Talk:Consideration (song)

Critical reception at top?
The critical reception at the top was taken away, but it needs to be reverted, since it was a simple and clear sum up about what critics thought about the song. Even the information if the song received positive reviews or not was taken, but it's necessary to be added so the readers who reads the top of the article have an idea about what they're going to read. Plus, what was said at the top was simply what most critics thought about it, and although it wasn't every single critic, it was a sum up, as it appears in every stand out (or at least good enough) article on Wikipedia. It is necessary to have a sum up about the critical reception at the top, it's a common thing, and that was what the article had. FanofPopMusic (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Another user, removed it as WP:SYN. I agree it was synthesis.
 * The removed section stated, "The song received mainly positive reviews from music critics, with many praising SZA's appearance and the pairing between both artists, with praising going also towards its lyrical content." This statement is a novel combination of material from multiple sources. Hints here are "mainly", "positive", "many" and "praising". How many is "mainly", or is it weighted to take into account the critic who thought it was the best song in the world and the one who thought it was merely ok? Who decides which reviews were "positive"? How many is "many"? How good did someone have to say it was to push their review into the "praising" category?
 * Wikipedia editors, using criteria that varied from one editor the another, selected some of the reviews that exist. They then selected bits and pieces of those reviews to add to the article. Then another editor took a look at the bits and pieces of this assortment of reviews and decided which were positive, neutral and negative and decided that, on balance, they were "mainly positive". The bits and pieces selected by whoever were then sorted by someone who thought there were trends in what this random group of pieces from a random group of reviewers said. This is synthesis on steroids: Combining material from more than one source to say things not directly stated by any one source. Check a movie poster from a film you are certain most reviewers hated with a white hot passion. The poster will include quotes from reviews that make it sound like the best film since Citizen Kane. While the synthesis was likely well intended, it is not verifiable. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As stated on MOS:INTRO, The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is "a summary of its most important contents." On WP:LEADCITE, per Wikipedia rules, the sources are not obligatory on the lead section. Therefore, after reading the reception part again, on the lead section is better to summarize that "Music critics gave the song favorable reviews, praising its production and the introductory aspect of the song". Agreed? FanofPopMusic (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are citing guidelines, one of which makes quite clear, "The lead must conform to verifiability..." Verifiability is a core policy. Part of that is WP:SYN. We cannot use a guideline to override a core policy. We cannot combine statements from multiple sources to say something that none of the sources say individually. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead section does not require a source to confirm what's there, because it summarizes the most important points (which are sourced) covered in an article. This is not combining sources, this is summarizing to help readers to feel interested on the article, it's not wrong, I gave Wikipedia's point of view of the lead-section and the rules, and you showed a WP:SYN which doesn't say "MUSIC ARTICLES SHOULDN'T HAVE CRITICAL RECEPTION AT THE LEAD SECTION", I got it that we can't assume without sources during the reception section, but during the lead section, which is a "sum up" of the sourced article, Wikipedia has not said that at all. I'm not combining and making this up, the lead-section is simply a sum up of the most important parts, and Wikipedia has not said anything about that; it's simple, I gave a source to you about the lead-section, but you didn't provide a specific source or rule about "prohibition to put critical reception on the lead-sections", since it's a merely sum up of the most important parts of an article. I just gave a neutral option which is "Music critics gave the song favorable reviews, praising its production and the introductory aspect of the song", which is already sourced, so why can't we just move on from this discussion? FanofPopMusic (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "The lead must conform to verifiability..." Verifiability? In part: "Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy." - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for the part where it says that is not allowed to add critical reception at the lead-section, which Wikipedia itself confirms that is not a rule to add a reference to confirm what's already on the article, since the lead-section is just a sum up. There's no prohibition about that, because the lead-section is noting more than a sum up, therefore it's not that we are combining from multiple sources, it's a sum up of what's on the article, it's not inferring something new and without sources, since what we are summing up is already on the article. FanofPopMusic (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "The lead must conform to verifiability..." Verifiability? In part: "Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy." If you have a reliable source that says "Critics said this song is the most bestest song in the whole entire history of the world since the beginning of time ever", you can add that. If you have MULTIPLE sources that you feel say that when COMBINED, do not add that, it is not verifiable. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If the lead section is a summary of the most important parts of an article, the critical reception can’t be exempt. To say that the song was favorably reviewed is to sum up what the critics said, adjectives such as highlight, wonderful (these are just examples) means positivity in any connotation. Saying that some praised the pairing is to sum up what Pitchfork, Idolator, Slant and Vibe had already claimed in the article and bringing to the lead section, which has the intention of sum up the most important parts of it. Saying that is not making up or implying, it is doing what a good lead section requires, which is absorbing the most important parts and adding into the lead section. At least it should say, "the song received favorable reviews from magazines such as Billboard, Slant, Pitchfork," rather than not saying anything about the critical reception part, and it is not necessary to add sources into the lead-section, since it's a sum up of what's already there. FanofPopMusic (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "The lead must conform to verifiability..." "Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy." You do not have a source that clearly and directly says what you want to say. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm having a hard time understanding this RfC since the requesting editor didn't follow the RfC guidelines which say "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue.", can you please edit the prompt to include the exact text you want to include in the article, and then in a neutral fashion phrase a question as to whether it should be included? However, from what I have read, I would be concerned about including a "summary" of reviews in the introduction if no source states that summary, as that can be considered original research. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Critical reception in the lead-section

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In a more impartial point of view, do you agree to include the statement "Critics favored the inclusion of SZA and the song's introductory atmosphere" on the lead section? Best regards, FanofPopMusic (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for this statement, or is this another statement created by combining material from multiple sources? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why these good articles, Drink You Away and Lips Are Movin, that are checked regularly, has the critical reception in the lead-section and that's okay. FanofPopMusic (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Those articles are not this article.
 * 2) The assumption that a "good article" is perfect and should be emulated in every way is baseless.
 * 3) The material you wish to add to this article at this time is in direct conflict with one of our core policies. As explained to you repeatedly, if you feel there should be an exception to this policy for this type of material, you will need to establish a project-wide consensus. Discussion on two article talk pages will no suffice. If you still feel that combining material from multiple sources to state something that none of the sources say directly is not WP:SYN you are mistaken. If you somehow still feel that WP:SYN does not apply to the lead, you are mistaken. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So the rules do not apply to every article, interesting... Saying that the song received positive reviews from music critics in an article is okay, but not in this one, guess the rules are not applied to every article, that's why it doesn't make sense, because they are "implying" (in your words) the same thing as in this article. FanofPopMusic (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I said no such thing. I am saying that our core policies apply to this article. Pointing at other stuff that you feel is similar does not change that fact. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Not without a source You would need to provide suitable references and citations for that, including who these "critics" are along with text that shows that they aren't just people expressing opinions but actual critics who have legitimate jobs publishing commentary. Damotclese (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They are already on the critical reception part (the critics and the sources). The lead-section is a summary of an entire article, and this statement is what the critics claimed during the reception section. FanofPopMusic (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You've argued this before. WP:NOR (of which WP:SYN is a part) applies to the lead as well. If you would like to point to the guidelines you cited before to support this idea, I can again point to the section of that very guideline that makes this clear. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing is said by the lead-section in the WP:NOR or WP:SYN, it's not a rule, because the lead-section doesn't require sources, since it's simply a sum up. However, I was normally discussing with another user, so we can debate, we have discussed it already, it's not necessary to repeat. Let other users discuss as well so we can reach an agreement, because it's not fair that selected articles (many of them edited by me) do not have reception part on the lead-section, but others who claim the same thing do. FanofPopMusic (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR (of which WP:SYN is a part) applies to every part of the article. "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." It is a policy (a.k.a. "rule"). In fact, it is one of the five fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Heck, you previously pointed to WP:LEADCITE which says, "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't include Seems clear to me that not all critics believe this, so it's not quite accurate. For example, Chris Gerard at Popmatters called the song "a pedestrian mid-tempo groove with no real spark." FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is just one critic out of 14 that were positive (it's just like Metacritic with an album that receives 13 positive reviews and just one mixed/negative). FanofPopMusic (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But I'm not seeing 14 critics favoring "the inclusion of SZA and the song's introductory atmosphere" either. Some reviewers liked the song (not all for the reason you describe), others don't even think it significant enough to comment on, others don't like it. I'm just not sure the statement you want to include is accurate, from what I've seen. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't Include I agree with FanofPopMusic - critics go both ways on the subject, making it difficult to justify including it. Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 18:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't include - Summoned by bot. Keep out of the lead per WP:SYNTH. If consensus is to include in the lead, in-text attribution to the critic must be noted. Meatsgains (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned references in Consideration (song)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Consideration (song)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BPI": From SZA discography:  From Rihanna discography:  From Music of the Sun:  From List of music recording certifications:  From Talk That Talk:  From Take a Bow (Rihanna song):  <li>From British Phonographic Industry: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)