Talk:Speaking Moistly

Scope of the article, and main focus
If this article survives the deletion nomination, I think there needs to be a discussion of its scope and what its main focus is. Is this an article about the event (what Trudeau said) and the reaction to it (including the song)? Or is it an article just about the song? I note this content was just removed from the article:

The reason for the removal seems to be the view that the article is just about the song, and the merchandise sales were not related to "the song". I think some discussion about the scope and focus of the article would be quite helpful.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The article lead states ""Speaking Moistly" is a remix song" and the infobox is about the song. If it were about the phrase, the lead and infobox would be totally different. I think the intent is about the song, otherwise this needs an entire overhaul to be about the phrase. --Kbabej (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am clear that the article is written that way now. I am just not sure it should be.  The original notable thing was Trudeau saying it, not the song.  Then from that there was a lot of coverage, followed by reactions like "this song" and others which are either "covers" or stand along songs based on Trudeau's words, not "this" remix of them, and then t-shirts, a lip balm, and a beer (seemly unrelated to "this song"), and then coverage of those reactions (songs, "covers" and merchandise).  In the scheme of things, this one remix seems to be a small part of that story and not to be more notable than the rest.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. I think the song has gotten far more coverage than, say, the lip balm. There are 13 sources about the song so far. Could you say the same for the lip balm? I think this article makes more sense as an article about the song, not about the phrase in general. --Kbabej (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you really read the above as me saying the lip balm got more coverage? I am saying that Trudeau saying "speaking moistly" on its own, got coverage before the remix existed (ie coverage not about the remix). Then the remix got coverage, and some of that coverage seems to be about "covers" which I am not sure can be said to be "covers" of the remix as opposed to other people making songs about Trudeau's choice of words.  For example, this coverage discusses the many other songs inspired by Trudeau's words.  I am not sure it is fair to say these are simply "covers" of the remix, perhaps they are, perhaps not.  And you yourself said the merch, was not related to the remix.  But that is a relevant reaction to Trudeau's "speaking moistly" comments.  Why should the article space "Speaking Moistly" as opposed to Trudeau's own words which received coverage on their own and the multiple reactions to them including but not exclusively the remix.  It's not that different that an article like Shawinigan Handshake including the reaction (ie a Beer named after it, among others).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, luckily we go by RS as to what's a cover, not your interpretation to try and make a convoluted point. --Kbabej (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the snark. The reality is that folks, Trudeau included, noted the awkwardness of the "speaking moistly" comment before the remix was made. I see your comment there, I am going to try not to have the conversation in multiple places as much as possible.  Yes, there are a ton of articles which are not "about the remix".
 * Trudeau's comments, without mention of the remix:, , , , , , , , , , ,
 * Other songs/videos: kids video about "moist breath zone", Fake Heritage Minute, Hair Flip video, Ska Band's Ode To 'Speaking Moistly', Stratford actors 'speak moistly' video
 * Lip Balm:
 * Beer:
 * Masks:
 * T-Shirts
 * Weather:
 * Memes:
 * Obviously, not an exhaustive list. You might "want" to make this all about the one song, but the reality is that the remix was just one more reaction to Trudeau's words, admittedly one that got a lot of attention, but one of many.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You started the exact same conversation that was already occurring on the AfD, so I'm confused as to how you aren't "going to try not to have the conversation in multiple places as much as possible." That aside, I think you need to WP:AGF with other editors rather than linking nonsense like this when editors are trying to have a constructive conversation. Clutching your pearls after linking to a "disruptive editing" page? Come on. --Kbabej (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right. I should have given you more benefit of the doubt there. I have unlinked that, and striked out another comment I should not have made.  I responded harshly to what I saw as a straw man about the relative sources for lip balm, but which I should have taken as a general comment about "other aspects" of the story.  I will wait for others to sound off on what the scope of this article should be.  I am not interested in creating a Speaking Moistly article about the event, arguing about which should have the title this page has now, or having a move discussion about moving this article to Speaking Moistly (song), or having a merge discussion about merging the event page and song page, or having a second deletion discussion.  All of that seems a long and some might say gamey way of going about it.  I think we should just discuss the scope here first.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Scheer, statement about the PMs comments or the song?
Just pointing out again that this sort of stuff, raises valid questions whether this is about the song or the PMs comments and reactions generally. Scheer's comments came a week after the PM's and six days after the song was "released", so is that background about the song? A reaction to the song? Or something else? And if it is not a reaction to the song, does it belong in this article if the scope is not expanded?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote it in the section "Original speech," as he was actually using the phrase in his speech for its actual meaning, not to refer to the song. Félix An (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. It could have been only because the PM used it, or because all of the reaction (or the song itself).  I'll admit I didn't watch the entire 31 min video, but I didn't hear specific reference to either the song or the PMs use of the term.  Scheer just says "...we weren't speaking moistly...".  I note the HuffPost piece seems to assume it was a reference to the PM... but I don't think they considered whether Scheer was listening to "Speaking Moistly" in the days leading up to that press conference.  Frankly, I am just being a little cheeky about whether one can draw firm lines around this phenomenon, at least after Trudeau uttered those  awkward words. Internet culture is a messy, strange thing.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)