Talk:Ulterior Motives (song)

Lost song
This song appeared on WatZatSong in 2021 by a user named carl92 asking for help in identifying the snippet he posted. Using Shazam, it listed the artist as being SNVFFXXX, but I have reason to believe this is likely a placeholder, and not the actual band behind it (and if it were, the mystery surrounding this song would be over by now, lol). The year is also up for debate. Rolling Stone and several users describe this song as having a 1980s sound. Rolling Stone described it as being reminiscent of the upbeat, new wave music from the 1980s while the song's usage of synthesizers also lend it a synth-pop vibe. Despite the sound, it could have been recorded after the 1980s; someone suggested this could have come from a 1990s MTV broadcast. It also has a sound that could be from late-2000's to early-2010s synthwave music. It also sounds like something The Weeknd could have recorded a la Blinding Lights as well. Lots of mystery surrounding this song! Moline1 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Darren Hayes
Darren Hayes, best remembered as the vocalist of Savage Garden, may in fact, have been behind this song all along. Yesterday, he posted a cryptic tweet simply saying "Everyone Knows That", adding fuel to the rumor that he is behind it. Is a full reveal imminent? Who knows. Here's the tweet. https://twitter.com/darrenhayes/status/1725697367461216265 Moline1 (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * well that lead is incorrect Kierandude (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Notability?
Currently, I'm concerned it might be WP:TOOSOON for an article on this subject; how many reliable sources can be found on this particular song besides the Rolling Stone article? There's also this article from The Messenger that seems to largely parrot what Rolling Stone said. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 00:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Apparently, there is now coverage from a French TV channel, TF1. I withdraw my comment. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 02:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Brainulator9 Should we take the template off the page then? Pineappman (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pineappman I didn't put it there, but you're welcome to, I guess. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 01:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Brainulator9 Fair enough, I'll take it down. Pineappman (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Promotional Gimmick
One theory is this song is a promotional gimmick for either the site it was posted on or the artist who posted it. It would be in bad taste to have an article created for a non notable artist due only to the search. It would accomplish the goal set out by the one who created the search, which is fame by hoax. Until it’s found, it’s really not worth a dedicated page. Particularly until the artist can be ruled out as anybody but the person who originally posted it. 2601:407:100:B0B0:3531:96A7:BABE:A7D5 (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The intentions of the subject do not affect notability in the slightest. It's hardly in bad taste to have an article on something notable, regardless of its actual origins. If the song is notable then it's notable. If it's not, it's not. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

New Coverage
Newser

The Guardian

KNAU (NPR)

UNILAD

Audacy

Dazed Digital Microplastic Consumer (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how I feel about a couple of those sources but it may have WP:SIGCOV now, especially with the Guardian article. Though I'm not sure how one would go about reversing the AfD decision; we couldn't just remove the tag and act like it didn't happen, could we? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is also being discussed on the Lostwave talkpage. I do think we should probably reverse the AfD decision somehow though. Pineappman (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Headings
These headings are quite confusing. Why is there a separate section for the instruments used? Why is the history of the song and the search for the song separate? Pineappman (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good question. I agree that all these separate sections do seem a bit redundant; the information about the subreddit is repeated in the history and online search sections. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Complete Speculation
This article looks awful and beneath Wikipedia standards.

It’s loaded with “maybe, “possible” and “unknown” qualifiers. Guessing on the instruments, how and where it was recorded, etc etc.

It feels more like it’s trying to draw attention to the search for the song than it is to actually inform people about the song.

Since the song itself is unknown, it’: impossible to accurately represent it and since it cannot be accurately explained, it doesn’t belong here.

Until the song is found, it’s better to move the article to a page about lostwave. 2601:407:100:B0B0:2574:E009:CE68:29E3 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not unencyclopedic to say that there is speculation about something or that some people think something, as long as you phrase it in a neutral tone that makes it clear that it is not proven and give due weight. The speculation of the instruments used, for example, is backed up by The Guardian, a reliable source. A subject does not need to have all the facts known for it to be notable. I will agree, however, that there may be some problems with the layout of the article, as per above. I suppose you could propose a merger or nominate for AfD if you want, but it has already gone through AfD once. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2024
My edit rewords and provides concrete sources now that EKT has been found! Rosia4309 (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.reddit.com/r/everyoneknowsthat/comments/1cf7fxd/ekt_is_found_heavy_nsfw_warning/ <---Reddit Link with context, and full (not even remotely safe for work) audio. 2601:85:C202:45A0:2059:6BB7:1885:3BCD (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reddit is not a reliable source, and a post claiming to have found the song is WP:PRIMARY. Such a claim requires a secondary reliable source, like a newspaper article reporting on the discovery of the song, to verify. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I look forward to a newspaper article reporting that an obscure piece of lost media was found in a 1980s porno. Given that there is a link to the audio in the thread, could that at least be added somewhere since this mystery has been solved? 2601:85:C202:45A0:2059:6BB7:1885:3BCD (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that The Guardian already reported on the mystery, it doesn't seem unlikely that a paper might report on it being solved. And if it's not noteworthy enough to report on, then it brings into question the notability of this article. As for adding the audio, no. The snippet of the song was already deleted for copyright reasons. It's possible a snippet could be uploaded locally to enwiki under fair use, but certainly not the whole song. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Should we upload the snippet under fair use in enwiki then? I think it's relevant enough for the article to include at least a clearly visible external link to the audio, and the snippet being on Wikipedia doesn't really harm any potential commercial or similar interests for the artist (who Reddit claims to have contacted without an answer). Tidjani Saleh (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion on it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the snippet is fine for fair use Zanahary (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the Australian magazine The Music has reported on it here. I'd expect more sources to follow. reppop talk 02:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the porn itself and can confirm it is in fact from it. Brandon44401 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikiedpia, when clickbait propaganda outlet are considered reliable and the actual primary source directly observable is not. 2A01:4B00:BB07:B300:F6FD:E506:4D02:C1FA (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @2A01:4B00:BB07:B300:F6FD:E506:4D02:C1FA Yeah I don't entirely understand how the video itself isn't a source as is, although the idea is that if more than one source talk about something, then it's notable enough to be added XanderK09 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:RELIABLESOURCES. A film existing is not the "most reliable source", you'd need a news article talking about how it was found. reppop talk 22:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * exactly. Brandon44401 (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia mods moment 2603:7000:DC3C:E3BD:7837:6940:6797:B148 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * most searched for lost song and it was just nsfw LOL XanderK09 (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

HAS BEEN FOUND
youtu.be/7wNICH3rQLE Powerdollkirby (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * apparently they need "more reliable sources" Brandon44401 (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * man, the adult site the film was posted on is the most reliable source we have. Is that what they want? Trust me we're trying to find the VHS tape. :( Nondreamer (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Repeating what I said above, see WP:RELIABLESOURCES. A film existing is not the "most reliable source", you'd need a news article talking about how it was found. Just wait until some news websites eventually pick up that it's been found and that the hunt is over. reppop talk 23:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * not true Brandon44401 (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Not true" okay then. Believe whatever you want to believe. reppop talk 02:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I will, good luck with the fact if anything new happens you can't update until a news article is made. :) Brandon44401 (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And what's wrong with that? Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not speculation. This isn't Reddit. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is all a moot point now that there are news articles about it, but for the record, this isn't true. Per MOS:FICTIONPLOT, when discussing the plot/contents of a work of fiction, and not doing any analysis/interpretation, the original work itself is considered to be a reliable source. In this case, the claim is just "song X appears in film Y," so the idea that the film itself isn't a source for that would be ridiculous. Crystalholm (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I wonder why noone contacted one of the two Booth brothers in 2023 after they had been discovered as authors in the SOCAN database?

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2024
add section explaining how the song Ulterior motives was found 4/28/2024 in a pornographic movie titled Angels of Passion. https://www.reddit.com/r/everyoneknowsthat/comments/1cf7fxd/ekt_is_found_heavy_nsfw_warning/ Karoffla (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2024 (2)
everyone knows that has been found. it’s by david booth. 134.228.80.201 (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  (talk | contribs) 00:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Content Area Literacy
— Assignment last updated by Twik01 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2024 (4)
"Everyone Knows That" is no long considered lost media as of April 28, 2024, when Reddit user u/south_pole_ball discovered its use in the 1986 adult film Angels of Passion. Islabb (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: This seems to be legit, but we'll have to wait until reliable sources report on it. I expect there will be a dozen or so to choose from by tomorrow. 〜 Askarion   ✉  01:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * you were right cause google 'ulterior motives' and it's EVERYWHERE XanderK09 (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Everyone Knows It
The official lyrics were released by the artist. It’s ‘Everyone knows it’, not ‘Everyone knows that’ 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:C1CC:6AEC:3FF0:5232 (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Now back in the article. Some disruptive IP removed that info --FMSky (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW (closed by non-admin page mover) Queen of Hearts  ( talk ) 23:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Ulterior Motives (song) → Everyone Knows That – This article should be moved to its name used by most people per WP:COMMONNAME. Cobblebricks (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose The common name policy is based on the title's appearance in reliable sources, not what most people (or most people on TikTok) call it. Now that it is identified reliable sources are almost exclusively referring to it by its title, Ulterior Motives. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cambial Yellowing Most reliable sources are referring to it as "Everyone Knows That" in their titles, such as The Guardian Cobblebricks (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The various sources that reported on the "mystery" before identification used that name. Now sources are using Ulterior Motives: e.g. The A.V. Club; The Independent; The Music [AU]; The Fader. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * we should move it to be EKT, because, it's way better to be identified, U.M. is *another song*, it's not EKT, they only sound similar, they are NOT the SAME song Anora 496 (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Anora 496 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Everyone Knows That is already a redirect to this article, so changing the name would not make the article more easily findable, if I’m following your argument. ForsythiaJo (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * so u think it makes it harder? Anora 496 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Cambial Yellowing. The redirects should be enough to point confused searchers in the right direction. 〜 Askarion   ✉  17:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per reasoning above. I'd also note that Everyone Knows That (EKT) isn't even the correct lyric, as after the song's discovery it's been revealed that the actual lyric is Everyone Knows It. I know EKT was the more common name prior to the song's discovery, but like I just said that isn't even a lyric in the song, and in most reliable sources and afaik on most online forums/outlets since the discovery the song has most commonly been called Ulterior Motives (it's actual name). Therefore, I'd argue WP:COMMONNAME would actually give credence to maintaining the current article title, hence my opposition.ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose The song's name is Ulterior Motives, and Everyone Knows That isn't a part of the actual lyrics. XanderK09 (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is my perspective: a name should not be altered solely based on its colloquial usage. For instance, we wouldn't rename the official Wikipedia article for SpongeBob SquarePants to simply "SpongeBob" because that's how most people refer to it. That's not how naming conventions work. Additionally, it's important to consider that redirects exist. Additionally, whenever someone searches for "Everyone Knows That" on Wikipedia, they will be automatically redirected to this page. The same principle applies to search engines like Google and Yahoo!, which pick up keywords from the article, ensuring that the Wikipedia page for "Ulterior Motives" remains accessible. There are numerous reasons why changing this page to "Everyone Knows That" would not be appropriate. Bennett1203 (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per other editors. Ulterior Motives is the correct name. HappyWith (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others. Skyshifter   talk  11:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per others. It wouldn't do much for navigational purposes and I think WP:COMMONNAME still applies to the title "Ulterior Motives". And I don't think I've ever seen a song article where the article title is the most popular lyric, rather than the song's actual title. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others. The name Everyone Knows That was merely a placeholder name, rather than an official title. Ulterior Motives is the song's official name and is most appropriate to use as a title for the article. --Jamesandedward7 (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others. Everyone Knows That was the placeholder name I chose for this article before anybody knew it was actually titled Ulterior Motives, and that the lyric is Everyone Knows It. Wikipedia goes by the official title and not fan-made titles (although exceptions do exist for lostwave songs in which the title is not currently known). Moline1 (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per other editors. "Ulterior Motives" is the name of the actual song, and the Everyone Knows That redirect will make sure that searchers end up in the right place.  Supreme Lord Bagel  (talk to me) 08:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose  The official title is "Ulterior Motives" and has been confirmed as such since being officially identified. The suggested page name was only ever the fan-given placeholder name while the search was underway. In addition, the lyrics don't even mention "everyone knows that" as it is instead "everyone knows it". The proposed title is a redirect anyway and works better as such. Mechanical Elephant (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Per the previous votes; the song's actual title is "Ulterior Motives" per the database.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 20:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: At this point I think it's clear that the title should be Ulterior Motives, and everyone knows that. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC) I apologise. I'll get my coat. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 20:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice one. Anyway, this should be WP:SNOW closed by now. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A revert back to might be more palatable, at least to me, but I'd also consider the spirit of WP:NAMECHANGES to apply here. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 22:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose not the correct title and not a real lyric in the song, it can be kept as a redirect but not as the title of the article. -Sebbog13 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The 17 second clip
I feel the article omits an interesting fact about the 17 second clip that user carl92 uploaded to WatZatSong: the actors moan throughout the sex scene while the song is playing, except for a single stretch of 17 seconds, and that was the 17 seconds that carl92 uploaded. Vynbos (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * We can add that if reliable sources cover it. Skyshifter   talk  14:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Higher Quality releases
Surprisingly enough, people have uploaded higher quality versions of the song without the sex noises on YouTube! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX0Q5D2G8m0 here's one of them. SGM1066 (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)