Talk:Blah Blah Blah (Kesha song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blah Blah Blah (Kesha song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Blah Blah Blah (Kesha song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 31, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
January 9, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted
October 20, 2022	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted

Current status: Good article

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Song release date

The song "Blah Blah Blah" has been released and should have a release date of January 5, 2010, the same as the album, in the infobox for songs. If/when it is released as a single, that would be a different infobox with a different release date. If the song has not been released, then how can I listen to it off the album or download it from an online music store. To say a song can only have a release date if it is released as a single is absolutely absurd. Taken to the WP:Albums talk page. --63.170.82.103 (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, but a song is only ever considered released if it is a single. At this point in time, it is an individual album track. • вяαdcяo chat 23:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. The song, at this time, has been released as an individual album track, thus it has the same release date as the album itself. You will need to find a reliable source that shares your opinion. --63.170.82.103 (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we shall wait and see what other contributors have to say. We need more input into the discussion. • вяαdcяo chat 00:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actual release date would be when it is released to radio, otherwise every single single released would have a release date of January 5, 2010. Don't know about the US release date, but the song is digitally released (the single, probably with some B-sides/remixes) in the UK on the 28 of February (source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/playlist/) after the February 15 (source: http://www.4music.com/artist/taio-cruz/teams-up-with-kesha.html) release of the Taio Cruz collaboration Dirty Picture (which also appears on the UK edition of the album). 155.69.192.22 (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, the US radio date is February 2. (http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691) Interesting that they are going for a Rhythmic crossover with this song... 155.69.192.22 (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

Ok, there seems to be a dispute as to whether the release in the infobox should be the date of airplay, or the date of when the song is available as a product. Yes, there is a guideline stating that the earliest date comes first, however I believe there is an exception if the song has been added to radio before it is made available for purchase. My point is that radio stations and networks can choose to play any song at anytime at their own convenience, regardless of whether it has been released as a single or not. It is all about the audience. A song is only ever considered released if it is a single, therefore the earliest date of when the song is available in a record store or a digital retailer is appropriate. Consider reading release (music) • вяαdcяo chat 07:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 'Release date' should be when it is available for purchase by the general public. A 'Radio release date' as being kept within the industry is part of the 'Promotion' and should be listed in that section and REMOVED from the 'Release history' section. This way the earliest date shown in the Release history section will match with the Release date shown in the infobox. My page edits called attention to the discrepancy.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I explained what a radio add date was in Bradcro's talk page. Here's a more detailed read. http://www.bandradio.com/articles/music_biz_articles/radio_airplay_101_-_the_add_date/ 155.69.2.5 (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point being, radio stations can indeed play songs they want. But these songs don't receive radio release dates. The add date (set by the artist and their people) is a "push" for radio stations to add the song to their playlist for rotation (which is the actual promotion). 155.69.2.5 (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay read his reply, I guess it's debatable. 155.69.2.5 (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read this, seems it's not an important issue... 155.69.2.5 (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A radio add date is by all means acceptable for mention in the article, and is found in the WP:LEAD, but using that specific date as a release date is incorrect. A radio add date is separate from a release date. As for that user, who was to say that he was correct? A lot of articles on Wikipedia incorrectly use radio dates. I contributed to a discussion regarding a similar issue to this last year, please read. • вяαdcяo chat 08:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I wasn't saying he was correct. I was merely point it out. I don't think it's a big deal, but the infobox template could be more specific. :) 155.69.2.5 (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Radio "add date" link:
"A radio 'add date' is supposed to tell stations when to add a record to its playlist. It is completely separate from, and has little else to do with, the street date."
^ Thus this is promotion. If it is not available for sale but you say it has been released is counterintuitive. If its released, "Where can I get it? Huh, it's only been released to Radio?"—Iknow23 (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... the Animal infobox should be edited accordingly right? 155.69.2.5 (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this and I dispute it. "Airplay" or Radio "Add dates" are not 'commercial release dates' but 'promotion release dates'. Commercial release date should mean making money from the release as in the general public being able to purchase it.—Iknow23 (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "Blah Blah Blah" should show release date of Feb 28, 2010 in the Animal infobox.—Iknow23 (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Directed at the IP, In regards to the infobox, how could it be more specific, in what way? Most, if not all of the relevant fields are complete. How could improvements be made? I don't entirely understand what you are stating when you refer to the radio "add date" link. The Animal infobox should be edited accordingly per what Iknow23 stated. That article also has slight problems with its release date. It is not entirely incorrect but could be improved. First of all, it was originally released in the Netherlands on January 1, 2010, therefore that should be the date in the infobox. Since there are numerous other dates for other regions, a release history table should be created to indicate those. Now I am getting off topic though.. And I spent minutes re-constructing this reply, as I encountered several edit conflicts. • вяαdcяo chat 08:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean since this can be (maybe not, maybe I'm just weird) an issue for every article created for a single (as seen by this and that the article for Eh Eh). I was just thinking that perhaps the infobox template itself (the template page) can explain so in its guidelines (since it does so in detail for some other parameters). Of course this is not of concern for this article, sorry if it seemed to imply that you should do something about it. It was just a general comment :) Anyhoo, I now know for sure what the Released date refers to. Thanks! 155.69.2.5 (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chart table and chart performance

In the chart performance section, I worked to have all the debut and peak positions in each country sourced. I used the same sources for the peaks in chart table using the reference tagging for example: <ref name="Hot 100"/> etc. Now because of the macro, the chart table uses a whole lot of new sources, which is in some way stupid when we already have others that we can use with the reference tagging from the chart performance section. The fewer citations on the article, the better. We are unnecessarily verifying content twice. This is another problem I have with the macro. What are your thoughts? • вяαdcяo chat 08:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a version that will produce predictable reference names, and will make the change today or tomorrow. I appreciate and understand the work you are putting into the references. In one sense, custom work is always better. In the macro, I have to provide something easy for most people to use that always works. The main advantage is that when a site changes (like when Billboard moved all of its charts), the places that changes need to be made are localized: in most cases, the only thing that has to change is the macro itself, not the thousands of articles referencing the chart that changed.—Kww(talk) 14:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References are now named, and documented at {{singlechart}}—Kww(talk) 19:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"impacted" is NOT supported by the source as used improperly

The source does not use the word "impacted". "Impacted US radio" would need to be supported with a source that actually shows the song had some "impact" - such a redefining what songs are allowed to be played or some type of unusual charting, neither of which is supported by the source which merely provides the name of the song as one of many to be played on radio. MM207.69.139.146 (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the usage hurts my ears, but "impacted radio" seems to be industry jargon.—Kww(talk) 00:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is radio WP:JARGON, we shouldnt be using it that way. MM207.69.139.146 (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected this to 'added to U.S. radio', as when a song is available for airplay, it is considered as a radio add date. • вяαdcяo chat 05:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is not one US radio station or company, and lots of US radio stations will not be playing the song, I dont think the "officially added to US radio" is a valid interpretation of the source or the action. MM207.69.139.146 (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"primarily" is a weasel term

"with critics primarily praising the track for its delivery of lyrics" is a weasel term and not appropriate. MM207.69.139.146 (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Feminist" or just misandrist?

One could say it flips gender roles, but you can't just do it to boys just because they did it to you. If it were a boy singing about a girl he would get a lot of flak from the feminist community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.26.112 (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say misandrist would be a legitmte arguement but that would be POV --174.45.204.216 (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

attempt to remove bias

The article described critical response as "mixed to positive," but nearly every cited review had something negative or at least ambivalent to say about the song. This hints at a bias in favor of the artist. A more blatant clue would be the multiple mentions of a particular interpretation of the lyrics as a post-feminist stab at gender equality, while completely ignoring the coarse, literal meaning of the lyrics -- a literal meaning which Kesha herself seems to support, judging from the quotes cited in the article. If you like the song, fine, but it's inappropriate to defend the song by focusing on a particular interpretation at the expense of even mentioning the more blatant, objective meaning. Minaker (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but to make one thing clear, anything higher then 3/5 stars is positive according to how music articles are written, if you check the sources, BBC 4/5 stars, About.com 4/5 stars, digital 2/5 and then more so mixed and positive reivews from other sources. Mixed to positive was correct but im not going to edit war with you over a minor issue. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that there is an objective standard for what qualifies as a positive review. But the facts still seem to disagree with your assessment that "Mixed to positive was correct." As I pointed out, nearly every review cited has something negative to say about the song. As you pointed out (and the article points out as well) Digital Spy gives the song two out of five stars. And Rolling Stone Magazine, which I would argue is the standard to which many other music reviews are held, gave the album Animal 3/5 stars, stating that every song on it is "repulsive, obnoxious and ridiculously catchy . . . Fear for the future of civilization, and dance." It seems pretty clear that whether you grade by commentary or by more objective star ratings, there is more than enough evidence that "mixed to positive" is a highly misleading description of general critical reception to the song -- unless, of course, you want to ignore the facts. Let's not pretend that the only justification for not reverting my correction is because you're willing to take the high road. Minaker (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry if that last comment was a little too harsh. Minaker (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Blah Blah Blah (Kesha 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Blah Blah Blah (Kesha 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:

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) 16:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]