Talk:Baby, It's Cold Outside/Archive 1

Untitled
Error -- Two versions of the song are listed, sequentially, and the same text follows them, saying that they both charted on the same day and the same position. Help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.82.76 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Answer to your comment: Not an error...this was typical of the era in that competing national record companies and regional labels all put out versions of virtually every hit song. Pop airwaves were much different at that time; during any given hour you might hear a song played three times by three separate recording stars. RCA might put out a Perry Como version, Decca would release a Bing Crosby recording, while Columbia might decide to offer a female recording by Doris Day. All three might be top ten hits, knowing that certain listeners had certain preferences. The variety was in the delivery, not so much in musical styles. This effect was further compounded by the fact that RCA records would be first to reach the New York market, Mercury had a delivery edge in the southeast, and Capitol of course had the edge in the west. (67.154.72.42 (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

While I don't know much about it, I think there should be mention of Zooey Claire Deschanel's versio of the song from the movie Elf, that is, if that is actually her singing it. LSA 12/10/07 --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.147.48 (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful Sentence Construction
"Furthermore, the song gets considerable air time in the typically cold months of January and February in the northern hemisphere and likewise during winter in the southern hemisphere"

This article reads like a book report by a lazy seventh grader trying to pad his word count with as many redundancies as possible.

In the northern hemisphere and likewise during winter in the southern hemisphere? Why not just say, "an electronically recorded version of a performance of this particular musical composition is indeed often but typically broadcast over publicly owned airwaves on Planet Earth, one of eight planets in the Milky Way Galaxy, when radio disc-jockeys, having discovered their nips to be erect on the way in to work, determine their immediate environment to be experiencing meteorological conditions generally associated in the public conscience with the season known as winter?"

Before you criticize my suggested change, please note that it is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.162.211 (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed the intro paragraph to remove to sentence in question. The second and third sentences have been combined into one (that still references Christmas carols, although I'm not sure how relevant that is... It seemed overbearing to just delete them outright, though) that now reads:
 * The song is popularly associated with winter weather, and although it does not refer to any specific time or holiday, it is commonly played alongside Christmas carols and popular winter holiday music.


 * You're welcome to add the comma after "and" if you feel strongly about it; and I do know that the link to "Holiday music" redirects to "Christmas music," which seems stupid, but I assumed that might change some time in the future. Also, yes, it says "popularly" and "popular" in the same sentence.  Feel free to fix that if you have an improvement.
 * --Dgianotti (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The article says "originally performed by Betty Garrett and Red Skelton in the film Neptune's Daughter," but in the film it is also performed by Ricardo Montalban and Esther Williams. (imdb link) I'm not sure which pair comes first in the chronology of the film (or the film's shooting schedule), but for purposes "original performance" I would call it a draw.

I should point out that it's the Williams/Montalban version (sometimes credited to Williams alone) that seems to appear on the audio collections of Academy Award-winning songs, and on Loesser collections. tuc 05:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A biography by Loesser's daughter, Susan Loesser, gets the dates wrong. She writes that the song "won an Academy Award in 1948," but the movie wasn't officially released until 1949, and the Academy Awards ceremony during which that Oscar would be awarded took place in 1950. alainsane 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

lyrics
One debatable lyric in the song is when she says "just a cigarette more". Some think that the line suggests that the couple has just had sex, while others disagree. makes you think, right? 69.114.12.10 21:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know this is three and half years old, but.... What many people these days forget/don't know is that at the time it was common to refer to short periods of time by the number of cigarettes that could be smoked in them. --Khajidha (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Louis Armstrong +?
Another great version was by Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald

Correct me if i am wrong but a while back i did a bit of research online, and there is no version by Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald this is a common misconception because of a mislabeled mp3 floating around on p2p networks. It is actually the version by Louis Armstrong & Velma Middleton. (as shown by the article) --144.32.196.4 21:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone declared this song not contrapuntal; yet, the daughter of the song's author daughter described it as contrapuntal in her biography, and she also said her father said the contrapuntal was his favorite format in which to write songs. Could someone please explain why there might be this discrepancy?alainsane 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is yet another version of the song in the 1991 movie "All I want for Christmas" by Lauren Bacall and Thora Birch.

What a wonderful song
It is isn't it. 82.42.176.67 10:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Doris Day + Bing Crosby vs. Johnny Mercer + Margaret Whiting
There is a common misconception that Doris Day and Bing Crosby recorded a version of "Baby It's Cold Outside." No such version exists, the recording it is confused with is the duet between Johnny Mercer and Margaret Whiting. As such, the reference to Bing Crosby and Doris Day has been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.243.120.46 (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Crosby + Stewart
There is a short comical version of Bing Crosby and Jimmy Stewart singing "Baby It's Cold Outside". It was performed in a live radio broadcast on December 14,1949. It can be found on a 33RPM vinyl LP record called "Bing Crosby, The Greatest Christmas Shows, Two Complete Original Radio Broadcasts", Fox American Retrospectives, (P) 1978 David Joffee, distributed by M.F. Distribution Co. Inc., 295 Madison Avenue, New York City, N.Y. 10017, SMF210. Matagamasi (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cold?
I have never seen Neptune's Daughter, but I have seen some of the clips from the movie circulating on YouTube. Is the joke of the song (at least in the Montalban/Williams version) that it is actually hot out, and he's tongue-in-cheek trying to "fool" her into staying using that as an excuse? I got that impression from some of the dialogue immediately preceding the song, but I could be wrong. Applejuicefool (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The tempo
Currently reads:
 * In at least one published version the tempo of the song is given as "fantana," a humorous reference to the composer's name.

What does that mean? It's a reference to Loesser's name? Or to some composer named "Fantana"? I'm afraid I am not getting the joke... If someone could clear this up, that would be great, otherwise I'd suggest deleting it, I guess. I did some online searching, and came up with no explanation. --Dgianotti (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive this not going in the right section, but... I think there was also a version by Buster Poindexter and Sigourney Weaver on an episode of Saturday Night Live, where he was the musical guest, and she was the host. My favorite memory of this song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.160.153 (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Use in The Power of Nightmares
This song was used to great effect in the BBC series Power of Nightmares.. could we work that in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.108.21 (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Two gay guys singing it
could someone in the know update the page listing all (or some of) the gay couples who've performed this song? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.24.138 (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

How many examples are appropriate?
The multiple lists of performance is clearly excessive. I'd be happy to trim some of the fat off the lists, but some guidelines would be good. Anyone care to weigh in? ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:HTRIVIA suggests a style that can be seen implemented in Please Mr. Postman. A paragraph under the History section begins, "'Please Mr. Postman' has been covered frequently," then details the most notable. Timeraner (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just significantly trimmed the section randomly, but it needs both referencing and further clean-up. Wikipedia is not a directory. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  02:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For historical reference, I suggest at least retaining all versions that made it onto the various music charts published by such entertainment industry trade publications as Billboard magazine, Cashbox magazine, Record World, the official UK Singles Chart, etc...over the years. It is excessive to include every recorded version that was ever released, and certainly every version that's ever been performed during holiday television specials. Just my two cents. All the best! --Sliv812 (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of tobacco influences guarding this Wikipedia page
This song, with the typically female lyrics of "maybe just a cigarette more", has been a major vessel for targeted tobacco advertising to women and children since the time it was first published almost 70 years ago. It is a tobacco industry favorite because the women who sing it are usually chosen for having reputations of being good role models for young girls (e.g., it is the only time a female singer has sung the word "cigarette" in a song for many of the women singing it in this article), it is a duet so the song can have double the star power backing it, and it is a Christmas song so it is a good way to target children under the guise of "poetic license." It seems that a Wikipedia editor (or editors?) is being pressured or is otherwise unduly influenced by the tobacco industry to keep this song in a good light here at Wikipedia. For instance, you would think a South Park version of the song showing Bill Cosby trying to date rape Taylor Swift would have been enough to settle the issue that this song is viewed as a date rape song -- and that happened way back in December, 2014. I personally remember hearing a popular morning radio show here in San Francisco (Sarah and Vinnie in the Morning on Alice Radio FM 97.3) refer to it as a date rape song as well, back in December, 2014, during a segment of "new song releases" that featured both the Idina Menzel and the Sarah Bareilles versions. Why is this still an issue here a year and a half later? And why was the reference to that South Park show taken down? Did it not happen? Is South Park not a popular show reflecting modern culture and thoughts? I did not read in the Wikipedia policies that everything at Wikipedia had to portray everything in the best light possible so as not to offend fans of a song who do not want to know the truth about it.

The "date rape controversy" is perhaps more easily understood once it is realized that the real controversy is with the lyric "maybe just a cigarette more." Once that lyric is modernized and modified to exclude the tobacco reference, the song will no longer be of use to the tobacco industry and will not get the significant backing it needs in a competitive Christmas market. Therefore, the original lyrics must not be modified, modernized, or changed at all costs, including changing the creepy date rape lyric, "Say, what's in this drink." If you change that lyric, you also have to change the "maybe just a cigarette more" lyric, and the song becomes useless to its tobacco backers.

Somebody was obviously fully aware of the date rape controversy when they made a modernized version of the song for a music video in 2014 featuring Idina Menzel and Michael Buble. Although it was apparently meant to be a "cleaned up kid version", this is arguably the best modern version of this song so far, at least lyrically speaking, because there is no creepy "Say, what's in this drink" lyric, no tobacco advertising "maybe just a cigarette more" lyric, and even the "no, no, no's" were removed for good measure. The only change probably making it a kid song is the reference to an alcoholic drink being changed to soda pop. Minus that, all the other changes seem to improve the adult version of the song. So why, pray tell, was the creepy date rape version of the song included on Idina Menzel's Christmas album in 2014 and released as the official single to radio stations and streaming music companies? Answer: No date rape lyric = no cigarette lyric = no tobacco advertising = no tobacco support = no single. Too bad.

-Only Idina Menzel's lyrics change from one version to the other. H. Nicole Young (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed the edits you made to the article. Just to be clear, the reason I removed them had nothing to do with support for tobacco or date rape or anything other than Wikipedia policies.  You linked to many youtube videos as sources.  While youtube is not prohibited they are looked at very closely as there are potential problems with them.  The first and most important problem is copyright violations.  We NEVER link anywhere when it is a copyright violation.  As I said in my edit summary when I removed your edits, the youtube videos I reviewed appeared to be copyright violations.  So rather than looking at each one individually and evaluating and removing them one by one as I identified them it is better to revert back to the version without them and then an interested party (you?) can put them back if they are not a copyright violation.  -- GB fan 10:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This YouTube video is not a copyvio -- it's from Idina Menzel's verified official YouTube account. Softlavender (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand the arguments you're making on the talk page, but I'm against the actual edits you made to the article. It's getting way off topic - this article isn't a personal essay on the relationship between the song and the tobacco industry. Its of little interest to the song itself whether or not a cigarette ad played after one of its live performances. Your analysis above, while sound, isn't usable here, on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to document your personal research. Its where you write things based off of what journalists/researchers/scholars have published themselves. You need sources written by journalists and writers, not Youtube videos. (Full disclosure: I am not a smoker or smoking supporter, since you seem to think "Big Tobacco" seems to be removing your work around here. That's not the issue here.) Sergecross73   msg me  17:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Bloat
I have removed a lot of unneeded information from the article. The sections on performances and pop culture were bloated. There were many that were not sourced. Many of the versions never charted, some of them even stated as much. Just because a performance happened doesn't mean it belongs in the article. We need to have a reason for putting it into the article such as it is a charted version or it has been discussed by independent reliable sources. I have also removed some overlinking and some other cleanup of the article. Can we please discuss additions before putting them in? -- GB fan 11:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you say, and support your change, though, looking at the history, it doesn't seem like it has editors consistently maintaining it, so I imagine the issues/bloat/lack of discussion will continue, and will probably require constant maintenance to keep down. Just my observation based on maintaining similar articles. (I'm just here temporarily, due to the section above.) Sergecross73   msg me  13:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced information
I just removed unsourced information that was recently added. When adding potentially controversial information a reliable source needs to be included so the information can be verified. -- GB fan 00:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm also not too sure about this addition. There may indeed be some truth to this, but an edit sum Did not add any references -- just much needed indisputable facts about the lyrics. sort of smacks of WP:OR. Not sure it removal or a citation needed tag is needed per WP:UNSOURCED, but claims such as "In contrast to published versions, the lyrics are more often changed when the song is performed on TV, many times cutting out entire portions of the song due to time constraints or modifying the song to be appropriate for younger audiences" should be supported by a reliable source, shouldn't they. Not a source to simply show what the lyrics are, but a reliable source which supports that the lyrics are more often changed for TV, etc. In addition, I'm not sure about the (in my opinion) non-neutral wording added to the first sentence in favor of original version. I intially removed it, but self-reverted to see how others feel. Moreover, while the Washington Post is unquestionably a reliable source as a paper, the partiular article being cited seems to have been written by a guest columnist, not one of the paper's regular on-staff journalists, so not sure about it. Isn't the article itself more just the opinion of this particular person per WP:RSOPINION than a reporting of indesputable facts? Maybe the wording needs to reflect that per WP:MOS? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted further back after looking at what was added and reviewing the sources. The sources did not support the information that was added. I am not sure the opinions of a PhD student qualify as reliable. So that will need to be looked at more. -- GB fan 00:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Liza and Lemanski version
Lydia Liza and Josiah Lemanski - Baby It's Cold Outside (Live on The Current) (search YouTube for Lydia Liza and Josiah Lemanski)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.221.80 (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi IP . I moved your post to the bottom of the page because seem to have accidentally inserted it into a previously posted comment by another editor in another thread. For future reference, please try to follow Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines when posting, so that it's easier for others to respond to your posts.
 * As for the post itself, I'm not sure if you're asking a question or simply providing new information. Are you suggesting that the version by Liza and Lemanshi be added to the "Other notable recordings" section? I believe the common selection criteria (CSC) being used to the entries in that section is whether the song has charted on a well-known record chart or has received covered in reliable sources, and not just simply the fact that it was recorded. If you are able to provide information which shows the version satisfies the CSC, then please be bold add the information to the article with the supporting citation. If your edit is reverted, please discuss it here and try to establish a consensus for it per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Number 3
Why does the source for number 3 go to a blog? http://persephonemagazine.com/2010/12/listening-while-feminist-in-defense-of-baby-its-cold-outside/ That's not a RS. 2601:483:100:CB54:2196:E54E:A406:A23B (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Date Rape Controversy
I deleted this (added by somebody from an IP address only), as it belongs here on the discussion page:

"It should be noted, however, that a few commentaries in online blogs do not constitute a controversy. Substantive critical analysis on this point remains to be done."

Snoopyjc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC).

I wrote this, and my point was that this "date rape controversy" shouldn't be a part of an encyclopedic entry on the song. There is no controversy, yet. There are only a few people who blogged about it, based on ad hoch reactions to what they heard in the song (yes, she asks what is in the drink, but any serious examination would observe that, given the time period of the song, she's asking what kind of alchohol and mixes are in it, not if it has some kind of drug, such as Rohipnal). Adding this so-called "controversy" to the standard wikipedia entry compromises the whole purpose of wikipedia, which is to post sound factual information about specific subjects. Really, the "date-rape controversy" should be a part of the discussion, until serious study has been made of the meanings in the song. Until then, it is no more appropriate to post this statement as part of the regular entry than it would be to post the notion that the moon landing was faked as part of the regular encyclopedic entry on NASA. There needs to be some serious study to support this "controversy" before it should be a part of the standard entry.

Please consider moving the date rape controversy to this section until there is something substantial to make it worthy of being a part of the standard entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.23.221.6 (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I will be putting the "Date Rape Controversy" section back in based on these references:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/19507/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/t/baby-its-cold-outside-is-_7191717254004737.html

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/05/28/a-hierarchy-of-date-rape-jams/

May I also recommend mr 209.23.221.6 that you create an account in order to edit wikipedia!

Snoopyjc (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no Controversy on "Baby it cold outside" 1. they're opinions not fact. 2.Anita Sarkeesian claimed that it date rape, but don't provide any proof. mich (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If every controversy was completely based on facts there wouldn't be any controversy it would be facts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.193.80 (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Two of the sources already used talk about the date rape controversy in their very titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireproof88 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The lyrics "how can you do this thing to me" are victim blaming. But, that's my personal synthesis. Timeraner (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The existence of a controversy was acknowledged in a recent South Park episode. Do not delete this section of the article entirely. Timeraner (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A satire piece is not recognition of the existence of a controversy. Support the contention by a reliable source, and it can be maintained. ScrapIronIV (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It was addressed by Cracked.com ; George Ouzounian ; Salon.com ; and TMZ . WP:RS says "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Timeraner (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What was removed from the article: ″In recent years, there has been criticism of the song, stemming from a modernistic reading of the wolf/mouse dynamic as being sexually predatory. While traditionally interpreted as the mouse wanting to stay and putting up only token protests for the sake of appearance, some commentators perceive the lyrics as the "mouse" as genuinely wanting to leave but being stopped by the "wolf" being coercive in his pleading. These readers cite certain lines as being questionable, including "I simply must go", "The answer is no", "I've got to go home". There is also the line "Hey, what's in this drink", which is seen as implicative of alcohol affecting the "mouse's" judgement or that they have been drugged. However, many movies, at the time the song was written, used a similar line to refer to someone behaving in a different manner than they expected and blaming it on the alcohol. ″ Timeraner (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Already discussed ad nauseum. Propagandist sources trying to create a controversy are not acceptable to define a controversy which does not exist. "Bitch Magazine" and Cracked are not RS, they are satire or propaganda.  Wikipedia is not a forum to promote an agenda. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional sources
This is a widely discussed and widely help opinion regarding the song. It should not be excluded. That being said, I personally think the rape interpretation is overplayed, and doesn't account for changes in language (and courting) over the last 50 years, but it is undoubtedly notable. I am restoring the content Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/19/baby-its-cold-outside-was-once-an-anthem-for-progressive-women-what-happened/
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=y5HQyn_4N5wC&pg=PA51&dq=%22baby+it%27s+cold+outside%22+rape&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lna1VLrjFpKTyATx74L4BQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22baby%20it's%20cold%20outside%22%20rape&f=false* http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/03/baby-its-just-a-song/ (arguing against the rape interpretation, but showing its notability)
 * http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/19/the-most-wtf-covers-of-baby-it-s-cold-outside-everyone-s-favorite-date-rape-holiday-classic.html
 * http://mic.com/articles/75971/baby-it-s-cold-outside-isn-t-rapey-it-s-practically-shakespeare
 * http://www.thegloss.com/2012/12/19/odds-and-ends/is-baby-its-cold-outside-song-sexual-harassment-date-rape/
 * http://www.ravishly.com/2014/12/18/baby-its-cold-outside-scary-date-rape-song-ban-christmas-music
 * http://bitchmagazine.org/post/b-sides-she-him-baby-its-cold-outside-date-rape-feminist-music
 * http://www.xojane.com/entertainment/the-answer-is-no-the-case-for-baby-its-cold-outside-from-two-perspectives
 * http://www.bustle.com/articles/54395-feminist-approved-baby-its-cold-outside-video-makes-the-song-a-lot-less-creepy
 * http://persephonemagazine.com/2010/12/listening-while-feminist-in-defense-of-baby-its-cold-outside/
 * http://mic.com/articles/75971/baby-it-s-cold-outside-isn-t-rapey-it-s-practically-shakespeare


 * Perhaps we can find some mainstream sources for this? Currently, the sources are specifically from a single propagandist perspective.  Perhaps if it were in a separate section, and not generically within "Lyrics" it would not give the theory "mainstream" weight.  Simply restoring it with the biased sources is unwarranted. Somehow, it appears that editors are taking issue that I have performed the same restoration as others before me, when there was never a consensus to include the biased material in the first place. I will offer a proposed wording and section in a bit - assuming that it will be met with open minds. ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Similar content has been in the article for over a year. Mic, Wapo, Federalist, Salon, all mainstream articles. As to your accusations of bias. Per WP:BIASED (and Neutral_point_of_view) "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." and Per WP:NPOV "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." and "[articles should be written to include] representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.".  This is clearly a widely held pov and should not be excluded. Find sources to the contrary and we will also include the counterargument (several are listed above). Pretending that this controversy doesn't exist is not encyclopedic. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I will be more than happy with inclusion, assuming we work together here on the talk page to create a balanced representation of it.  Just so we are working from the same page, I trust we will limit the inclusion of specific propagandist sites, blogs and satire pieces, and stick to the more mainstream sources? ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The satire bits should not be included, except as to show the extent of the meme. "Propaganda" sites is your determination. Because they are writing from a feminist POV or whatever is not a cause to exclude them (read WP:BIASED again). Blogs it would depend. If they are some random wordpress, I agree. Others (huffpo) are more notable and often considered RS. As this is not a BLP and we are specifically discussing opinions of the song, the bar for what is a valid opinion is fairly low.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, looking through multiple blogs, I can actually see why this is becoming an issue. I have been looking at the history of the song, and not the history of the performances of it.  It was written as a song of courtship, and has lots of great opportunities for interaction between singers and lots of room for interpretation. If you ever see the two versions originally presented in Neptune's Daughter, you will laugh and enjoy the flirtatious play between Montalban and Williams - and will love when it is turned upside-down on the following scene with Garrett and Skelton.  But it seems in recent years some performances have intentionally made it as creepy as possible.  There is even a version that seems to include an actual kidnapping. It's not the song; it's the performance.
 * So, it is not unlike Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest" where it can be clean, or merely suggestive, or downright raunchy depending on the performance. The question comes down to this: Do we merely allude to the controversy, without interpretation, and keep it low key - or do we allow it to be explored? My thought is that we do mention it as previously agreed, but keep from any meaningful interpretation of the lyrics.  Something like this:


 * In recent years, there has been criticism of the song, stemming from modern performances of the wolf/mouse dynamic as being sexually predatory. While traditionally interpreted as the mouse wanting to stay and putting up only token protests for the sake of appearance, some commentators perceive the lyrics as the "mouse" as genuinely wanting to leave but being stopped by the "wolf" being coercive in his pleading.
 * This way, we leave out the idea of it being a "date rape anthem" and do not need to attribute a particular interpretation to a specific perspective. The reference to use in this case, which seems to cover both sides without specific partiality, is the mic.com article. We also do not open the door to controversies over date rape drugs as part of a 70 year old lyrics, which does not hold much water historically. What do you think? ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the sources explicitly and implicitly stating this song is about date rape. Timeraner (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on the reliability of sources: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Timeraner (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I think its a good start, but too short for the amount of coverage this has received (WP:WEIGHT). per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV we actually need to attribute the particular interpretations to particular perspectives. The concept of "something in the drink" does not rely on modern pharmacology. The concept of a slipping someone a mickey is from the 1890s and has been in popular use since the 10's and '20s. Beyond drugs, just an unusually strong drink is also a reasonable interpretation (eg Jungle juice). There is a reasonable counter argument to the date rape interpretation (changes in language, changes in "playing hard to get", etc) We should discuss those. But the "rapey" interpretation is becoming the standard one. Maybe thats unfair to judge the song by modern standards. But wikipedia doesn't care about "fair" it cares about whats WP:Verifiable. This certainly qualifies. Heres a recent parody (showing the pervasivness of the interpretation) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc_F0zP9usU  Gaijin42 (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand, and will await your counter proposal. My only issue with the WP:WEIGHT argument is that the coverage is based solely on blogs and editorials, and is not historically significant.  Certainly, if the issue of date rape is included, then the sources need to be identified in the text as "liberal" and/or "feminist" in the text, as per WP:BIASED ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved to Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard after receiving input that sources are RS. I agree that further elaboration of the interpretations are necessary, let's collaborate on a rewrite at the noticeboard. Timeraner (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think its better to workshop it here, NPOV is best for pulling in input, but we don't want to fork discussion. Also any uninvolved editors will be looking for the discussion here rather than there. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because Glen Beck is well known as a liberal feminist? Wapo? mic? I get it that you disagree with the argument. but trying to impeach everyone who holds it by calling it propaganda or biased is a fallacy. Something along the lines of No true Scotsman ("No unbiased sources disagree with me").  Here are some additional sources
 * http://fdrmx.com/idina-menzel-michael-buble-baby-cold-outside-music-video-review/
 * http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/watch-bill-cosby-drug-taylor-4795405 (international, and baby/bill cosby south park parody (also not known for being liberal, nor femenist) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ5dn6nDuv4)

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was merely saying that the sources which attest to it being a "date rape anthem" are liberal and/or feminist. I was making no such assertion to Glen Beck, or WaPo, or Federalist. I have no problem referring to the more traditional interpretations as Conservative. If we are going down the road to include Bitch Magazine, Cracked and The Daily Beast, they should be specified as such -  Feminist, Satirical, and Liberal.   I am trying to work with you here, and will do so in good faith. ScrapIronIV (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NPR http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2009/12/baby_its_cold_outside.html
 * TIME http://time.com/3635706/feminist-baby-its-cold-outside/
 * Another mic story http://mic.com/articles/20342/baby-its-cold-outside-song-lyrics-this-song-is-about-sexual-harassment

Date Rape Controversy 2
I deleted the sentence stating that the song was originally viewed as liberating for women. There is no evidence this song was ever viewed this way (at least by women) and no citation is provided establishing this. There is actually strong evidence to the contrary -- that this song has always been viewed as a creepy date rape song, at least to the women singing it -- because the only two edits done to the song by women in the 50 years from 1949 to 1999 either modified the date rape line (Skeeter Davis in 1969) or completely eliminated the entire creepy date rape portions of the song (Mae West in 1957). In fact, it can be said that even the June Carter Cash version in 1949 can be seen as a comedic take on the date rape aspects of the song, with Carter Cash being kept by not just one man, but two men on both sides of her, and the song lyrics being modified by Carter Cash to say things like, "Give me a key to that door!"

The reference to the Mae West "debut" of the song was taken down because, first of all, the actual reference cites a blog arguing how Bette Midler is similar to Mae West and has nothing to do with Baby It's Cold Outside; second, there is no evidence this is the first time this song was "debuted" on a TV show, and third, if one "use of the song in popular culture" is allowed, I think all "popular culture" examples should be allowed, not what the personal preference of one Wikipedia editor thinks is important.H. Nicole Young (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, you're supposed to comment at the end of a talk page section, not the beginning. The comments should flow in chronological order, unless you're responding to a specific comment. (Which can't be the case here.) It makes for an especially confusing read when you add it to the top of a 5+ year old discussion... Sergecross73   msg me  15:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have moved this to its own section. It wasvery confusing where it was at and really didn't pertain to that section.  -- GB fan 16:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * H. Nicole Young, just to clear up some obvious confusion on your part, I did not remove most of the popular because it was my personal preference. I removed all the popular culture references that did not have any references that showed they were unreferenced.  I also left in the versions that said they charted somewhere even if they did not have a reference.  I am not against having additional popular culture references added, we just need to have reliable sources that show what is significant about them.  Just because they happened doesn't mean they belong in the article.  The references to verify the information that I removed were for the most part just youtube videos that verified they happened.  -- GB fan 16:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional deletions made: The picture referring to this song as being presented as "Music for the Children" taken down as inappropriate. The paragraph under the heading "Lyrics" describing the "modern" controversy and the lyrical meaning of wolves and mice taken down as the only two references cited (one of which claims it's a Salon article from 2014 when it's really a Gloss article from 2012) only discuss how creepy it is that this song was included in the kid movie "Elf" and don't mention anything about mice and wolves. The sentence mentioning the male/female roles were reversed in Neptune's Daughter taken down as repetitive (this is mentioned in Publications). The sentence saying Loesser won the Academy Award taken down as repetitive (this is mentioned in Publications). The himself/herself he/she split gender language was changed to simply "herself" and "she" since there is no evidence Loesser intended gender neutrality when writing the parts for "wolf" and "mouse", writing the part of the mouse specifically for his wife (a female). The only times the gender roles are reversed, including the original role reversal in Neptune's Daughter, are for comedic effect and are equivalent to men dressing in drag for comedic effect. H. Nicole Young (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Song is rapey
This song is so rapey, I can't believe it's not mentioned anywhere in this article. You only have to hear it once to realize it's about a guy trying to get a woman drunk so that she does't go home (even though she wants to). Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your absolutely fantastic and unsourced opinion. May I suggest actually reading the lyrics in the context of the time in which they were written? Havensfire (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Steyn's Song of the Week
Why was the link "Baby, It's Cold Outside" at Steyn's Song of the Week deleted? The Edit summary says "Not a useful external link. (TW)", but the link provides plenty of useful info about the song that would be hard to find anywhere else. Wnmyers (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Mark Steyn does not appear to be a recognized expert on music lyrics. His blog falls into #11 in WP:LINKSTOAVOID. His opinion of the song is not an important resource for the article. The blog does not provide a unique resource that contains info that is beyond what would be in a featured article. - GB fan 01:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

He has written three books on music and known many songwriters personally. https://www.amazon.com/Broadway-Babies-Say-Goodnight-Musicals/dp/0415922879/ https://www.amazon.com/Mark-Steyns-American-Songbook-Steyn/dp/0973157038/ https://www.amazon.com/Song-Season-Mark-Steyn/dp/0973157046/ If writing three books doesn't make him an expert, what does? Also, did you read his linked article? There is quite a bit there that is not in the wikipedia article. Wnmyers (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He had written three books on musical theater, that does not make him a recognized expert on music lyrics, it doesn't even make him a recognized expert on musical theater. Knowing songwriters doors not make anyone an expert. If you think he is a recognized expert on music lyrics, you should be able to find reliable sources that have quoted his opinions on music lyrics. I have read his blog that you linked and it does have opinions that are not in the article. That does not mean they belong in the article. People write things about subjects all the time and most never belong in an encyclopedia article on that subject. - GB fan 12:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why he has to be an expert on "music lyrics". This article is not about "music lyrics". It is about a song written by a musical theater songwriter and first publicly appeared in a movie. Steyn was a theater and film critic for various newspapers. It seems to me if that and writing three books on musical theater doesn't make him an expert, then there are no experts. But if someone quoting him is that important to you, here is a recent article: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/a-terrifically-good-nose-job-royal-operas-the-nose-reviewed/ Wnmyers (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The blog is not about musical theater it is about the lyrics of a song. It doesn't look like the two of us are going to agree. If you want either you or I can ask for a third opinion. - GB fan 20:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I understand your objection to using a bloggy resource, I've got to agree with Wnmyers here. This song was written by someone known for writing music for theater and movies, and the song itself became famous in a movie. Steyn seems to have written on that topic (music in theater/movies) a number of times, and therefore it seems reasonable that his opinion could be useful to a reader. --Krelnik (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at the guideline on external links, it does appear to meet the basic criteria under What to link. I do not see this link falling into any of the three criteria in What can normally be linked.  It also does not appear to fit any of the criteria in Links to be considered.  So now we are left with Links normally to be avoided.  #11 is the one that I think applies here.
 * "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"
 * This is a blog and they are normally avoided unless we are saying Mark Steyn, a former musical theater critic now political commentator, is a recognized authority in the field. Anyone can write books about any subject that does not make them a recognized authority. Recognized authorities are people who write about a subject and then other reliable sources use their writings to further their discussion of the subject.  In the one article presented that Steyn is quoted it is not his opinions that are being used but an actual fact.  His interpretation or critical commentary of the show is not quoted or used to further the discussion of the show.  I do not see anything that suggests he is a recognized expert in musical theater or in interpreting lyrics of a song or rewrite of the song.  If it is a good resource to provide content for the article why are we not using it as a source rather than an external link?  - GB fan 11:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This has become more trouble than it is worth. I figured that if someone was reading this Wikipedia article, then they might be interested in reading an article by some who knew what he was talking about. If someone wants to edit the page using Steyn as a source, then I would welcome it. But I also understand why people don't want to edit Wikipedia.Wnmyers (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC) per WP:SPS his work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third party publications. The article is discussing the song, and focuses most of its time on comparing it to other musical theatre numbers and theatre people. This is not science or politics and there are no exceptional claims being made. I support its restoration. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since he has published (not selfpublished) stuff like Broadway Babies Say Goodnight: Musicals Then and Now, this is not a terrible inclusion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And according to Publishers Weekly, Steyn has "encyclopedic knowledge". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead-BRD
, about your revert here. IMO, my version reads better. "one of the singers attempts to convince a guest"? Then what is the second singer doing? "One of the singers attempts to convince the other" is logical. Also, a singer isn´t performed. A song, duet, role or part is performed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

"In which a host attempts to convince a guest" could also work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Recently added and removed Zach Braff
Not sure it´s worth it, but it´s sourcable: hollywoodreporter HuPo Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

controversy (again)
In the context of The Weinstein Effect, the song is getting analyzed again. Might be time for expansion of the section, as there are a number of RS now. (Some of the below are this year, others are from the prior years). There is way too much coverage of this issue to get away with two sentences.


 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2017/12/13/time-die-baby-its-cold-outside/947809001/
 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2017/12/13/defense-baby-its-cold-outside/947886001/
 * https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2016/12/baby-its-cold-outside-controversy
 * * Notably including commentary from Loesser's family
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/19/baby-its-cold-outside-was-once-an-anthem-for-progressive-women-what-happened/?utm_term=.a8053250c82d
 * http://video.foxnews.com/v/5256220554001/?#sp=show-clips
 * https://www.spin.com/2017/12/ceelo-green-fantasia-baby-its-cold-outside/
 * https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/12/19/13885552/baby-its-cold-outside-feminist-date-rape-romantic
 * https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/02/us/baby-its-cold-outside-cover-trnd/index.html
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mTgtnhzYSM (Fox story)


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq7Do1kK-r4 Gavin McInnes

In addition to being repeatedly parodied/covered in a way that obviously references this controversy ResultingConstant (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc_F0zP9usU&feature=youtu.be
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7dUp-x3yXY&feature=youtu.be&t=26
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm2iLIrKjqc
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVSWpTaLRkU
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml18b8B2f04
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6x2UoF2qCM


 * This is in addition to the bunch of sources discussed in the section above. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This Snopes article provides a number of references for the historical views of the song and the evolution of the "date rape" interpretation. Looks like the earliest instance is a 2004 National Post article that was used as satire. The Snopes page could be useful for finding sources to build out that section, should it be added in the future. -Thunderforge (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Added Snopes as WP:EL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

List made into table
and anyone interested. IMO this was not an improvement, the un-tabled list was better. At least some of the comment is worth keeping, and the ability to sort by a random performer is problematic. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The table makes it more obvious that sources are needed for every line. People are more likely to tack on unsourced information to a list than to a table.Vmavanti (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Trivial comments shouldn't be tacked on to Wikipedia articles. Song pages attract this kind of junk, as though the article were a bar game where everyone shouts out something they remember. If there are substantive comments to be made about a song, they should be entered in the body of the article with citations from reliable sources. The table's open spaces reveal how much work needs to be done. Wikipedia discourages adding unsourced material of any kind.Vmavanti (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

3rd time's the charm
The date rape aspect should be reviewed again. The song has been banned by a couple of US radio stations, and a few more Canadian stations. There's an article plus a review of the lyrics at USA Today (what could be more mainstream?). Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There's a three-paragraph section about the controversy, of which two paragraphs are about this year's kerfuffle. Besides revising the section for less recentism and more historical perspective, what—and who—should review it? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll just list some new references and a couple of links to video versions. When I first read about this I was shocked in a couple of ways.  After reading the lyrics and seeing the films some of my views have changed.  I'll see if I can find it, but there is one great quote, approx "I was wondering what the big deal was about the lyrics, until I read them."  Perhaps this is a teaching moment. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * quote "'I gotta be honest,' Glenn Anderson of Cleveland’s Star 102 radio wrote on the station’s blog after the decision was made. 'I didn’t understand why the lyrics were so bad ... Until I read them.'"
 * Just 2 paragraphs, plus full lyrics and links to 4 other stories
 * Composer and his then wife sing (original version)
 * 1949 Original movie version (note 2 parts one - "romantic", the other comedic)
 * Composer and his then wife sing (original version)
 * 1949 Original movie version (note 2 parts one - "romantic", the other comedic)

I'll end by saying that above there are comments of approx. "Those were the morals of the time." It's partially correct - things were different back in 1944/1957. Maybe for 20% of the population, the song reflected their morals (considering it just as a seduction song, not as a "date rape song") but for the other 80%? - seduction, or even just pre-marital sex, was pretty much a taboo topic. Somewhere somebody said something about "for women of the time it was viewed as liberating" - I'd agree for some it may have been - being able to see pre-marital sex portrayed somewhat sympathetically might have had this effect, but ... Well this is a very complicated subject that needs some review. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't look to Wikipedia for current events. That's what newspapers are for. If you want gossip, try Facebook. If you want conflict, try television. Television loves conflict, controversy, and vulgarity. It's Pavlovian. It's intended to get you riled up to increase ratings. That's not what Wikipedia is about. It's not about the Latest, what's new, what people are chattering about, who's Hot or Not. It's not about opinions, scoring political points, or pushing an agenda. The point you are trying to make has been made on this page many times. There's no need to add any more information. The more information you add, the more you undermine your cause, the more you turn people against you. I should add that Wikipedia can block people from posting if they make themselves a nuisance.

Vmavanti (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Vmavanti, I should add that Wikipedia can block people for being assholes. Smallbones has made exactly two edits to this talk page and one edit to this article. WTF are you griping about? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And I remind you that insults and personal attacks such as you have spit out in those two sentences are against the rules, too.

Vmavanti (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reminding somebody of the rules is not a personal attack.
 * Anyway, is that your way of acknowledging that you didn't have a point in the first place, or would you care to explain what you're carping about? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a personal attack: "I should add that Wikipedia can block people for being assholes". And so is the use of WTF. Do I owe you an explanation? Which word do you need help with?

Vmavanti (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * First, it isn't a personal attack to remind an editor of the rules. Second, surely you had a point when you started in with this crap. For the third time, what was it? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you read? Is English your native language? You have twice ignored my responses, you use profanity and point the finger without the least bit of self-awareness, and you don't seem to be able to understand my original posts. Therefore, what more should I say? I can't do your reading or your thinking for you. If there are specific parts from what I wrote that you don't understand, point them out. I don't have time to shoot the breeze.

Yo, jackass]. What are you braying about? Smallbones made two edits to this talk page and one edit to this article. Where do you get off describing them as a nuisance? — [[User:MShabazz|MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk)
 * Thanks for specifying, man. See how easy that was? And yet you still called me a braying jackass. How many insults is that now? Can you say something without insulting someone? Probably, but I haven't seen any proof. Now here I am, man enough to respond to a punk like you. When I say Wikipedia is not a newspaper, you understand that, right? Before Smallbones commented, this page was already full of comments about a subject that doesn't belong in this article. And yet every year, people on TV and elsewhere bring it up, and people come here to talk about it. Because...why? Because TV, like a spoiled child, is trying to get your attention. All kinds of sexy stuff can get attention, whether it's important or not. Maybe you didn't grow up with encyclopedias like I did. Sexy they are not. Provocative and controversial they are not. They are like that boring guy Joe Friday who said "just the facts". When someone adds a header called "third time's a charm", it means they have tried three times to persuade Wikipedia editors to talk about a subject inappropriate to this article and to encyclopedias. And yet that person persists. But it's not just three times. Smallbones could have read any of the preceding comments on this page. Or perhaps some of the rules of Wikipedia. But no. Something on TV gets reported. A person sees it and says "Hey, that's important! That should be on Wikipedia!" Well, no. That's not how Wikipedia works. I could point to the relevant places in the documentation, but I doubt that would work with you. I'm not going to talk to you anymore. Bye-ya. Vmavanti (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There. Was that so hard? Why did it take two days of drama for you to answer such a simple question? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Time out!!! Please let's stop talking about blocking and not useful and most certainly stop the personal attacks.  Sure, we should have something in "controversy" section, but it shouldn't dominate the page, and it should include multiple viewpoints.  I think it is entirely appropriate to list something about the current controversy, which I remember some from last year, and has certainly taken on new life making the front page of CNN, etc.  But it must be worded in a neutral manner.  Surely we can have a much more civil, intelligent conversation than this.  Please.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 03:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm done with this page. Current events isn't what Wikipedia is about. The more Wikipedia concentrates on opinions and current events, the more it becomes like newspapers, television, Facebook, and Twitter—the more useless it becomes. Adding to the sound and fury. I won't contribute to that. There's already enough of that poison in the air.
 * Vm, I'm sorry but you are mistaken. However it started, wikipedia is now mostly a bunch of twelve year olds waving their hands in the air shouting "Me ! Me ! Pick me !" The begging popups just add to the lovely ambiance. This place has become pitiful. 172.58.40.87 (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Title of section regarding lyrics "perception"/lyrics "controversy"/whatever it is
The title of this section keeps getting changed around. Can we try to get some sort of consensus as to what it should be titled, instead of edit warring? "Controversy" doesn't seem neutral/acceptable to some, and "perception" or related words doesn't seem neutral/acceptable to others. What should be the compromise? It is my view that, regardless of what the rest of the title of the section should be, it is necessary to include something about "21st century", since to omit that would imply that there was questioning of the lyrics to any substantial degree prior to the 21st century, which was simply not the case. Vontheri (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The section title doesn't have to express the fact that the controversy is recent. That can be expressed in the body of the section. I like the title: "Date-rape" controversy. Vzeebjtf (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Calling it "date rape controversy" is about as far away from neutral point of view as can be... That would be just as non-neutral as calling it something like "political correctness controversy" would be in the other direction. Vontheri (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence the scare quotes. Vzeebjtf (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What are scare quotes? What do you mean? Vontheri (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I originally added this item/section, and did not join in the ensuing discussion due to the vitriol seen. I have seen a lot of changes occur here since, including the complete elimination of the original quote and reference. It's a controversy: the controversy is due to perceived hints of a prelude to date-rape. I had added 21st century to the initial title ("Lyric controversy"), because the song was not controversial in a contemporary way and a radio station banned the song in this century "amid the #MeToo movement" (being the specific historic event that I had deemed worthy of inclusion: removal of the song "amid the #MeToo movement"). Sometimes, it's best to keep it simple, and can be better to just leave well enough alone. Unless one is sure their edits improves the article, why bother messing with what was researched and added by another? Subsequent, additional facts did appear, which is good (though it was at the expense of the original source, since restored).AHampton (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's totally ideal, but I suppose unless someone can think of a better title, then "21st century lyrics controversy" or something similar is the best option. I do think it is definitely necessary to have "21st century" in the title though.  What argument could there possibly be against having "21st century" in the title? Vontheri (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Scare quotes are the difference between  and <"Date rape" controversy>, which is what I suggested. The scare quotes amount to "so-called". Vzeebjtf (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Scare quotes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)