Talk:WAP (song)/Archive 1

3x or 7x Platinum cert. by RIAA?
WAP is sold over 7 million copies (RIAA algorithm) now, but not certified yet, so please check the offical website and edit later. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang   (talk)  03:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination
this article is incredibly biased towards a liberal persepective — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.70.26 (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Politics
need a mod to clean up the liberal bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.70.26 (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Edited the criticism section, so that conservative voices are represented more fairly. All responses to criticism should be relegated to the "responses to criticism" section.2601:483:1:4680:9DB3:3C95:D748:B817 (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Reactions from conservative figures vs. Criticism
The "Reactions from conservative figures" section is meant to outline backlash that the song received from prominent conservative pundits and politicians as opposed to general criticism of the song from critics (which would go in "Critical reception") or other celebrities (which would go in "Other responses"). The reason for this section is that much of the controversy surrounding WAP is directly tied to unfavorable responses from these conservative figures, which have become a focal point in many discussions regarding the song itself as illustrated by the numerous responses to these reactions referenced in the article. By not including these extra responses, the article fails to emphasize why these initial reactions are notable in the first place. The reason that these responses to conservative reactions are cited as being mostly negative in the article is because the referenced sources show that, on social media and in numerous publications, they mostly have been. If you can find more enthusiastic reactions towards the conservative responses, feel free to include them. Benmite (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I saw fit to change the title from "Criticism" to "Controversy."2601:483:1:4680:9DB3:3C95:D748:B817 (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Some of the articles cited in response to conservative criticisms are fake news. The one claiming that Megan Thee Stallion had a "strong father figure" are unsubstantiated. Megan Thee Stallion's article here suggests that she was raised almost entirely by her mother. There is no evidence that Megan Thee Stallion was raised with a "strong father figure."2601:483:1:4680:9DB3:3C95:D748:B817 (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The content is suitably sourced from the LA Times; you're personal assessment of "fake news" doesn't have any bearing here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Clean version of the song name
In the lead section it states that the "clean" version is "Wet and gushy", backed up with two sources. In neither of those sources is it confirmed however that this is the clean version; the second source doesn't reference it at all, and the first source is an opinion piece in which the author writes - without any primary sourcing - that the clean title is "wet and gushy":


 * I put my headphones in and hit “play,” prepared to watch them nail that “wet-ass pussy” chorus in their fantasy palace of butt statues and snakes. I was prepped! Imagine my surprise, then, when the chorus I heard over and over, the supposedly “clean” version they’d recorded for radio and for the music video, was actually so much dirtier than “wet-ass pussy.” Because in the clean version, it’s not “wet-ass pussy.” It’s “wet and gushy.”

However, in this article which actually cites Cardi B, it quotes her as saying:


 * 'I told my label that I was ready to put out a song... When they heard the song they were like, "We really like it, but that song is so explicit. And I guess they were asking around because even with YouTube we couldn't use the explicit version. We had to use "wet and Gucci" to keep it PG-13.'

The article should therefore be updated to have the clean version as "wet and Gucci" instead, given it's come direct from the "singer" rather than from someone who's writing about their own perception of the song based on what they've heard. 147.147.164.29 (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Another point: why does "wet and gushy" need to be explained in the lead sentence? The first phrase of the article is describing the song's title: "WAP." That title doesn't change with the censored version(s); it's still "WAP" -- not "WAG" or anything else. Is the explanation of "wet and gushy" needed in the lead? 68.23.219.163 (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Screenshot of Album Does not meet 'the minimal usage criterion' found above the rule WP:IMAGERES and is controversial with explicit content
On 12, August 2020 a certain user posted a screenshot of the most controversial moment in the album that has also gotten response as a controversial explicit video to begin with. The photo does not follow the principle of least shock as outlined in MOS:SHOCK. The principle I am outlining is plain and simple. The first half of the photo deliberately is explicit content that is reflected onto the mirror even though the editor might think the user is discreet by showing covering up. With the resolution set, I can clearly see nudity in the mirror. This is a violation of non neutral material in wikipedia that has violated the principles of WP:SUBNOT. The album poster is sufficient and by posting the screenshot of a barely 5 minute clip is promoting the album cover.

So I request the community's general consensus on this issue. I am of the opinion that the admins kindly delete that screenshot and wait for a live concert photo as all other album editors do. There are precedents standards set by the album wikiproject. Otherwise wikipedia will become a repository of nonneutral material. Albums shall not contain screenshots of their videos. It is okay to add their live concerts, but not the video! Example - Led Zeppelin (album) and Trans-Europe Express (album). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7curator78 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: For starters, "WAP" isn't an album, it's a single, so that argument doesn't hold up. Second of all, MOS:SHOCK only applies to images used in the lead, which, in this case, consists solely of the single cover, and even in the MOS, it's explained that images may be found later in the article that are particularly shocking, which is okay as long as they're not included in the lead. Also, I'd argue that those screenshots aren't more "shocking" than they would be had they been taken from other parts of the video since, as we've seen, public outcry over the video's content hasn't been specific to those two scenes, but towards the video as a whole. Even the rationale that the images are "too shocking" to be considered neutral is flawed since there are plenty of song articles with screenshots that intentionally include controversial material from their music videos to illustrate why controversy arose in the first place (see: Closer (Nine Inch Nails song), Like a Prayer) and I wouldn't even classify this as one of those cases. Benmite (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong delete : Thank you for the comment. However, I disagree because the two music videos you posted does not feature real nudity for the pictures past the lead. For the latter, it is simply a picture. We are focusing on the photos past the lead poster. Furthermore, all the citations linked never featured that specific photo for their articles. The articles explained the controversial by using a least principle shock screenshot of the video which is women in clothing because all the articles in question followed the principle of least shock and believed they have a stake for the viewers. Thanks for the articles and looking by the history of all the albums in Wikipedia I think this article officially is Wikipedia's first insertion of complete nudity screenshot of an album in Wikipedia's history. Therefore, it is imperative that the Wikipedia community has a say in this new precedent.


 * There is one in an article called Press. However, the editor who is the same editor as this article's screenshot lowered the resolution of nudity or chose a least shock principle screenshot. I might also add, that a majority of users enliven their articles via other article's images and media. Nowhere in the internet, is this specific screenshot publicized in a main article. It is simply the author's own snipping of a Youtube video with a claim that the copyright of the picture is Atlantic Records. Is that allowed in Wikipedia per WP:NOTYOUTUBE. I also would like to add, censor bars are put for an article to one of this person's discography. Therefore, there is a consensus in the public that if the picture features complete view of nudity, there needs to be a censor bar. I am of the opinion that the picture needs to be lowered in resolution, or remove the mirror, so that the readers do not feel as if they were shocked.7curator78 (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Per Benmite's comment. — Tom (T2ME) 19:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong delete : At this juncture is an RfC the best way to resolve this issue? I will do the necessary steps to do an RfC. However, RfC states, "If you are not sure if an RfC is necessary, or about how best to frame it, ask on the talk page of this project." That is why I am asking for an input from the community of this talk page.7curator78 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: Per Benmite's comment. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong delete : I would refute many of the claims by comment above, simply because of the precedents set by Wikipedia album project and Wikipedia song project. All of the articles in the good article range show songs with accurate information without featuring the screenshot of the already famous song. The editors waited for a live show or presented materials on where it was shot etc. Furthermore, the video has multiple avenues for representation if the user do wish to post the screenshot. It still isn't clear why that edit took that particular screenshot(upper portion only), when the bottom portion isn't of MOS:SHOCKVALUE. There are a total of 187 different screenshots possible. Out of all the screenshots, this screenshot showed the most offensive option merely to "show off" offensive material via the mirror violating the principle of NPOV.7curator78 (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: 7curator78, please do not !vote multiple times. Benjamin (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is censored. I don't think that any of 7curator78's comments address major issues other than this. If the issue is fair use criteria, then the discussion should be about fair use, and not this (although it seems to me that a screenshot from a music video used to illustrate controversy about the music video is obvious fair use). Still frames from music videos are present in plenty of articles as well, as are images of explicit publications used to illustrate article sections about the controversy created by them. Furthermore, I don't know why you are making multiple responses to comments but prefacing them all with "strong delete" in bold -- it gives the erroneous appearance that multiple people are !voting in support of you. { $\mathbb{JPG}$ } 06:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am contending the fact that the particular edit chose, the principle of "most" shock screenshot. I completely agree Wikipedia isn't censored. However, the rules states, if the edit in question presents explicit content, choose the alternative where it is "least" shock. There is no rule that states, present every explicit content as is. That is my question. Why is that screenshot favored, instead of the multitude others as presented in billboard.com.7curator78 (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: What explicit content is even visible? What I see in the mirror are pasties. Am I missing something? The photo is so small I can't make everything out lol —valereee (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: yeah, I just watched the video again. Even on full screen, all I see is the leopard-print pasties. —valereee (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I still think the screenshot posted is using the principle of most shock, because all the citations don't feature such shots. However, I rest my case and acquiesce. However investigations and questions must be crucial in this age. In any case, it is nice to have a discussion about the possibilities and implications of MOS:SHOCK and I still do believe despite no regulatory board found here, people must come forth to validate MOS:SHOCK on any content here or any other article.7curator78 (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , how is a photo of pasties shocking? It's not even nipples -- which I would argue are not inherently explicitly sexual, there are multiple cultures in which women's nipples are considered no more sexual than men's -- but it's not even that. How are pasties "explicit" or "shocking"? —valereee (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I looked at all the pictures, MOS:SHOCK is only for the lead image at the beginning of the article, which is the album cover. Nothing inappropriate about two ladies sticking their tongues out. Ben Shapiro isn't inappropriate. The pics of Megan and Cardi aren’t inappropriate, Cardi is wearing pasties and Megan isn’t doing anything sexual. Also: this isn’t nudity. I agree as well with Benmite's comment.


 * Also you are not allowed to vote more than once, so to keep adding "strong deletes" is wrong. Doggy54321 (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also also, Wikipedia is not censored. MOS:SHOCK only applies to the lead image in the article. For the rest of the images, as long as it pertains to the article, there can be pictures of genitals and corpses. So since the lead image isn’t of shock value, why was this talk section even created? Doggy54321 (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro's reaction
The article noted Shapiro's reaction to the song, and then adds "for which he was widely mocked by social media users" - this is vague, and not cited. It's also irrelevant as I'm not sure you could post a single thing online and not have "social media users" mock it. Can we remove this as irrelevant? Or expand it with cited sources explaining why it matters?198.161.4.71 (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Social media mockery mentioned prominently here, here, and here. Benmite (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure they're talking about sex with men
Cardi:
 * "He got some money, then that's where I'm headed / Pussy A1, just like his credit / He got a beard, well, I'm tryna wet it / I let him taste it, now he diabetic"
 * "I spit on his mic and now he tryna sign me, woo"

Megan:
 * "I tell him where to put it, never tell him where I'm 'bout to be"
 * "You really ain't never gotta fuck him for a thang / He already made his mind up 'fore he came"
 * "He bought a phone just for pictures / Of this wet ass pussy"
 * "Switch my wig, make him feel like he cheating / Put him on his knees, give him something to believe in"
 * "If he ate my ass, he's a bottom feeder"
 * "If he fuck me and ask, "Whose is it?" / When I ride the dick, I'ma spell my name"

No mentions of sexual intercourse with anyone who's not male. I think it can be reasonably assumed that the song is about heterosexual sex. Benmite (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2022

 * 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: withdrawn -- VersaceSpace  🌃 21:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

– This is quite simple. Everyone who looks up "WAP" in the search bar is clearly looking for this. Everything listed at the disambiguation page is a WP:PARTIAL match. Also, the WAP article has consistently out-viewed the other articles on the dab page for nearly two years. On the day the song came out, the dab page received ~1,300 views in a day, a nearly 3000% increase. After Ben Shapiro made his infamous comments on the song, the dab page received 17,000 (!) views in just one day. I think the primary topic here is clear. Titles serve readers and this is what readers wanna see. The small percentage of readers who are looking for Women Against Pornography (WAP), or, somehow, Fetty Wap, can be served with a hat note. -- VersaceSpace  🌃 02:20, 6 July 2022 (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.
 * WAP (song) → WAP
 * WAP → WAP (disambiguation)
 * Oppose - There needs to be a very high threshold for any TLA to be primary, and this falls well under the bar. High page views due to fleeting pop culture meme status does not come before good sense. -- Netoholic @ 03:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's anything that meets the "very high threshold" you speak of — it's certainly WAP the song. I also strongly disagree with the notion that pop culture doesn't come before "good sense". Titles serve readers, and many, many readers are invested, or at least somewhat interested in pop culture. Additionally, WAP wasn't only relevant for "the memes" (i mentioned that in my reasoning purely to attribute the high volume of viewers to something). It was the most critically acclaimed song of 2020, easily one of the most covered songs in reliable sources ever, and the most talked about song probably of that year. Two years after release, it still sees nearly 30,000 monthly page views. -- VersaceSpace  🌃 03:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's no primary topic with respect to usage either, see the Wikinav data: less than half of the visits of the dab page resulted in a clickthrough for the song. There's nothing wrong with pop-culture topics, the consideration here is that the traffic they're receiving now is smaller than when they were in the news, and it will almost inevitably go further down in a year or two. Also, apart from Fetty Wap, I don't see any partial title matches on the dab page: acronyms like Wireless Application Protocol are a different thing. – Uanfala (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that 1) as clear from the Wikinav link above, Wireless Access Protocol gets less than half the clicks of the song, and 2) whether something is a three-letter acronym, an acronym of a different number of letters, or not an acronym, should be completely irrelevant in deciding whether there is a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. People are actually just as (or more) likely to be looking for Wireless Application Protocol or Wireless access point. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Gbook check. There needs to be a very high threshold for any TLA to be primary, and this fails that threshold by a long long way. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose no primary see page views []—blindlynx 13:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not primary per Netoholic. In addition, we need to consider long term significance, and recent pop culture topics are unlikely to be primary on that basis when compared to other items on this dab page. BilledMammal (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. I've also removed the Fetty Wap entry from the dabpage, which appears to be a PTM. 162 etc. (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose no primary topic by long-term significance and tenuous for usage.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to withdraw move requests? If there is I'd like to do that. -- VersaceSpace  🌃 17:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , there is: just remove the requested move template at the top, replace it with and then add  right at the very end of this section. – Uanfala (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , thank you. -- VersaceSpace  🌃 21:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Article is excessively long
Seems hard to justify such a long article for a relatively new song. By comparison, take a look at articles for songs like Aretha Franklin's "Respect", Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit", Elton John's "Candle in the Wind 1997", and Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean". All of those pages are significantly shorter than this one.

The section on reactions from conservative figures feels like a good place to start. It comes across as WP:TOOMUCH and unencylopedic in tone. Of particular note is the juvenile analysis of Ben Shapiro's reaction to it. It is categorically false to say that he ever claimed that general vaginal lubrication is a health problem, as his tongue in cheek tweet explicitly references the hyperbolic description of requiring a "bucket and a mop". As such, everything that follows this assertion is inappropriate and unfit. This is not a gossip website or a blog. I'm no fan of the guy, and I definitely found his reaction to be more than a little cringeworthy, but we shouldn't mischaracterize him even when others have.

More to the point, this information doesn't add anything of value to the article. The quotes, their interpretations, and the reaction from the public can all be easily found in the sources used in a much briefer, less biased summary. We don't need most of this section beyond something like "the song was widely condemned by prominent conservatives such as Carlson, Shapiro, etc." 2601:445:37F:F170:D8B6:ABEE:9942:3FF9 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I think most of the issue simply comes from a non-encyclopedic tone and a weird ordering of paragraphs that makes the section read more like a point-to-point refutation than a summary of a controversy.
 * I just changed the order of around to make the section match Wikipedia's normal tone and the impression of bias now seems to have almost entirely disappeared without having to have changed or removed any of the content itself. 209.122.233.219 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No...no it hasn't. The last couple of paragraphs still read like a gossip blog. There's absolutely no reason for a Wikipedia article about a song to be mentioning Shapiro's perceived sexual prowess with his wife (or lack thereof). The ordering of the paragraphs was never the problem. The content of them is. It reeks of petty partisan dogpiling and lacks neutrality. 174.20.191.93 (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Redirect
I believe WAP should redirect here since the song is one of the only uses of this acronym, or at least the most commonly used. M@R10FYREFLOWER 00:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)