be shocked if there weren't a dozen more. So, it's somewhere between "mixed reviews" from critics and everyone everywhere praised it enthusiastically. So far, you've been arguing that your opinion/synthesis/"combining" is fair/unbiased/verifiable and that, based on an essay or two, we should take apply common sense to one of our five pillars to fit that in. This is countered by my argument that your interpretation of multiple sources to say something new is against one of our five pillars. I'd like to point out that, were I to stop removing it as SYN (along with the other editors who have), you would still need to find some kind of reasonable and unbiased way to figure out which of those opinions is reasonable and unbiased. It eventually became a popular song, one of many. When it was first released, this article had a few quotes from critics and simple factual statements that the song "went" from X to Y on whatever chart. And so it stayed for two months. Eventually, the song made it's way up the charts, this article started to see the reasonable and unbiased "universal acclaim" and "gonna slay the charts", the vocal range expanded from two to "almost three" to three octaves and the song no longer "went" from one position to another, it "jumped", "leaped", "shot" or "rocketed".

I am assured that this is all reasonable and unbiased summary and that it is is every song article. However, my very much non-representative sample seems to indicate that this is much more the case for the current pop songs and not at all the case of songs more than a few years old. Part of this is my own fault. When I remove such nonsense from older songs, it generally stays gone. More recent artists tend to have at least one diehard fan who will insist that the song is -- objectively -- "a massive hit" and "not just another pop song." - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

(jumping over for readability) I think the issue with most of your examples isn't (primarily) SYN, it's WP:NPOV. I haven't actually researched this topic, so I am assuming in good faith that the reviews cited are indeed representative. That's not OR, because the 16 sources "directly support the material being presented." That is, the claim that it received mostly positive reviews is supported by 16 reviews that are mostly positive. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The sources do NOT support that reviews were "mostly positive". Ignoring the synthesis, 15 of those 16 are, in your opinion "positive". Most of those 16 are, in your opinion, "positive". We have no way of knowing if those 16 are representative, whether or not the editors who chose them intended them to be. An album review in a wide interest source (Rolling Stone, Spin, etc.) is probably meant to imply the average listener will like it. The narrower the focus -- and especially in song reviews, where they exist -- are likely to refer to that audience. A metal source is likely reporting whether metal fans will like it, an industry source (such as Billboard) is likely referring to the song's likelihood of being a good seller (for retailers), generating listener requests (for radio stations of various formats) or being popular on the dance floor (for DJs, clubs, etc.). Many of the quotes here suggest it will be popular, as it eventually was. Is that "positive"? That depends on your POV. Were reviews "mostly positive"? That depends on your POV of the individual reviews, your synthesis of those 16 and whether the sample is representative. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems we're at an impasse. I understand your reasoning, and I can tell you understand mine. We just don't agree on the conclusion. Until more editors weigh in, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not able to view this review aggregator from my workstation (internet filter). Does it appear reliable? Also, does this song appear on Metacritic? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The second part is fairly straightforward. To my knowledge, Metacritic does not cover individual songs and most reviews of songs are really just sections of album reviews. They can't work with that kind of data. An album review likely has a letter grade, number of stars or something similar that can be treated as a number. Comments on individual songs inside those reviews don't similarly rate individual songs.

As for anydecentmusic.com, I'm not familiar. Their homepage seems to say they select what to review and which reviews to use based on their opinions, then use a weighted average of those scores. So I'm not really sure how the RS Noticeboard would feel about this. In any case, I don't see a listing for this song there, likely for the same reasons Metacritic doesn't have it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for looking into that. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion - a slight but key distinction in wording:

1) The single received largely positive reviews.

2) The single received a large number of positive reviews.

Option 1 is indeed making a statement about all of the reviews hypothetically published ever, so I see the argument that it is easily verging on extrapolation. But option 2, we are simply observing that there are quite a few positive reviews, using "large" instead of "largely." I know it seems like a simple change, but I'd be curious to see reactions, or how to apply it to situations with "mixed" or "negative" reviews. Yvarta (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fine with this wording, and I think substituting the word "negative" for "positive" works just fine. I have no suggestion on how to apply it to mixed reviews at this time. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"Largely positive" reviews has two problems: "Largely" would mean that the reviews were "mostly" whatever. We have not seen all of the reviews that exist. To assume that we have or that the sample we have see is representative is baseless. "Positive" is one side of a meaningless artificial dichotomy. "Razor-sharp disco synths" is positive if an only if you like "razor-sharp disco synths". Ditto "deep, throbbing production", ans numerous other statements. To me, most of the reviews are not specifically saying it is a good song, rather they seem to be saying they think it will be popular, a very different thing. Taking a random selection of reviews, assuming it is representative, judging which are "positive" and deciding the worldwide body of reviews was "largely positive" is synthesis on stilts.

A "large number"? It seems we were just talking about 15 reviews. Star Wars: The Force Awakens Rotten Tomatoes score is based on 360 reviews. 15 is a large number? - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You keep talking about a dichotomy. I haven't seen anyone suggest that neutral, average, or mixed reviews are improper labels. You're the one imposing the imaginary dichotomy.

You're still positing questionable examples to make a point and neglecting 1) that most reviews contain less ambiguous language about how the reviewer feels, since their opinion is the whole point and 2) that even someone who doesn't like "banging rhythms" can understand that "banging" is a slang term with positive connotations, and that the review is positive regardless of the reader's opinion. If "banging" is used literally (per context), then it carries negative connotations. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a dichotomy, as your counter examples prove: neutral (not taking either side), average (in between two sides) and mixed (both positive and negative). The attempt here is to say reviewers "liked" or did not like the song. (A dichotomous evaluation of a piece of furniture, for example, would be whether it is large or small. A non-dichotomous measure might be modern, provincial, rustic, etc.)

I am presenting the questionable examples here because they are questionable. If you must insist that each of the 16 reviews here is "positive" or "negative", questionable examples in the article are not verifiably "positive" or "negative". Long story short: We cannot verify that we have a representative sample of reviews. We cannot verify that the reviews we have are individually "positive" or "negative" (so that we can synthesize them into a new statement, in violation of our core policy). If 15 reviews is a "large number", I am the emperor of Mars. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

If we both agree there's a whole spectrum between "negative" and "positive", then it's not a Dichotomy, which doesn't allow for in-between options. It also boggles my mind that you think it's an impossible task to determine how a reviewer felt about their subject. The point of a review is to objectively evaluate the technical aspects and share their subjective views on the piece. Yes, you can cherry pick some sentences from a review that are ambiguous, like all your examples, but if you read the whole thing and can't figure out the reviewer's opinion of the song, then at least one of you failed. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to argue that you aren't interpreting each review as being positive or not positive, please don't tell me it isn't a dichotomy. You are trying to find a way to state that the song's reviews were mostly positive. We don't have a source for that. We have 16 reviews and you are interpreting 15 of them as being positive. You are then converting those 16 reviews (selected by random editors) into all reviews and converting the 15 into "mostly". That's three separate problems best summarized as WP:SYN. Suppose that 16th review weren't there: Would you say the song received only/entirely/universally positive reviews? 15 out of 15 is 100%. Hopefully you'd at least acknowledge that the 15 reviews might not represent all of the reviews out there. Suppose we suddenly found that critics in Japan all hated the song with a white hot passion (due to some quirk of translation or culture). Suppose, in fact that critics who normally wouldn't bothe reviewing an individual song (that's most critics, BTW) went out of their way to review the song. We add in 40 or 50 critics who called it the worst song ever. Is it now "mostly negative"? Yes, we have 16 reviews, likely chosen by a combination of Wikipedia editors who often edit pop song articles and Wikipedia editors who love Ariana Grande. Their selection of sources is likely to be biased in numerous ways. We don't know what they are missing. Further, we don't have 4/5 stars or A- on an A to F scale or anything similar on most (any?) of the reviews. We don't have the review aggregators we typically use for movies and such. Instead, we have a burning desire to reduce numerous opinions from a handful of sources into one simple statement. The way to do that is to combine material from those multiple sources into a new statement that no source directly supports. Your repeated claims that your new statement is correct does nothing to alleviate the problem that it is a new statement that is not directly supported by a source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm interpreting each review (and each part of the review) on a positive-negative spectrum, which allows for a single review to be neutral or mixed. A dichotomy does not allow for any in-between. I am not trying to find a way to state that the song's reviews were mostly positive. I am trying to summarize the content of the section.

No, I would never summarize anything as "only/entirely/universally positive". If we only had 15, I would look to see if all 15 were entirely positive (unlikely). If they were, I would seek out a negative one. Any notable form of art will have criticism. Just because it's not here doesn't mean we can't add it.

It's clear you see summarizing sourced material as syn. I don't. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If there were no question that the 15 are "positive" (whatever you may decide that means), an honest (but entirely unencyclopedic summary would be that 15 of the 16 reviews in Wikipedia right now were positive. Instead, it speaks of "reviews". Which reviews? The implication is that you are speaking of reviews for the song in general. You do not have a source for that. Instead, you are making assumptions about the sources we have and creating an new statement that is not supported by any one source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Since we seem to be back at square one, I've solicited opinions from two wiki projects. Hopefully we can get another point of view involved. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I have a question specifically for User talk:SummerPhDv2.0, which might help me understand your POV. When you are writing a section about reception on any sort of topic, or even just balancing POVs on say a corporate controversy, how do you personally decide which POVs are a minority, and which are mainstream? Do you go by the amount of material you encounter in your research, or other factors? Thanks for clarifying. Yvarta (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I generally hope to find secondary sources. A review is a primary source (Joan Smith writes an article giving Joan Smith's opinion). Use of primary sources requires substantial care. As our policy states: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

"Joan Smith loved the film/praised the novel/gave a positive review" is interpretation. "Joan Smith said the song is 'sure to heat up many a club night'." is a neutral statement that fits our policy's demand of "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" from primary sources.

"Critics lambasted the film..." or "Reviewers loved the score..." or "Customers have complained that..." are secondary statements. They are interpretations of the primary sources. They are new statements and require a new source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the examples you give, on words like "loved," "lambasted," etc. However, in the review industry, I would argue that "positive," "mixed," and "negative" are accepted as neutral descriptors, and as my proof I would point to the fact that review boxes on album and single pages rely on those three categories to summarize reviews that don't have numerical or grade ratings. Would you perhaps, with your argument, recommend in a lead separating a summation of prose in a review (i.e. maybe finding some nice neutral quotes from a review that sum up a key recurring point from the review section), and maybe include a separate summation in the introduction that summarizes the more numerical reviews: for example, the numbers assigned by Allmusic, or the percentage assigned by Metacritic. As a side note, in an introduction, how might you recommend we summarize a great wealth of numerical reviews only (in a hypothetical scenario)? Yvarta (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Should I spend $0.00 and 3:05 of time to listen to this song? Let's spend 5 minutes reading an article to decide. That is the foolish concern we are attempting to address with original research. That math is very different for an album, movie or novel. As a result, we have a much richer selection of sources (often hundreds of reviews vs. the 16 here) and review aggregators (not available for songs).

Somewhere between "This is the greatest song in the history of music. Absolutely everyone will love absolutely everything about this song." and its polar opposite are reviews that are less extreme. Reasonable people will disagree over whether or not some of them are "positive", "neutral" or "negative". Classifying any one review with any one term is an opinion, not a "neutral description". Even a theoretically universally held opinion is still an opinion and, by definition, not neutral.

In general, the reviews that we are using are opinion pieces. The only "nice neutral quotes" in them will be bare facts that happen to be included: release dates, chart positions, etc. Everything else is an opinion and, by definition, not neutral.

In a theoretical world where we do have a significant number of numerical ratings for songs (i.e., not this world) we should not be summarizing those scores unless we know we have every review available and they all give scores on an identical scale. How do you average a 3 out of 5 stars and a B-? You need to come up with a system or you own design. How do you know the sampling you have is representative? You don't. This is not a calculation, this is synthesis.

In this article, we have 16 reviews. Many of them are estimating who the song will be popular with. Industry publications don't care whether the song is "good" in the usual sense of the word. They care about whether it will generate revenue: Will it bring people to the dance floor/concert venues/music retailers/radio stations and such or not. Other publications may assess whether the artist's fans will like it. Still others may assess its artistic merits (though I've seen little of this in the present case).

Album reviews and song reviews are not similar. While retailers may care about both, that's where it ends. Fans may read an album review from whatever source to decide if the album is worth their money. Fans likely don't need a review for a song: They have heard the entire song repeatedly and have decided if they like it or not based on that. Radio stations and clubs don't care about that moody, introspective 12 minute track buried near the end of the album and whether it ties the album together or ruins it. They don't care whether the song will have an enduring place in a buyer's library or whether it will be played 60 times in two weeks and then deleted. They only care if it will be popular now or earn a place in the repertoire of event DJs (e.g., those songs that every DJ seems to play at every wedding).

Read reviews of individual songs. You'll find two categories: Will people buy this? and "Should you like this?" You will not find "Will you like this?" and, for pop songs, "Is this song 'good'?"

By "summarizing" our opinions of a thin, unrepresentative sample of disparate sources into one word, we are providing a meaningless answer to an ill-defined question. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Still musing it over a bit - I suppose my take from that, is that you don't support review summaries of any sort in a lead. I guess I can understand this - picking specific quotes can equate to cherrypicking on the end of the author, and numerical simplifications of the "quality" of art is in itself non-neutral. But we are not trying to convince readers to like or not like a song - we are simply trying to fit the guidelines in WP:Lead, which read that we are supposed to summarize all relevant and important aspects of a page, including a reception section - and almost any work of media or art meets with a critical and public reception, non-neutral as that may be. Would I be correct in ascertaining that you don't agree with critical response being covered in any lead on any topic? Yvarta (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Somewhere along the line, this discussion sidetracked into "Gee, we can combine multiple sources to say something new and if we're really careful the new statement will be correct." Combining multiple opinions based on your opinion of where those opinions fall on a single scale and then adding them together based on your opinion of the best way to compare them to generate a new statement is always going to be synthesis.

Those who wish to include the claim have repeatedly stated that we should summarize everything significant (one discussion, above, includes the claim that NOR is "not a rule" and does not apply to the lead). That's swell. If the panning or acclaim was significant, reliable sources will cover it. If reliable sources don't see fit to discuss it, what makes you so sure it was significant? You need to summarize? Sure, the guidelines at MOS say so. Additionally, you need to not synthesize, the policy at NOR says so. Summarize all you want without combining sources to say something new that is not directly stated by any of the sources.

We have sources that directly state something or we don't. In some articles we have reliable sources that directly state a film was panned by critics or fans love a given album. If the source is reliable, the statement is not synthesis and is appropriate. We do not have a reliable source that directly states anything about critical reviews. We have individual critical reviews which are primary sources about that critic's opinions. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I think I understand better where you stand now. I believe you're saying that if a song comes out, and the New York Times writes "the song's lyrics were widely panned by many critics, while others argued it had a strong hook," then because we have a reliable source summarizing the body of reviews for us, we can use that exact quote only without risking verging on WP:SYN. I agree those quotes are fantastic when they are found - I believe I mentioned that earlier in the conversation as a side note, actually. However, these quotes don't always appear - and in many cases, even without a quote like that, the review section of a page is the bulk of that page, and so neglecting to cover critical reaction in the lead (at least in some way) would be rather improper. So trying to hone in on the exact point of contention, here's maybe a better way of phrasing the question, just one a single-review basis:

1) Song A has a Rolling Stone review that gives a song a rating of 4.5/5, accompanied by an opinion piece with a praise-filled "conclusion sentence," with only a mild hint of criticism. Would you disagree with the sentence "The song received a positive review in Rolling Stone" in any introduction, on that grounds that interpreting that review as "positive" would be a subjective opinion? Or is your problem with positive/mixed/negative being used only in relation to summarizing multiple reviews? Yvarta (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Has Rolling Stone started giving numerical scores to individual songs now?

Your argument answers the wrong question: Would it be OK if the synthesis was right? Synthesis that is "correct" is still synthesis.

We have a guideline that you are assuming states we must combine material from multiple sources to create a new statement. It does not say that. Moreover, we have a policy which unequivocally says do not do that. You also seem to be hung up on the idea that a song's reviews are a vitally important piece of information about the song. Granted, they fill a lot of space. It's noteworthy that this "vital" information seems to only be vital to recent songs. Apparently every song released prior to 2000 or so is only barely notable as this vital information is missing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

So would I be correct, then, in ascertaining you don't believe leads should cover reviews or public reception in any way, unless there is a third party quote like the New York Times example I gave, on the grounds that a review section is not important enough to cover in a lead? Honestly I'm not really sure what your last comment is trying to get across - it is a bit vague, and didn't really answer my exact question (and nitpicking on my theoretical example doesn't really help). I think you might find quite a few editors disagree that interpreting a blatantly positive review as "positive," and simplifying it as such for Wikipedia, is a violation of WP:synthesis. However, I do see your argument that making generalizations about all theoretical reviews is a potential problem. Yvarta (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I am saying we cannot combine information from multiple sources to say something new that no source directly states.

A guideline says to summarize the article in the lead? Yes, a guideline says that. Our policy may limit your ability to do that to your own satisfaction. Policy > guideline.

The "Critical response" section is the largest section of the article? Yeah, it's hard to find a way to quote 16 different people's opinions without quoting 16 different opinions. Don't mistake size for importance.

You want to summarize one source's opinion and put it in the lead? Why? Yeah, you might think all the sources here agree -- except for the one you think doesn't agree. Review aggregator sites are great for this. To assume the absence of such sites for individual song reviews as pointing to the need for us to synthesize is begging the question. Review aggregators do not have pages for individual songs for the same reason we can't objectively summarize here: Rolling Stone and other sources generally do not have individual reviews for individual songs and those that do don't have numerical scores that can be mechanically/objectively combined. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"A review is a primary source (Joan Smith writes an article giving Joan Smith's opinion)." That's a stretch, and doesn't align with WP:SECONDARY. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

A review is a primary source for the author's opinion. It may be an acceptable secondary source for other information. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support some wording many WP:FAs on individual songs may include a sentence like "The song received generally positive reviews", which is appropriate and serves as a neutral summary of the critical reception. SSTflyer 02:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral note - if you are all still interested in resolving this difference of interpretation, I might suggest dropping a question at WP:VPP. - jc37 10:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Cover

I have no opinion at the moment as to what cover or covers, if any, should be shown. That said, I have seen multiple covers added, many with hidden comments and/or edit summaries arguing that this, that or the other cover must/must not be used for various reasons, often pointing to this talk page. This talk page says nothing about the cover. Please state your reasons for including or not including various covers here, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If no one comments in the next several days, I will assume that there is no basis for including any cover and remove anything there at the time, directing any changes after that point to discussing the issue on the talk page. Thanks. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Use one cover per WP:NFCC#3. One cover is appropriate, more than one is excessive. Current image is fine. SSTflyer 02:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"Universal acclaim"

As mere humans, we cannot know if this song received "universal" anything. No one here has read what absolutely every critic has said about the song.

Additionally, there is no objective way to say that any review constitutes "acclaim" (enthusiastic public praise).

Putting these together to claim that every critic everywhere enthusiastically praised the song is several layers of synthesis piled on top of each other. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Also, the phrase "universal acclaim" is hyperbolic, inappropriately non-encyclopedic WP:TONE. At WikiProject Film, we use neutral terminology such as "positively reviewed", "negatively reviewed" and "received mixed reviews". In cases where editors disagree, we simply give the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores and let readers interpret them as they will--Tenebrae (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Into You (Ariana Grande song). 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/20160729013636/http://charts.monitorlatino.com/top20/Guatemala/General to http://charts.monitorlatino.com/top20/Guatemala/General
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161230012931/http://www.hitlisten.nu/top2016.asp?list=Track+100 to http://hitlisten.nu/top2016.asp?list=Track+100
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170106174130/http://hitparade.ch/charts/jahreshitparade to http://hitparade.ch/charts/jahreshitparade

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Colombia certification

Can anyone tell why the reference for Colombia's certification says "UNSUPPORTED OR EMPTY REGION: Colombia"? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)