Jump to content

Talk:Facts (Tom MacDonald and Ben Shapiro song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV?

[edit]

The article reads like a glowing review of the song. The neutral point of view is not present. 2604:2D80:9F85:4D00:A4A2:42F1:83FB:7213 (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really, is that what you got from this article? Did you actually read the article? PaPiker (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not objectively written page... (like an encycloPEDIA should be...)

[edit]

Wiki article is colored by onesided opinion about this song. At 'how it is received', only the people with the other opinion are giving a place here. How about the millions that actually liked and downloaded it, so it became a number 1 Hit? ... Can we please keep the politics off wiki and just share the facts please..? 89.205.129.24 (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The song's commercial performance is discussed in the header. Additionally, Nicki Minaj's praise of the song is included in the reception subsection.
The majority of media reporting from reliable sources on the song was highly critical, hence why the article may seem biased. You can find Wikipedia's guide to reliable sources here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources# Coalah (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the "Reception" section, which will obviously have a lot of negative reviews, but most of the article seems to be arguing against the political points in the song using very non-NPOV language and makes sure to point out some obscure review of the song having "white-supremacist" rhetoric as soon as possible. You don't need to agree with the song politically to see the biases. NorthropChicken (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "white supremacist" mention is extreme, and can be removed. But the rest of the article seems, to me at least, to simply be listing the topics discussed and arguments made in the song. These arguments are simply referred to as "conservative and anti-woke," which is an unbiased descriptor in my view. Coalah (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the article's sources and the general claim of most general reception being critical and it seems that claim is simply false? A simple google search of "shapiro facts song critical reception" returns articles like the one at neonmusic.co.uk that is not only relatively nonbiased in its language but also speaks positively about the song.
On top of that, the article is citing sources like the Salon which calls itself a website that publishes primarily libertarian opinion pieces and BOING BOING which is a blog both of which are listed of uncertain reliability here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#
According to this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution
to use these sources, it would have to be determined if they represent the majority view. As this article is attempting to establish the majority view using these articles, the attempt is circular. Please reconsider your sources or attempt neutrality. 24.123.252.242 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the blog sites should be attributed, sure.
I am not finding an abundant amount of reliable sources with more positive reception, other than the one you listed. If you find more, feel free to list them here and they can be added. Coalah (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this wiki article is being received rather critically. 2605:B100:32D:B670:F89A:29ED:C963:928A (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity

[edit]

You can clearly read the opinion out of the article. It only gives space for being received by people who did not like it. Not up to standard for an encyclopedia 134.169.165.142 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to list some articles with more positive reception that you feel should be included. Coalah (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben has not claimed he hates rap

[edit]

“[he] claim[ed] to hate for profit". - in Reception

As far as I know, Ben has never stated that he hates rap. He has only stated his opinion that rap isn’t music. He stated his opinion that music is composed of a melody, harmony, and rhythm. He said rap only has rhythm, therefore in his opinion rap isn’t music. Perhaps Ben feels rap is spoken poetry or rhyming lyrical creativity, or maybe he does hate it, but he hasn’t stated or claimed such.

He has not stated he hates rap. Whether his views have caused people to believe he hates rap because of his opinions, is irrelevant to objectivity. I feel it’s important to state this fact, instead of leave readers thinking that the commentators’ assumptions that ‘Ben claimed he hates rap’ are fact.

Unless I’ve missed a source stating such? 2A00:23C7:5000:8401:C58A:A39B:C6BB:A353 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If I said that Tomato isn't a fruit, I'm not saying that I hate Tomato, but just sharing my own view. 2600:1012:B1AF:D7F:F532:B058:EDC6:AB51 (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more relevant point is that it isn't hypocrisy on Ben's part to partake in a rap song, because any normal person would be able to understand this song was made tongue-in-cheek and not supposed to be taken seriously. Ben pretty much sees this whole thing as a joke and wanted to have some fun with it, which makes sense as he titled his most recent podcast episode "I'm Retiring from Rap". 142.118.161.2 (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 22:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Nicki Minaj
Nicki Minaj

Created by Benmite (talk). Nominated by MaranoFan (talk) at 21:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Facts (Tom MacDonald and Ben Shapiro song); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Interesting article on a culture war and music related topic. No copyright violation or close phrasing detected. Hook and hook fact check out. Article is new enough, long enough, is cited throughout, and is within policy. The image is fine to be used as MTV did release this content under a Creative Commons license. This can be promoted.4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should not go in the image hook per WP:DYKIMG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @AirshipJungleman29 What part of the criteria at WP:DYKIMG are you referring to? The licensing checks out as it was released under a creative commons license and is not a fair use image. Is there some other issue?4meter4 (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @4meter4 I think they must mean Try to avoid images that divert readers from the bolded article into a side article – for example, taking a hook about a fictional character and picturing the character's also-linked portrayer. Zanahary (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion that one of Shapiro’s lines is directed at rap listeners

[edit]

“claims that rap listeners waste money on strippers and will end up in jail”

This is disingenuous; the intended target is ambiguous at least; lines before and after this one speak to/about ‘woke Karens’ and the vague ‘you’ (which may be interpreted as opponents or ‘haters’). To suggest this specific line about wasting money is somehow uniquely directed at rap listeners is disingenuous. It’s clearly targeted at those who the men claim would “turn boys into thugs and girls into [whores]”. 211.30.160.200 (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben's current stance on rap

[edit]

Shouldn't it be noted that Ben has since changed his mind on rap being a form of music? He rescinded his belief that rap was not music following an interview with Zuby. Just trying to be fair here. 4TheLuvOfFax (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Facts (song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" vs "Reception"

[edit]

Given that this issue seems to have just gone back in forth and is basically an edit war now, I'd like to leave a place on the talk page for everyone to share their thoughts. In my view, Nicki Minaj's praise of the song being criticized does NOT invalidate as a positive review of the song, and still is in line with the policy for "Reception" sections.

Additionally, WP:Criticism states that "Criticism" sections are best devoted to articles related to politics, religion, and philosophy, while "Reception" is more appropriate for media like songs. Although "Facts" is an undoubtedly political song, I believe "Reception" is more fitting. Coalah (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to advocate for keeping the title of the section as Reception (as I've been variously and regrettably involved on that side of the aforementioned edit warring.) The main argument for "Criticism" has been that the reception included in that section has been entirely negative, but the issue is that the section covers the existing reception of the song and that reception has been negative. Calling the section "Criticism" would, for me, imply that other positive reception of the song exists and is simply not being mentioned, but that's not the case. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to disagree. The same section doesn't say they are "best devoted" but rather that those article subjects are what "criticism" is usually used for. It also states that, to Benmite's point, anything labeled "reception" has both positive and negative reception. Since we agree that positive reception likely doesn't exist, this cant be labeled "criticism." It requires more positive reviews to be considered so. Stappitalist (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something else I want to add (if purely from an aesthetic standpoint) I feel like given "reception" being the norm for media, "criticism" will open up the article to even more complaints from readers about the article's neutrality (and they're already very persistent). Even if not a perfect fit due to the relative lack of positive reception, I feel like "reception" might read as more neutral to readers. I'm open to naming it "criticism" based on Stappitalist's argument, just throwing it out there. Coalah (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General point about MacDonald and Shapiro's intent with the song

[edit]

I'm pretty sure that MacDonald said after releasing the song that it wasn't really intended to be a "good song" but was instead a troll on the music industry. I'm not sure how this would fit in the article but it seems to me that this could be worthwhile pointing out since a lot of the criticism was about the music of the song itself. Idk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.43.248 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Facts_(Tom_MacDonald_and_Ben_Shapiro_song)&oldid=1215844925"