Talk:Monopoly (song)

PinkNews critique

 * 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.

Should accusations that Ariana is lying about her sexuality be included in the article? Does including them in the article, even when countered with a defence, violate WP:NEUTRAL (specifically WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID)? Fan4Life (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the following line:

"(Proposal significantly changed, see below)"

I added it in addition to a positive review to show negative reception. I do not agree with the piece. I believe it's hurtful and wrong. However, this opinion has been reported by others: Vice, Washington Post. She was also previously accused of queerbaiting for the "Break Up with Your Girlfriend, I'm Bored" music video, so "Monopoly" proves to be a turning point for the conversation; Ariana is now identifying as queer.

Pinging User:Fan4Life. Nice4What (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The article shouldn’t be included as it’s not reviewing the song and isn’t offering any sort of opinion or criticism, it’s accusing her of lying about her sexuality. Including it violates WP:NEUTRAL as it gives a personal attack equal validity with genuine opinions and valid criticism. As well as this, including these accusations, even with an article defending her, is saying that a person’s sexuality is up for debate, which is a very harmful message and is most certainly not being neutral. Fan4Life (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed the passage to read as such:
 * "The Washington Post, Broadly, and PinkNews reported that certain fans responded negatively to the song, accusing Grande of queerbaiting. Broadly writer Gabrielle Alexa criticized the accusations, stating "the act of speculating only perpetuates attitudes that contribute to the erasure of bisexual women. Grande doesn't have to date a girl in order to count as bisexual. And we shouldn't try to make her prove her sexuality anyways.""


 * Thoughts? Nice4What (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It still includes accusations that Ariana is lying about her sexuality so my previous points still stand. Regardless of how it's worded or how it's framed, including these accusations is saying that a person's sexuality is up for debate, which is unacceptable. Accusing a person of lying about their sexuality isn't an opinion and shouldn't be treated as such. Fan4Life (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Sent here by a bot for the RfC. Ultimately, the accusation has been made, and has been reported upon in reliable sources. In my opinion, given the high profile this has received, people will expect to see something about it here and it ought to be mentioned. --Killer Moff (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But it's not a legitimate accusation. How can it possibly be argued that we should include accusations that Ariana is lying about her sexuality? Doing so clearly violates WP:NEUTRAL as it is giving a personal attack equal validity with genuine opinions and valid criticism. The accusations aren't even being made by the journalists themselves, they're being made by internet trolls, the sources cited are just reporting on them. Including attacks from internet trolls and treating them as genuine opinions on the same level as professional reviews is unacceptable and a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Fan4Life (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support for a brief mention such as "Some (named?) papers reported that some fans responded negatively to the song, accusing Grande of queerbaiting. The original text above (In a critical piece, LGBT online newspaper PinkNews accused Grande of queerbaiting) is simply factually inaccurate, the Pink News piece (and the others I read, including one in The Independent used in the linked article) simply report that some fans have reacted negatively, while others supported AG's stance, still others thought her sexuality was her own business. 'Queerbaiting' (which is not a term I was familiar with), as I understand it is consciously 'teasing' an audience in order to expand one's fan base - such an assessment is inherently subjective, since it makes a judgement on the motives of the performer. Being ambiguous about sexuality in a creative work is at least as old as Shakespeare and the idea that a creator is 'lying', only makes sense if one thinks that every creator/performer is, or even should be, being honestly autobiographical in everything they create/perform. Not an idea that would stand much examination. The response from some fans however appears to be widely reported - therefore a brief neutral mention might be apt. Pincrete (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ariana has said that she doesn't label herself, which confirms the lyric is true. Not labelling herself isn't being ambiguous, it's just refusing to use a label she isn't comfortable with. She would being ambiguous if she hadn't have addressed the lyric and the speculation around it, in that situation it would probably be legitimate to accuse her of queerbaiting, but in revealing that she doesn't label herself she's confirmed she isn't straight, so accusing her of queerbaiting is accusing her of lying about her sexuality. Also, the accusations are from internet trolls, the critical reception section is for reviews from professional critics, including even just a brief mention of the accusations violates WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID. As well as this, there's no reason for any article which offers no opinion or critique on the song itself to be included in the critical reception section. Fan4Life (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The original proposal has long time been changed, decided to strike it out. I suggest you see what's been proposed further down or what's currently included in the article. Nice4What (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the accusations in. They were included in a reliable source, stop going around Ariana articles trying to get negative media attention removed.—NØ 10:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If the accusations are going to be included then there needs to be positive reviews added to make the section reflective of the general reception to the song, which was largely positive, and avoid giving the accusations undue weight. Fan4Life (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok? Then add more positive reviews if that's what you seek. I was the one who originally added the queerbaiting portion but have since added positive reviews from NME and Vulture. Nice4What (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't include, or only brief mention. I mean, if all we have is journalists reporting what Internet trolls have been saying, I'm not at all sure we should repeat the same mistake. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Killer Moff and Pincrete. I think it would be favorable if this point had more and better sources, but the accusations are notable enough for a small mention. —&#8288; 烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 05:38, 03 May 2019 (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.

Songwriters order
Pinging

Let's decide on the correct order for the songwriters. I use Tidal, which typically lists the songwriters in a reversed sorts of order, but it's easy to understand. I had added the songwriters as:


 * Order A: Victoria Monét · Tim Suby · Michael Foster · Charles Anderson · Ariana Grande

I defend this ordering as Monét is the primary songwriter, apparent in her official breakdown of the lyrics. Following her name is Suby, the main producer, followed by Social House co-producers Foster and Anderson. Grande is listed last, but I want to note this isn't unusual as this was also the case for "Imagine".

User Fan4Life adapted the credits from Spotify, and had the songwriters listed in this order:


 * Order B: Ariana Grande · Charles Anderson · Michael Foster · Tim Suby · Victoria Monét

In my opinion, I believe Spotify must have the order in reverse. I wanted to reach a consensus to avoid edit warring on this article again! Thank you. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 00:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a source that has the credits in order A? If not then we have to go with order B as that is sourced. Fan4Life (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support order B as that's the way Tidal gives it, and Tidal is usually consistent with credits in album booklets. It also happens to be in alphabetical order.--NØ 18:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alphabetical =/= Correct songwriter order. Tidal also has the songwriting credits for "Old Town Road" listed alphabetically, but anyone who visits that article could tell the correct order has Montero Hill listed first. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 23:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I've found that Apple Music doesn't have songwriters in alphabetical order, so it may be the most "correct" order we can get. This is their order:
 * Apple Music: Ariana Grande · Victoria Monét · Tim Suby · Charles Anderson · Michael Foster

This may be the order that makes most sense. Lead artists first, followed by the track's producer and co-producers. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * With no response in over a month, I'm going to be bold and go ahead. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 01:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Background citation
"Monét and Grande decided to make a song titled "Monopoly", finding it funny since Monét dislikes the board game and declines to play whenever Grande asks." There is a Genius verified commentary confirming this statement from Victoria Monét, could that be used as a citation?

Sluggor (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it can, as Monét is the one who is saying that. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 18:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)