Jump to content

Talk:Artpop/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

#1 in Taiwan

http://www.g-music.com.tw/GMusicBillboard2.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.90 (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Charts

Greece: http://www.ifpi.gr/charts_en.html JLeemans1 (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

ARTPOP Certified Gold in Argentina

Well, I added the Argentinian Gold Certification for ARTPOP but someone just revert it for no reasons, so someone add it please: SOURCES: Universal Music - Lady Gaga's discography/distributor on its official web page (http://www.universalmusic-conosur.com/), Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152021151427208&set=a.446186627207.248357.95746867207&type=1) and Twitter (https://twitter.com/UMArgentina/status/406077012365680640) TN - TV Channel news, part of Clarin (the best-selling newspaper in the country) http://tn.com.ar/musica/hoy/lady-gaga-con-todo-ya-es-un-exito-artpop-en-la-argentina_423978 TKM Magazine - One of the best-selling teens magazine http://www.mundotkm.com/hot-news-162024-artpop-es-disco-de-oro-en-argentina — Preceding unsigned comment added by HC 5555 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't revert it for no reason, I reverted it because you haven't provided a source from the certification agency.—Kww(talk) 23:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

ARTPOP reach #6 position in Greece

Review that..!!! http://www.cyta.gr/el/IFPI — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlitosFabri (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Aura is the next single

http://artpopnews.wikispaces.com/home

This link shows an interview with Gaga confirming Aura as the next single, blah blah blah, and all that stuff! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDBiggestFan (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This does not seem like a reliable source to me. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's not up for you to decide! It's right there! TDBiggestFan (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
What's right there is that the interview is behind a registration-wall. That doesn't inherently make it unreliable, but the hosting on wikispaces does. I agree with Another Believer that the source is not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Gaga Gold in Argentina.

Here is the link http://tn.com.ar/musica/hoy/lady-gaga-con-todo-ya-es-un-exito-artpop-en-la-argentina_423978

TN is one of the most important news channel in Argentina. (Is in spanish) Gold: 20000 Units.

Plus. She's 8 in the monthly charts of CAPIF Argentina. You can see it here:

http://www.capif.org.ar/rankings.aspx

THank YOu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.123.187.249 (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

missing producer

madeon is not listed as producer on:

"Mary Jane Holland" and "Gypsy"

as well as co-producer on "Venus" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.179.81 (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Genre

Please don't change the genre to opinions. The current citation in the infobox has a quote to support the genre. We can't call genres what we want as genre is subjective. Per WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:SUBJECTIVE, don't change this unless you have sources discussing what the album as a whole sounds like. Not just individual songs. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There are several things wrong in what you have posted. All these talks about OR and RS, you have I believe, understood and abided by the Billboard link so vehemently that you have missed out on important points.
Firstly, the link does not say that the album is pop, it talks about how the release of an album is thought off as an entity, rather than a single product. She's a pop artist, who releases pop album, ergo the misconception of genre. See how the line is open to interpretation?
Secondly, it clearly talks about synthpop being an overall genre with the line .." the sexuality and synth-pop pleasures of "ARTPOP" fully bloom". Now this is a much more direct line that talks about the over all genre, rather than some vague line above. Remember, no review generally writes, "Album X is in the genre A,B,C". You can call it ass false interpretation all you want, however, with the "Pop" genre added, you just did that as well.
Lastly, EDM is said as an overall sound of the album in more than one source, and Idolator is a reliable source, whether some users like it or not. Prove it its unreliable, else desist.
Another thing I found out, there are other genres also as pointed out by Toronto Sun, ...It flits between genres - the EDM wubba-wubba of Aura, the space-sex disco of Venus, the handclap R&B of Manicure, the hip-hop menace of Jewels n' Drugs, the industrial grind of Swine, the Broadway balladry of Dope, the dance-rock of Mary Jane Holland, the new wave of Applause, even a dash of Born This Way's heartland rock in Gypsy. All of them point me to AllMsic, which calls the overall genre as Pop-rock. I don't know how reliable we consider AllMusic for over all genre though. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
True, it goes about different genres per song, but the infobox is for the genre of the album, not individual songs. So just naming random genres that represent individual songs doesn't help the reader. I suggest either leaving it as vague (you'd find Lady Gaga in a pop music section of a store). Either that or leave the infobox empty and explain it in prose. If it were up to me, I'd remove the genre section away from the infobox everywhere. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello @Andrzejbanas:, thanks for your reply. I'm afraid you might have misunderstood me. The source, which you are using for the "pop" genre, I had explained that it is not calling the album as being in the "pop" genre. It is instead describing the release process and the roar surrounding all pop releases. Hence, using that source to call the album pop is not correct IMO. However, the one below, where the synthpop is mentioned, if you read carefully, it is not describing the song "Sexxx Dreams". Instead it is saying that it is in the song where the synthpop ambitions of the album comes full circle, meaning it is at its strongest there. So we have to discuss that and other reliable sources directly saying it as genre. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough about the pop comment, but having "synth pop" ambitions and apparently only having them accomplished one one song isn't strong either. So I don't think it's strong enough there either. Personally, I think the article itself gives enough description of each song to give the user an idea of what sound the album has. We've done this before with some other Katy Perry article. What do you think about that? Also, thanks for actually going to the talk page and not making this into a mass edit war. Much appreciated! :)Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why this issue hasn't been resolved; the article has no genre listed. This is a problem. In the production section, the album is described as adhering to an electronic landscape and would suggest that the genre would fit into the electronic and pop categories. If nothing else, SOME genre should be decided on as a placeholder until a consensus can be reached. An album page cannot lack a genre.User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The NY Daily News describes the album as a primarily EDM and Disco album with "forays into R&B, hip hop and even soul". Would EDM and Disco work for the genre? User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It's best to just leave the "genre" field blank since no particular genres describe the album as a whole. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
EDM is the only one I see being widely written about, the elctronic music aspects and all, so I guess just EDM would suffice. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, EDM for sure, and I've personally seen a lot of Disco classifications as well. Anonymous5454 (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
EDM sounds just fine, but zero consensus for Disco. NY Daily News is a tabloid and not a reliable source. Plus you need multiple sources for genre classifications, not just one. Funny you still do not understand WP:BRD. STATic message me! 06:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I was operating off of the consensus that the user above concurred with. Please stop with your hostile messages and harassing me because you tried and failed to have me blocked. Enough. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Anonymous5454 do not hold your breath, keep up with the uncivil and incredibly inappropriate behavior and you will be blocked soon enough. BTW there was no failure to block you, the discussion fell into the quick archiving, but I see another transgression, I will quickly bring it back. STATic message me! 07:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
As I said, EDM is the only one I saw in the sources listed in the previous discussion with Andrez. However, disco I haven't seen as widely being discussed as genre. And yes, NY Daily News just about passes reliability but their reviewer and tabloid reporting is disputed, hence not a widely accepted source. For disco we need a widespred reliable source calling it as such. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah correct IndianBio, you summed it up. Through a view of reliable sources [1][2] EDM is one of, if not the most frequently mentioned genre. I do not see disco widely used at all. STATic message me! 07:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
When it comes to the issue of the genre, I'm totally fine with leaving it at EDM and tried to make it read as such months ago. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2014

|- !scope="row"|Illegal chart entered Switzerland (Romandie)||1

http://lescharts.ch/weekchart.asp?cat=a&year=2013&date=20131124

80.218.212.110 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The request is unclear as to what needs to be done. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014

Lyrically, the album references Greek and Roman mythology, English novelist George Orwell, and classic jazz and electronic musician Sun Ra

Hello, Here's Gaga team, Haus of Gaga, we love Wikipedia page, please, to our concepts, Lady Gaga never read George Orwell books, and she does not have any consent about the reference, Criminal of Though is something about being convicted with a love one, so please remove it, there's no references to the great Orwell, though her team admires him. 179.236.73.59 (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a specific reference to Orwell or his works in either of the sources cited for that sentence in the intro.[3][4] Does anybody else see them? Otherwise, I'll strike Orwell. —C.Fred (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I just removed it. Cannot have WP:OR in the lead. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, IB. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Taiwanese Albums

ARTPOP is number one again on the Taiwanese Albums Chart again. Biagio2103 (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Source? Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2014

http://lescharts.ch/weekchart.asp?cat=a&year=2013&date=20131124 77.58.120.172 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the Romandie chart as opposed to the main chart? For that week, the album was #2 on the Schweizer Hitparade.[5] —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 Not done Please explain more clearly what it is that you want to be edited. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


Cyprus Album Charts

Please can you add on the charts the Cyprus album charts, were Artpop peaked at number 2? This is the link: http://cyprusmusiccharts.com/charts/official-cyprus-charts/ These charts are new, and are the official album charts based on retail sales of the major record shops in Cyprus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyprus2014 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If they are new, who has recognized them as official? WP:BADCHARTS lists a radio chart as deprecated but doesn't address a sales chart. —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

China

ARTPOP is number four on China Albums Charts [6]. Biagio2103 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Reminder: GLAAD

I think I saw that Lady Gaga and the album received a GLAAD nomination for quality music. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


Homeostasis07

@Homeostasis07: Repeatedly removing positive quotes from critical reception page that are sourced and verified? Obvious bias and vandalism? User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Explained in Critical Reception topic. And, BTW, two reverts doesn't equate a separate topic on a talk page. Because you're losing the debate in the Critical reception topic, doesn't mean you should drag up any other issues here for sympathy. I'm not a "hater" - I want this article to reflect truth. Removing some nonsensical quotes about "reliance on the noise" doesn't make a vandal. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? You're not advocating for anything other than your own biased viewpoint of what the reviews have been while removing sourced information? You don't get to come in and rewrite an entire section just because you feel like it, especially when you're removing quotes from reliable sources. And I'm not "losing a debate". Leave your personal attacks and personal bias aside or you will be recommended for blocking. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly Review

The review summation as it stand now is ridiculously inaccurate in portraying what the review was stating. The person who originally included it picked out every negative comment in an overall positive review and shoved them all together. The review does NOT state that the album "failed to be art"; that's false. This needs to be reverted back to the way it was previously for months before being reverted by Homeostasis, someone who has recently gone through and removed multiple positive trends in the critical reception category and had been blocked previously for acting unprofessionally on Lady Gaga pages. User:Anonymous5454 (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I read the review, it was misrepresented. I have reverted StaticVapor's edits. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I only reverted so the three editors abided by WP:BRD, had already reverted two different editors attempting to add his version back. STATic message me! 05:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Static, don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming you or anything at all buddy. Just that this seemed right. I'm sure you would say so if you read the whole review posted by EW. On another issue, don't you think the section is a giant WP:QUOTEFARM? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll go cut excess quotes.....
XXNUG, you should rephrase them, not just blindly remove them as you usually do... —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
They have been rephrased. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

'ARTPOP' certified Platinum in France

In France, ARTPOP has been certified Platinum for 100,000 shipments of the album. These are shipments, not sales.

Source: http://www.snepmusique.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Certifications_Albums_2013.pdf

 Done I've added the cert to both the Artpop and discography articles. Homeostasis07 (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2014

| Single 3 = G.U.Y (Girl Under You) | Single 3 date = March 22, 2013 (2013-03-22) Cameronsilver (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done There is no official confirmation for this. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Reviews reported as "lukewarm"

I'd like to restore this revision I made a few days ago, which was evidently reverted because there had been some consensus some time ago. I looked through it, and if I'm not mistaken, there isn't actually any source that says this album received "mixed to positive" reviews from critics. On the other hand, this article from Consequence of Sound and this article by The Daily Telegraph characterize the reception/reviews as "lukewarm". The former article deals specifically with the album's reception. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." Dan56 (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The first line is a summary of the main content in the critical reception section. So i do not see it as a problem since mixed to positive was decided through extensive discussions. What exactly do you see failing? Just a source not calling it that? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I see no problem with adding a source to support it, but as IndianBio said a consensus was reached after lengthy discussion to list as "mixed to positive". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I have asked for STATic Vapor's input also. and Homeostatis I'm not sure though. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
You may want to preclude yourself from such activities, if that's the case IndianBio. As far as I can see, you basically enabled in his actions over the past few months (per discussion that's still on his talk page). As far as I can see, my only "crime" was having the guts to take that user's actions to the ANI page (which I was right in doing, per the outcome). Trying to lump me in with his ilk is uncool. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
While got topic-banned from editing Lady Gaga articles, I'm not sure if that includes not being able to post input on talk pages. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The topic ban includes Talk pages. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Then definitely don't ask . XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
@Homeostasis07: correct me if I'm wrong but the mere mention of an user in talk page does not warrant such strong reaction from you. I'm very much aware that he is banned for good reasons. And you, STATIc as well as was involved in the previous discussion so I was thinking whether to involve all of you or not, just thinking. So where do you see me "enabled in his actions over the past few months"? Mind your language before you come with such accusations and its better you come to my talk page if you have such complaints, this is a different issue altogether. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
IndianBio, you're missing the point when you refer to my complaint as "just a source not calling it that". Per WP:Consensus, "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Wikipedia's policy on verifiability was not considered, so I am putting in an RFC for this. Unless you find a reliable source that states what is written in the article--which remains challengeable (WP:CHALLENGE)--an original statement based on one's interpretation of amalgamated sources cannot be acceptable. A new consensus must be formed that respects Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Dan56 (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
@Dan56: Thanks for explaining your point. They certainly shed a new light from the previous consensus on the subject. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)



According to Metacritic, 61/100 indicates "generally favorable reviews" NOT "generally mixed reviews" as this article states. This should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.133.171 (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should an unverifiable statement in this article that is based on consensus be replaced by one that is verifiable?

Closing and Agyle's proposal below has been enacted AIRcorn (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Should the unverifiable statement ("Artpop received generally mixed to positive reviews from music critics" in #Critical reception) be replaced by a verifiable statement ("received fairly lukewarm reviews")? This revision I made earlier was reverted on the grounds that a previous consensus (Talk:Artpop/Archive_2#Critical_Reception) decided to "report the critical reception of the album as 'mixed to positive'". Wikipedia does not publish original material, which this is if it cannot be attributed to a reliable source.

There is this article by Consequence of Sound and this article by The Daily Telegraph--articles written by reliable sources, whose sole topic is this album's reception--the best sources available on the topic (WP:STICKTOSOURCE) The sources discussed in the previous consensus were published immediately upon the album's release and when the earliest reviews were published. Many of the less enthusiastic reviews shown at Metacritic ([7]) were published well after, from Nov 14 to Nov 26th. Dated review roundups aren't the best sources available on the topic. The COS article on the album's reception was published on Nov. 20. Dan56 (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support replacement of the unverifiable "generally mixed to positive", which is an original statement developed by editors in a past consensus, with "fairly lukewarm reviews", which is verifiable. Dan56 (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Red XN Oppose. Neither is appropriate. Go with "mixed reviews", cite 4-8 strong sources. (See discussion). Agyle (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Red XN Oppose per Agyle's rationale XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

exclamation mark  Neither Use neither "Generally mixed to positive" nor "fairly lukewarm". Better to go straight into 'Metacritic reported the album received an average score of 61 out of 100, based on 30 reviews from critics, which indicates "generally favorable reviews."' --78.86.131.23 (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My comment was struck out by XXSNUGGUMSXX, who accused me of being a sockpuppet of some other user. This is not the case. I am not a sockpuppet of any user. XXSNUGGUMSXX, please do not do that again. --94.193.139.22 (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
My comment was again struck out by XXSNUGGUMSXX, after I explained on their talk page that I am not a sockpuppet, and asked him/her not to do it again. XXSNUGGUMSXX, if you don't stop doing this I'm going to raise a complaint against you (not quite sure how that's done but I'm certain I'll find a way). 94.193.139.22 (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Correction, User:IndianBio did the second revert. Still, I don't appreciate the accusation. Knock it off, guys. exclamation mark  Procedural irregularity I'm entitled to my opinion, and I'm only here for the RFC. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • The two articles from COS and the Telegraph should be used instead of a consensus that did not decide between choosing one source or another, but formed an entirely original conclusion that isn't verifiable--consensus was flawed in that it did not take this seriously. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE: Dan56 (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

Dan56 (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I think synthesis involves citing multiple sources to support a conclusion not supported by either (WP:SYNTH)--as it is now, there aren't even any specific sources cited where this sentence is written in the article. Dan56 (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Response No, you appear to have simply Googled the phrase "mixed to positive" with "artpop" and found an article whose user comments at the bottom include the phrase "mixed to positive" (read the article, scroll down--clearly not in the article). We're supposed to be researching the most reliable sources on the topic rather than researching whatever article supports our own conclusions. Dan56 (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • That RfC found, I think, that there were some 21 reviews that were "mixed" and 7 or so that were "positive". It seems to me that it's pretty evident that many reviews were mixed to positive, and it's not original research to say that. In addition [[User:|]] pointed out this and this as meta reviews that basically said "generally positive". Why this would need to be rehashed, with a bit of dancing around some policy issues: if STICKTOSOURCE is applied to the two articles I just linked, we have not "lukewarm" but "generally positive". To cut a long story short, let's not revisit this nonsense. If you want to, add that some reviewers said it was mediocre or that some review articles thought the response was lukewarm. Who gives a crap, really. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • My thoughts really. We had enough splitting hairs and discussions to haunt a lifetime. I'm fine with "mixed to positive" as per the consensus achieved since last time. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Drmies, if that's true, and 21 out of 28 reviews were "mixed", then the majority of reviews were "mixed", not "received mixed to positive reviews"--if most were "mixed", then the album received "generally mixed" reviews. Furthermore, the two articles you found are dated--they were published immediately upon the album's release and when the earliest reviews were published. Many of the less enthusiastic reviews shown at Metacritic ([8]) were published well after, from Nov 14 to Nov 26th. Again, let's not overlook Wikipedia's norms when forming a consensus so it isn't flawed. Dated review roundups aren't the best sources available on the topic. The COS article on the album's reception was published on Nov. 20. This is very bothersome--multiple editors are overlooking policies on verifiability and good research in favor of what's convenient--a flawed consensus whose fabricated conclusion wasn't even mathematically correct, let alone verifiable. "mixed to positive" is not verifiable, period, and the only way a summary isnt SYNTH is when the summary (which is in the lead, not in Critical reception) is "accurate" and "neutral" (WP:What SYNTH is not), but what I opened with shows it is not accurate and highly challengeable--you wont even allow a "citation needed" tag to be placed, SMH. "Mixed to positive" is an original idea developed by Wikipedia editors and is a position not advanced by any source, so it is original research (WP:SYNTH). Dan56 (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to end this before it gets out of hand again. Dan, I seriously do not want another controversy to start over this, and frankly neither do IndianBio or admin Drmies. If you want a source to support consensus reached, use this..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
If you don't take my points seriously, i'm going to solicit comments from editors outside this article. You've made the same bad research mistake--Googling the name of the article with your preferred conclusion and finding a mirror of the Wikipedia article (WP:MIRROR) You're making your opinion on the matter less valuable by doing this. Dan56 (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not that I don't take your comments seriously, it's just that I don't want another fiasco to start over this. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Editors were blocked because they edit-warred, a consensus was flawed because comments were from editors too involved in this article and not mindful enough of Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and research. That's the point of an RfC--editors not involved in this article will provide objective comments. There's no source to verify what's currently written, and that's not debatable. If you prefer that to something verifiable from an ideal source--written well enough after most reviews were published--then that's your choice. But just because the past consensus wasn't properly carred out doesn't mean an RfC (where editors will abstain from changing anything until a consensus is formed) will be a fiasco too. Dan56 (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Nobody was blocked- two users were simply banned from interacting with one another while one of them was topic-banned from Lady Gaga articles (blocked and banned are separate things). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The source says it received "fairly lukewarm reviews," then it says up to a point. The word fairly is a meaningful modifier. I think there should be a compromise between the suggested and previous statement. The rest of the source related to this says, the album did ok, but not great. That is the spirit of what it meant by fairly lukewarm reviews. mixed-to-positive is close, but doesn't quite say fairly lukewarm. - Sidelight12 Talk 09:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

(Invited here) I think that to really recommend an answer I'd have to spend a few hours researching and I'm not up for that. I do have a couple thoughts. A cornerstone of how Wikpedia articles are written is summarization of what is in sources. But, by the rigorous definition of wp:or / wp:synth most summmarization is wp:OR / wp:synthesis. So the real operative definition is that if there is no dispute, it's summarization, if there is a dispute it's wp:OR/Synth.  :-). The most ideal answer would be to find an objective, knowledgeable wp:RS that summarizes the reviews and put what they say in there. If that is not available, the next best thing would be for the editors to agree on a sentence that summarizes the nature of reviews, being cautious when in doubt. You could call that a touch of wp:iar, or else something that fits within the fuzziness of how Wikipedia operates. If this has become "bigger" than it should be due to a pitched battle, forget that, shake hands, and in the mutual interest of making your lives more fun, give a little, pick some middle ground, and move on and have some fun here. (plan "C" would be to drop the idea of trying to summarize reviews) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sidelight, "fairly lukewarm reviews" is more appropriate and more faithful to the source. Dan56 (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
"Mixed" (rather than "mixed to positive") might be an equally accurate statement, but perhaps a bit kinder and more typical wording. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Neither option in the RfC is appropriate: citations to reliable sources must be provided, but citing a single, obscure source that is at odds with most characterizations isn't much better.
(1) I think some people are misunderstanding "mixed reviews", thinking it is referring to individual reviews which mention both good and bad points. In the current context of discussing the consensus of media reviews, "mixed reviews" means that there was no clear consensus among the reviews: some were negative, some were positive, some were in between. The phrase "mixed to positive reviews" is redundant in this context as mixed reviews already includes positive reviews.
(2) Categorizing and counting up primary source reviews (e.g., "21 were mixed" and "7 were positive") to assess the consensus is original research – there are independent, published, reliable secondary sources that characterize the opinions of reviewers.
(3) Statements in Wikipedia, even about opinions, must be factually verifiable with reliable sources. Unsourced, contentious material should be removed, and there is no defense for anyone who opposed this.
(4) Internet forums (e.g., the reader responses in Entertainmment Weekly) are not considered independent, published, reliable sources), and should not be considered.
(5) When trying to choose sources and characterizations, consider a range of reliable secondary sources, and weight the strength of those sources, what they said, and when they were written. In my own quick survey, it seems clear that most recent secondary sources, with the benefit of hindsight, are characterizing the reviews as "mixed". That's just my opinion, and it should ultimately be decided by a consensus of editors, but have a look for yourself.
  • 2013-11-05 Radar Online "...as scathing reviews of her new album released on iTunes radio Monday night continue to pile up."
  • 2013-11-05 The Week "LADY GAGA'S third album ARTPOP is released next week, but early reviews have been mixed at best." (Note: pre-release reviews)
  • 2013-11-05 Yahoo! Music "...the early reviews are starting to come in. The verdict? Tempered applause for what is being described as more an exercise in pure pop than art." "Most mainstream reviews are at least somewhat positive." (Note: pre-relase reviews)
  • 2013-11-08 The Huffington Post "Lady Gaga's much-hyped third album 'ARTPOP' finally gets released next week and despite what you may have heard, it's pretty much had the thumbs up from music critics around the globe." (Note: pre-release reviews)
  • 2013-11-11 The Japan Times "...Mondays global launch of her third album, greeted by mixed reviews."
  • 2013-11-11 MTV "So, what has the critical response been to what is arguably the most polarizing work of her five year career, ARTPOP? Well, pretty much that, with some critics saying it's another piece of intergalactic Gaga magic and others labeling it as indulgent, bloated and regressive."
  • 2013-11-11The Telegraph: "Critics however gave the hotly-anticipated new album only lukewarm reception." (Note: pre-release reviews)
  • 2013-11-13 The Associated Press (AP) (via Yahoo! Music) "It comes amid mixed reviews for the album, ..."
  • 2013-11-15 The Guardian "Her last tour failed to sell out, reviews of her new album, Artpop, were mixed..." (Note: pre-release reviews)
  • 2013-11-20 The Los Angeles Times Mixed reviews of the album may also have kept record-buyers away..."
  • 2013-11-20 Consequence of Sound Lady Gaga’s latest endeavor, ARTPOP, has garnered some fairly lukewarm reviews from critics..."
  • 2013-11-24 Enstarz "While the album received mixed reviews from critics it has gradually climbed the charts."
  • 2013-11-26 The Daily Beast "Also, Artpop was getting some bad reviews, critics claiming its trashy, inconsistent, off-putting, and cartoony..."
  • 2013-12-13 Forbes "A quick survey of the reviews (critic and fan-based, positive and negative) suggests the following consensus: ARTPOP fails to deliver anything new..."
  • 2014-01-13 SF Gate "...sales quickly dropped off after its release and it received mixed reviews from critics, many of whom gave it unfavorable write-ups." (Note: Daily Dish gossip column)
  • 2014-01-15 The Mirror "...her latest album ARTPOP which has received mixed reviews."
  • 2014-02-05 E Online "Her latest album Artpop was met with mixed reviews..."
  • 2014-02-05 Harper's Bazaar "Her latest album, ARTPOP, an experimental R&B-tinged effort featuring artwork by Jeff Koons and a controversial duet with R. Kelly, divided critics."
  • 2014-02-05 United Press International (UPI) "...flailing record sales for ARTPOP, mixed reviews and dwindling stardom..."
  • 2014-02-05 Us Weekly "...admits in the March issue of Harper's Bazaar that she had a tough 2013 following the mixed reviews and disappointing sales of her ARTPOP album..."
  • 2014-02-06 India Today "...and receiving mixed reviews for her latest album 'ARTPOP'."
  • 2014-02-06 Hello Magazine "...2013 saw her cancel her tour to have hip surgery, part ways with her long-term manager Troy Carter and receive mixed reviews for her latest album ARTPOP..."
  • 2014-02-07 Guardian Liberty Voice "ARTPOP received mixed reviews from critics..."
  • 2014-02-20 The Sydney Morning Herald "Despite mixed reviews and solid but not spectacular sales of her 2013 album, Artpop, ..."
  • 2014-03-14 The Atlantic "Last years Artpop received mixed reviews and undersold compared to expectations."
  • 2014-03-21 CNN "Her latest effort is a mash-up of high art and pop music that met with mixed reviews from critics..." (Note: syndicated to WTVR-CBS6 and others.)
––Agyle (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@Agyle:, you've made one impressive case. Kudos to that. However, I would not count the pre-release reviews. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Agyle's proposal

  • Support, Agyle, for changing the unverifiable "mixed to positive" to "generally mixed reviews", because of reliable sources looking back on it in retrospect. Dan56 (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment some sources were more reliable than others, but for the most part very good quality. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as what I was in favor of at the beginning of this whole fiasco. Thanks to Agyle for providing even more sources to support the clear mixed consensus of the album's reception. I also agree that mixed to positive means about the same as mixed, and they clearly were not just positive. As you can see the reliable sources talking about it in retrospect, they almost universally refer to it as receiving mixed reviews. The only reason it was ever listed as mixed to positive was to finally attempt to end the last insane discussion we had on this sentence. The only reason it was ever changed from mixed in this first place was due to the now topic banned editor. It seems quite unnecessary to do this song and dance again so soon, which has seemed to bother some editors (where were you a few months ago Dan56)? But do not let the situations let anyone ignore the facts of the matter. Most reliable sources have labeled it as receiving mixed reviews. STATic message me! 06:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Seems fair enough, as a clear amount of reliable sources have mentioned a mixed consensus, and no sources seem to explicitly verify "mixed to positive" as a consensus. Holiday56 (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Red XN Oppose Quite a few of those "sources" you're citing aren't reliable and a large amount don't even say "mixed" at all. This page needs to remain as it is, as there are numerous reviews that listed the album as receiving generally positive reviews, as evidenced by the previous discussion, including metacritic. Mixed to positive has already been decided upon by six different users. An adherence to past consensus is necessary here. Mark2017 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Struck comments by Topic-ban evading sock of DP 23:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Mark2017, the list was not an attempt to justify "mixed reviews", but an honest survey of how sources characterized the reviews, using several search terms. I included any sources that I thought at least arguably met WP:RS, excluding reviews themselves. I agree that many are weak sources. However, even omitting XXSNUGGUMSXX's suggestions, the prevailing characterization, particularly later ones, is "mixed reviews". In the first week of articles, 2013-11-05 to 2013-11-11, they varied from "scathing" to "thumbs up", while in 2014 one used "divided" and the rest used "mixed".
I just rechecked sources that used "positive reviews", and I may have improperly dismissed Digital Spy (2013-11-11) based on its bloggish appearance.
If you want to cite Metacritic, I'd suggest doing so in a separate sentence with in-article attribution and explanation, for example: "Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score of 0 to 100 to summarize mainstream critical reviews, gave Artpop a score of 61, based on 30 reviews, which falls within the 61-80 range which it describes as 'generally favorable reviews'".
Regarding "adherence to past consensus is necessary" and "needs to remain as it is", articles aren't set in stone, and new sources are being considered.
––Agyle (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Since there have been no opposes and nine supports, I'm going ahead and making the revision to "mixed reviews" with the CNN source cited, since it's one of the latest and has been syndicated as Argyle pointed out. Dan56 (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Can we have a NAC for this RFC please? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reviews are "generally favorable"

According to Metacritic, 61/100 indicates "generally favorable reviews" NOT "generally mixed reviews" as this article states. This should be fixed. Here is a link to verify this: http://www.metacritic.com/music/artpop/lady-gaga Rjm241 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done consensus has agreed to list as "mixed" in accordance with numerous other sources listed. That discussion is over and needs to stay that way. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well that is ridiculous as metacritic is the ultimate source for aggregate reviews. The website's purpose is to provide a summary of all reviews and it is silly to ignore what it has provided. Our attempts at summarizing reviews and coming up with a subjective "mixed" status seems futile when metacritic has done the work for us and provided a different and more objective response of "generally positive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjm241 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

While I think the article's characterization of reviews is reasonable, and agree it should stay, including Metacritic info as well can be informative and neutral, if it's attributed in-article with a brief explanation of its terminology and methodology. My earlier suggestion was "Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score of 0 to 100 to summarize mainstream critical reviews, gave Artpop a score of 61, based on 30 reviews, which falls within the 61-80 range which it describes as 'generally favorable reviews'". Shortening that to simply "Artpop received generally favorable reviews" would not be appropriate. Agyle (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artpop/Archive_3&oldid=1142435690"