Talk:Bitch I'm Madonna

this track is not vaporwave

this song is not vaporwave its pure edm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.66.57 (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

also, The Chicago Reader article prominently (ie, in the title!) compares the song to PC Music (aka Bubblegum Bass), so it's bizarre that someone would choose vapourwave as a genre instead. It's a blatant, unreasonable misunderstanding of the article. Again, read the title. Not to mention it's contradictory since the way wiki describes vapourwave doesn't resemble this song at all.

The article cited (http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2015/01/09/madonna-siphons-pc-music-into-the-mainstream-with-her-first-rebel-heart-singles) states: "It sounds a little like vaporwave." A single music critic writing that an EDM track pulled from another genre does not make it that genre. Wikipedia defines vaporwave as "the fusion of modern popular music with lounge, smooth jazz and elevator music." This song is not fused with any of those things.

Why on earth is this horrible inaccuracy still in the article, and so strongly protected from edits? The track is not vaporwave and the source (which isn't even clearly cited) does not say it's vaporwave, yet someone seems to intent on keeping this absolute falsehood prominently mentioned in the article three times. Whoever that person is must be vandalizing the article by keeping that false information in the article. AutisticCatnip (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Almost one year later and this song is still tagged as vaporwave. This is incredibly misleading. --Thomastwin (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• There seems to be a consensus on this talk page (5:0) to remove vaporwave. I agree that the source does not actually call this a vaporwave song, only that it resembles one.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bitch I'm Madonna

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 Bitch I'm Madonna'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 "dance":

• From Burning Up (Madonna song): Grant & Neupert 2003, p. 9
• From Everybody (Madonna song): Letkemann, Jessica (March 10, 2008). "Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame, Class Of 2008". Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. Retrieved June 29, 2009.
• From Express Yourself (Madonna song): "Hot Dance/Club Play Songs: Week Ending July 8, 1989". Billboard. July 8, 1989. Retrieved July 8, 2011.
• From Celebration (Madonna song): Caulfield, Keith; Trust, Gary (2009-08-12). "Jackson And Sugarland Top Tallies". Billboard. Retrieved 2009-08-13.
• From Causing a Commotion: "Billboard Hot Dance Club Songs: Week Ending October 31, 1987". Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. 1987-10-31. Retrieved 2010-05-10.
• From Living for Love: Murray, Gordon (December 24, 2014). "Madonna Debuts Three Tracks on Hot Dance/Electronic Songs Chart". Billboard. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
• From Hung Up: Bronson, Fred (December 22, 2005). "Chart Beat: How They Got to 17". Billboard. Retrieved June 24, 2009.
• From Into the Groove: Chin, Brian (June 29, 1985). "Hot Dance/Disco Club Play". Billboard. 97 (25). New York: 64. ISSN 0006-2510. Retrieved February 19, 2010.
• From Love Don't Live Here Anymore: Flick, Larry (July 27, 1996). "Finally, Wash & Brown Are 'Jumpin' Together". Billboard. 108 (30). ISSN 0006-2510. Retrieved September 22, 2010.
• From Lucky Star (Madonna song): "Madonna > Charts & Awards > Billboard Singles". Allmusic. Rovi Corporation. Retrieved August 27, 2009.

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⚡ 11:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

fan writing on this page

Can all the Madonna fans writing on this article take their fan goggles off for a second... DigiListan is not THE offical chart of Sweden, Sverigetopplistan is. Suomen virallinen latauslista is not THE offical chart of Finland, Suomen virallinen lista is. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. They are component charts its like saying if a song topped billboard digital songs it was number one in the US.That's why this sentence "Worldwide, the song has reached the top-thirty in Finland, Hungary and Sweden." is misleadinbg............. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.237.201.20 (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not misleading. Those charts represent the country if the song has failed to chart on the main chart. They are equally official. Widr (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

no they are not. its like saying Good For You by Selena Gomez was number 1 in the US because it charted at #1 on hot digital songs, when it only reached #6 on the official hot 100 chart. its the same thing and logic.... but its clear wikipedia is full of madonna stans trying use component chart positions to make her songs look like they've had some success i have seen on the Ghosttown and Living For Love pages also.... its embarrassing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.237.201.20 (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar with our guidelines, such as this and this? Do you realize that, below the lead, there is the separate Charts section in the article specifically explaining the nature of each chart? Widr (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2015

The song is not vaporwave, the Chicago Reader source used to source this claim says "it sounds a little like vaporwave". It does not explicitly call it a vaporwave song. Please change this accordingly. The article is clearly misinterpreting the source. Thanks. 178.239.82.8 (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Chicago Reader calls it vaporwave, it is vaporwave. No amount of IP requests and logging with accounts just to change it, will be accepted. Wikipedia goes by WP:VERIFIABILITY. And editors of this page has enough of IP nonsense. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to make it pointy, "it pushes past stadium-filling EDM into a genre that more commonly fills the headphones of kids surfing obscure music blogs late at night. It sounds a little like vaporwave." This is what Chicago Reader says, and its as clear as calling it EDM and vaporwave. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Please see the discussion at User talk:MelanieN#User:IndianBio misinterpreting sources on Bitch I'm Madonna article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes I saw that Melanie. I deleted the IP section because it was duplicate and the section already existed, raised by the same IP I believe (178.*.*.*) User can comment here. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that the source had been misinterpreted and Indianbio fails to recognize this. The Chicago Reader source says clearly that Bitch I'm Madonna "sounds A LITTLE like vaporwave". This obviously does NOT mean it is of the vaporwave genre, if anything it only has "A LITTLE" of its elements. I would also like to point out that nothing else on the internet besides this source even mentions Madonna and vaporwave in the same sentence. Vaporwave is a very complex genre and as far from pop music you can get. Many editors and IPs have been arguing over this classification of the song for months if you look at the article history and this will continue and continue because Bitch I'm Madonna is simply not a vaporwave song and the source used has clearly been misinterpreted and taken out of proportion. Thanks. 178.239.82.137 (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

All I see here is the IP user concocting something on his/he own understanding thereby violating WP:OR of Wikipedia. As explained above which the IP is failing to grasp, the whole sentence should be read to understand the context. This seems like some sort of fan-forum motivated edit and administrators should actually look into this like what happened to Christina Aguilera article a few months ago. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You can make threats and accusations all you like Indian. You know you have actually done the original research here! Stop accusing me of vandalism. You aren't even willing to discuss and instead just swear and make threats and accusations. I will contact Sasha Geffen of the Chicago reader myself and inform of how you have taken Geffen's article out of context and given a false interpretation. If this song was vaporwave surely somewhere else on the internet would mention it? No because Bitch I'm Madonna is simply not a vaporwave song just like Hung Up is not a trap song. Regards. 178.239.82.154 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Please be reminded of WP:NPA. Continue like this instead of making points in a civil manner or within WP:VERIFIABILITY, you editing priviledges from your IP can be revoked. As explained before, Wikipedia goes by WP:VERIFIABILITY in a reliable source. Not what we conjure up in our WP:OR. What or who the internet mentions or not is not Wikipedia's responsibility. if you have an issue with the source, take onus and contact them. Don't make personal attacks here. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Chicago Reader article does not explicitly call it a vaporwave song, only that it "sounds like" a vaporwave song. It's the same thing as somebody writing that "All I Have to Do Is Dream" "sounds like a dream pop song". That doesn't necessarily mean it is one.

WP:STICKTOSOURCES: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

In this case, it's obvious that the source did not literally mean to call it a vaporwave song. If they did, they wouldn't have used such roundabout phrasing.-Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead paragraph discussing and defending lyrics

@User:IndianBio, do you believe the use of the word "bitch" is so controversial that it warrants being discussed in the lead? This is unfortunate, as there is insufficient evidence to support your opinion. (You would need to add a large section to the article covering the controversy - but this too would be unwarranted.) zzz (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ummm whoever said that only controversial content is to be added in the lead? Have you read the basic requirements in WP:LEAD which says "This page in a nutshell: The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." If you read carefully, the line talks about the singer defending using the word in the song lyrics, because she does not believe them to be controversial. Or are you against using the word bitch? I'm confused now. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And also, the line was added because there is a paragraph which deals with the lyics of the song and the song name itself. And it is sourced, so either you are pushing something for which you don't have any concrete agenda except your original research, else you are just confused. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll make it clearer for you, User:IndianBio. "The LEAD should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". The article contains one sentence and a quote discussing this "controversy". So it makes no sense to repeat this in the lead. Particularly not the first paragraph, as if this controversy (or lack of one) is the most important fact about the song or the article. That is why I removed it: because it is WP:UNDUE. As I said, to justify it you would need to add a large section to the article covering the "controversy". zzz (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The lead is not written in terms of the most important points in the first para, it is written chronologically and hence the line about the singer's explanation of the lyrics. I believe your problem lies with the line: "The singer defended the profuse use of the word "bitch", explaining that depending on the context, its meaning is not necessarily vulgar", which we can write in a different way so that it does not seem it implies a controversy. A singer/songwriter can explain their lyrical info in articles and that has valid place in lead. And can you not harp on the same broken record of controversy? Where does the article say that the song is controversy or there was one altogether? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are following. If there is no controversy, then it is correct that the body of the article devotes no more than a single sentence and a quote covering the non-controversy. And therefore there is no need to mention it in the lead section at all. zzz (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure you follow either, song articles mention an artist's idea of the lyrics and their thoughts, and there by the mention in the lead. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the use of "Trinidadian rapper" to describe Nicki Minaj, when just linking the name will do. And there is also no requirement or benefit to give a summary of the meaning of the lyrics. These additions detract significantly from the quality of the article. zzz (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Again this is your own thoughts not what WP:LEAD says and there are numerous articles on songs which follows the same MOS. I can also invite all the regular editors of music articles and hear their thoughts. You don't seem to be getting that nowhere it says it was controversial and neither it is mentioned in the article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not my "own thoughts". It's what LEAD says: "appropriate weight" - relative to the weight in the body of the article, which is one sentence and one quote. And Nicki Minaj does not require an added description of who she is (particularly not one that is wrong). And also, it seems that you're wrong about calling the song vapourwave, as explained by the IP user in the section above. zzz (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Lol, now you are going by one bloody IP troll? Do you even know who that IP is or whose sockpuppet it is? And all artists are noted by their respective birthplace. Like Rihanna is noted as "Barbadian recording artist Rihanna", not American. And can you decide which of your points you wanna stick up for? Sometimes you say its controversial sometimes you say its appropriate weight. You are diluting your own claims here now buddy. I have enough discussion with you, I will wait for others to put their input. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Lol buddy, "sometimes you say it's controversial" - I haven't said that. Why do you keep saying I have? zzz (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging SNUGGUMS, Tomica, FrB.TG and GagaNutella, users who regularly edit music articles for their input. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really see the benefit of mentioning her use of "bitch" in the lead even though she does in fact say the word in it quite often. Better for article body. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Snuggums what do you say about making the line better? I somewhat agree with user ZZZ that it makes it sound like there was controversy, which there wasnot. The singer was explaining that the word has different connotations. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, User:SNUGGUMS. And the description "Trinidadian rapper" is wrong, as is the description "vapourwave", and the facile lyric summary. These innacuracies wouldn't bug me so much if they weren't in the lead, and it wasn't a GA. zzz (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, vaporwave is correctly sourced and I don't accept a sockpuppets claims and neither should you. Regarding Trinidadian rapper, what is wrong? I have already told you that it is how it is written. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Rewording it would make things better, but I can't think of a good way to rephrase it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleted the line to see a better way to merge the phrase. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That's an improvement. Now, can you explain why it is that you want to describe Nicki Minaj as "Trinidadian" when the Nicki Minaj article describes her as "American"? How about just leaving it as "Nicki Minaj" instead? zzz (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If there is any disagreement re: nationality, leave the nationality out of this article and let that be read/discussed on the artist article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I went back and checked, it says Trinidadian born, not just Trinidadian. Sorry, yeah we can remove that too. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

About the line, what do you think: "The singer has stated that the profuse use of the word "bitch" not necessarily means something vulgar."; and about the nationality, I think is really important to keep it and you should use "Trinidadian-American", since most of her articles use this form. GagaNutella^talk 17:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Better to leave the "bitch" non-controversy out of the lead, as discussed above (undue). Other song articles, and non-wikipedia sources, are split evenly "Trinidadian-born American rapper", "American rapper", "Trinidadian- born rapper", "rapper", "Nicki Minaj" etc. So it makes sense to leave nationality out. zzz (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not bothered about whether her explanation of using "bitch" is controversy or not, IMO it can stay or either way it could be removed from the lead. I am bothered by user's zzz attitude towards the nationality of the artist. There is nothing wrong with using it. Hundreds of featured articles use it and respectable reviewers doesn't seem to have problem with it. — Tom^(T2ME) 19:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why guest vocalists needs nationality stated (I could be wrong), but in this case it would be "American", to agree with the wp article. zzz (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Tom, and I don't see anything wrong with the nationality. It could be "Trinidadian-born American rapper" or "Trinidadian-American", like I said above. Actually, I don't understand why this whole circus about two things that are so simple. There's not big deal here, just leave the nationality and reword or remove the line. GagaNutella^talk 22:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, User:ZZZ is simply making a mountain out of a mole-hill, was this user ever associated with any music article? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)