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
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
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
Pages are not protected without a reason. At the time this was protected, several unregistered editors were adding nonsense to the page.[1] The page will be unprotected until 12 January 2022. (CC)Tbhotch™00:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fyi, User:Tbhotch, yes I've read the article. I literally created the article. The "Critics had negative reception" in lead doesn't have any source (WP:SYNT) and the last sentence doesn't make any sense. However, the blackfishing was a huge amount of why the video was so controversial, so it makes sense to keep it in the lead. Everything else otherwise... no source. rogueshanghaichat (they/them)18:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being the creator of a page doesn't warrant you the credentials to WP:OWN a page. I don't give a shit about the singers or the song. I'm watching this page for other reasons. The lead summarizes the sections given in the article, saying that "Critics had negative reception" is not synthesis in the lead; it is a summary of the critical reception itself, something a lot of people is unable to comprehend when they remove similar sentences. (CC)Tbhotch™18:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not acting like I own the page, I just don't appreciate your tone that I don't know anything about this article topic. *Specifically* mentioning that all critics criticized the "diction and tone" of the song when only one article says that is clear SYNT. Plus, the article is so short that people would be able to see the critical reception section anyways on a regular computer monitor. Makes no sense to keep it in the lead. rogueshanghaichat (they/them)18:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Songwriters section vandalized/Excessive bias on critical reception and song background
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
The songwriters section is completely vandalized, obviously by a troll, with random joke names instead of the actual songwriters with no citation given. In regards to the "Critical reception" and main description sections, the page includes references to the drama surrounding the song with very few citations, mostly going off of one single article and seemingly writing their own opinion more than actual information about the situation. Highly request that the page be reviewed and edited. 189.159.114.234 (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
