Talk:Beneath Your Beautiful

Grammar error

Hey, I'm not sure how this works, it's my first time registering and talking.

I was the one who deleted the sentences about the "Beneath Your Beautiful" song title containing a grammatical error. The reason for this is because this accusation (that it contains a grammatical error) is actually incorrect. The song uses "beautiful" as a noun, not a verb. The songwriter is not saying: beneath, you are beautiful. The songwriter is actually saying, take off the artificial beautiful (the clothes, the make-up, etc), he/she wants to see beneath this layer of artificial beautiful ("let me see beneath your beautiful, see beneath your perfect, I want to see inside, let me see beneath your beautiful tonight... we ain't perfect.")

As such, the accusations that it's grammatically incorrect has no basis given the context of the lyrics. To support the integrity of the article, these passages should either be removed, or the correct interpretation be placed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkwt (talk • contribs) 22:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is your personal opinion. The passage reads that some fans accused Labrinth of writing a song with grammar errors. He replied via the article and reference given. Therefore the article is perfectly covering the subject and there is no issue with integrity. While your point above is sensible its your opinion, not supported by a reliable third party source. I've rewarded to clarify. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before your socalled clarification, the article said: "The title of the song contains a grammatical error". That claim is original research, as it is not directly supported by the source – it's your interpretation of the reply on Twitter. Nording (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the words "socalled clarification" do not have have a sense of good faith about them. In the article, fans accuse Labrinth of misspelling "you're" by using "your" in the song's title. Labrinth responded using the term "Grammar Nazis", and so whilst I accept that neither Labrinth nor the editor of the article use the term "grammar error", it doesn't change the fact that the fans accused Labrinth of a grammar error. If he had misspelled the word then it would be a grammar error. If Labrinth hadn't mentioned grammar or spelling then I'd accept that it was original research, but as it stands I don't accept that this is original research. Sometimes things need to be applied with a bit of logic, not every reference on every topic will explicitly say "X is Y". — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that I should've chosen other words; I'm sorry for not writing for instance "Before this edit" instead. Regarding your last sentence: That is your logic. It's "your opinion, not supported by a reliable third party source", as you tell user:Wkwt above. For all we know, Labrinth may have been drunk when he replied on Twitter. IMO it's likely that he was just having fun with his followers/fans. I believe Labrinth knows perfectly well that "your" is indeed correct, and that he was just kidding when he wrote that it "was to annoy English teachers and grammar Nazis". The point is, however, that we're not supposed to include our own interpretations. The article now says that "fans asked Labrinth [...] about the error" – I think that is in violation of WP:OR, which states: "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it [...] to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". Nording (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased what was said per the article. The reference reads "many commented on his spelling of ‘your’ claiming his song title should be ‘Underneath You’re Beautiful’" → which I've written on the page as → "The title of the song attracted attention from fans, some of whom questioned Labrinth about the spelling of the word "Your" within the song's title, believing that was a grammatical error and should have been spelt you're". I don't believe this is WP:OR any more. For what its worth, having seen the lyrics I personally believe that Labrinth uses the word "your" to describe "beautiful" as a noun rather than a description but that's not the purpose of including this reference here. This reference detailed hows some people think Labrinth has misspelled "your" and this is Labrinth's response. Its not upto us to decide whether he was drunk/having fun with his followers etc. That would be WP:SYNTHESIS. An encyclopedia reports on the facts... interpretation is what blogs and forums etc are for. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the sentence I was referring to in my previous comment – but the next one: "Upon reaching number one in several countries, fans asked Labrinth via social networking website Twitter about the error". It violates WP:OR by (indirectly) stating that there is in fact an error. Nording (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

changed error → spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil-unique1 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Relevant

After going through articles like Playing with Fire (Plan B song) and Teardrop, this whole mention about supposed grammatical errors being pointed out is not required in this article. There is no clear MOS for songs but the discussion is very much out of scope for this article (going by the articles I highlighted before). Moreover they fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTE. The Twitter reference is not allowed as per WP:RELIABLE. I am not taking any action for now and await further comments about this -Wikishagnik (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not actually a reference from Twitter. Its an article from a local London new outlet that covered that fact that Labrinth has had a discussion with fans via his twitter page. Actually per WP:TWITTER, it is actually sometimes permissible to use a direct reference from twitter as a source, particularly as Labrinth's page carries the verified official logo. That aside, I actually originally kept removing mentions of this because it was unsourced yet IPs kept adding it back. Then when the reference was added I've tried to make it more encyclopedic. Its only because several editors have added it back have I got involved in this discussion. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a fine point about Twitter but - to me - on the whole the issue has not recieved significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV)and I have not found sigficant coverage of this. So I am concerned -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teardrop is a disambiguation page – which article did you mean? Nording (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I meant Teardrop (Massive Attack song) -Wikishagnik (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beneath Your Beautiful. 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) 20:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]