Talk:Harlem Shake (meme)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stop trying to AfD this article

There is no way this article could fail an AfD with the extensive worldwide news coverage this meme is receiving. There were over 200,000 searches on wikipedia for Harlem shake yesterday alone. Furious Style (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. What was the reason for being nominated for deletion anyway? --69.126.210.25 (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's getting nominated for deletion, more than likely, because the page is totally un-encyclopedic. It never actually states what the meme is, constantly uses weasel words and opinion, and many of the sources cited are the personal blogs of newswriters, rather than newspapers they write for. In short, it's a terrible article for anyone seeking information. LupoStesso (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

OR?

The "Normally, ..." sentence and the first sentence may contain OR. FrankDev (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge?

Shouldn't this article just be merged with the article Harlem Shake (song)? The videos use the song and this could easily be a section in that article with the sources that are here. 76.106.175.157 (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The two article definitely shouldn't be merged, as information on the meme would simply overwhelm information on the song itself at this point. Furthermore the meme incorporates both unofficial "dance" moves and the song hence including the specifics of the meme in the article on the song is undue, however the meme does deserve a brief mention in the song article. Both topics are notable enough to have their own articles. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be merged I agree, because both articles are very short and the merge can be undone easily if more information about either the song or meme is found. It seems the only reason the song became popular is because of the meme. 69.122.93.238 (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm 100% in opposition to a merger, in fact, I've just undone one. The meme is more notable than the song. It wouldn't make sense to merge the song article here. No merge should occur. Ryan Vesey 21:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Ryan Vesey, the meme is more notable. Also, there's not much connection between the two. Simply the song was used. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

What about Harlem shake (dance)? If the people in the videos are doing the same dance, it should be merged there instead. Someone keeps saying they're the same thing. 69.122.93.238 (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not the same thing. Ryan Vesey 22:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As Ryan Vesey said, it's not the same thing. These are 3 separate things. They don't dance the dance called the Harlem shake in the viral videos. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 February 2013

External link entitled "Original video" leads to random Harlem Shake compilation which is obviously not the original, probably edited by video uploader to trick people into viewing his compilation. 89.244.207.105 (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Removed for now until someone can prove it is the original, or provide a definitive link to another video. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 February 2013

A sentence in the History section reads:
"The success of the video was attributed to its break out moment and short length of which the first version of the widely accepted and adopted internet meme was created by five teenagers known as The Sunny Coast Skate from Queensland, Australia." This sentence contains weasel words that are not attributable, making the sentence read like a promotional anchor for 'The Sunny Coast Skate'. Consider revising the sentence by removing the phrase "widely accepted and adopted".

The following sentence:
"The phenomenon spread due to the number of people replicating and uploading similar videos."
could also be removed for conciseness on the basis that it is redundant - this is an approximate gloss of the term Meme, which is already done in the opening paragraph. 2.103.10.142 (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. I changed the sentence into something completely different while rewriting the history section. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge with song article?

Couldn't this entire article be merged into a section in the song's article, since this page is only three paragraphs long? WikiRedactor (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion above, those seeking merger should probably add some merge tags to the two articles so people understand it's being discussed. Ryan Vesey 21:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article is getting bigger and bigger by the minute, but I don't think that alone is a justification to keep the articles of the song, original dance, and meme separate, especially since they have the exact same names and there is no limit to how long an article can get. I mean, we don't have separate articles on the Gangnam Style or Macarena songs, dances, parodies, etc., so what makes Harlem Shake different? 69.122.93.238 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The dance has nothing to do with the meme. As far as the song is concerned, I'm unsure that it's notable enough to have it's own article. It's certainly nowhere near as notable as the meme. Ryan Vesey 00:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case, it will be best to merge or redirect the song article with this one instead or just downright delete it, but right now, it is way too early to make any drastic changes to any of them, so let's give it a few months, see what happens to either the song or meme (if it gets more popular or the phenomenon dies out), and work on any merge/deletion proposals from there. 69.122.93.238 (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The song has charted now (in February, after the meme went viral), so I think it is notable on its own. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Misleading Information

The last sentence of the first paragraph is very misleading. It states: "that went viral due to their large following on YouTube." However, this is incorrect because at the time of them posting their video, they had only 1,963 subscribers. I, nor would anyone, call this a "large following". The sentence needs to be trimmed down to a more accurate statement. Wazam123 (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Very convincing. Done. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 February 2013

spelling/grammar error: "excerpt" not "except" 97.123.159.80 (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

New edit request on 17 February 2013

There are some numbers listed, as quoted from some blog, that are self contradictory (both on the blog and the wiki article):

In the first nine days, over 11,000 versions of the popular Internet meme were uploaded, garnering over 44 million unique views, and averaging over 4,000 new variations each day. By February 15th, 25,000 Harlem Shake videos had been uploaded to YouTube, receiving "over 120 million views.

The numbers don't add up - 4,000 new variations each day would add up to 36,000 new videos in the first nine days, and even more by the 15th. The numbers are copied from the blog that made the same mistake, they apparently meant 1,000 videos per day. I don't know what the rules are about analyzing blogs, but this is self contradictory ... if someone could change this - maybe just remove the 4,000 per day line. thanks Ibenami (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The new change is still not correct, at no point were 4,000 videos being uploaded per day. Look at the reference - there were maybe 4,000 videos being uploaded per week at some point...

Ibenami (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There were 4,000 being uploaded. Look at the first graph here: [1]. The graph shows that there were 4,000 on February 10 and over 4,000 on February 11. What I wrote reads "By February 11, over 11,000 about 12,000 versions of the popular Internet meme were uploaded, garnering over 44 million unique views. By February 10, the upload rate of Harlem Shake videos reached 4,000 per day.", per the YouTube Trends blog (the text and the graph). The only problem: is the preposition "by" correctly used here? When you say "by", does it mean "including the date"? (By the way, I may reply late cause I'm already tired of the article and want to switch to other things. :D) --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

(I think I got it about the "by", I'm changing it from "by" to "on" and the other two "by"'s to "as of".) --Moscow Connection (talk)

Hmm you are right - although their graph is misleading, you can't use a continuous graph for discrete numbers... it looks like a graph of the total number of videos uploaded up to that point... makes the whole graph dubious, but that's the blogs mistake, not ours. Ibenami (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Good that you agree. I agree too, the chart is misleading. I looked at it again and understood that if I hadn't read the part about 12,000 views, I would have thought that the graph was for the total. Okay, now I can forget about the article for a while. It seems more or less okay. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 February 2013

Under "Projected Lifespan" the word "numer" should read "number" Chelpres (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Original research

There's way too much original research here and a lot of contradictory information. This specifically points out that while the Filthy Frank version describes itself as the original, it lacks the elements of the meme. I'm unsure if there's even evidence that the "Harlem Shake" portion of the "original" was split off before other versions started. This and this state that the meme originated with the Sunny Coast Skate version. Let's not source things to the original YouTube videos and stick to what the sources say. The Sunny Coast Skate version should be considered the video that started the meme, while the Filthy Frank version would be a prior version that led to the meme's creation by Sunny Coast Skate. Ryan Vesey 03:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree, I suggest we remove the statement that asserts that the Filthy Frank video is the original version from lead, as it's undue and move it to the history section. The sentence may also need to be reworded in order for readers to clearly distinguish between the "original" and the version that started the meme. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I support deletion of unverified statements. I also suggest that you just re-write the parts you don't like instead of adding scary tags. The article looks ugly now with the tag. It is getting lots of visits, Wikipedia should look good. If you don't want to delete some statement and want to wait until someone else finds a source, just tag the sentence, don't tag the whole article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is getting off topic but I believe that tags are necessary as they point out undesirable aspects of an article and allow readers to understand that this is not our finest work, however of course if editors can boldly fix it, they should do so. To maintain a high level of standard we should inform readers of the flaws of certain articles and encourage them to fix it if possible. :) YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 04:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead, trying to use roughly the same words as YouTube Trends, cause they should know all the details better than anyone else. Fix it again if you wish. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the tag due to the rewrites and the lack of discussion. If someone wants to re-tag it, please mention what the remaining/new problems are. (reverted after seeing the rest of the discussion) —rybec 22:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

LTV in Latvia

Latvian television morning show "Labrīt, Latvija!" (Good morning Latvia) did the video and putted on the official YouTube channel. --Laurijs (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Issue with the article about the song

There's a discussion going on on the talk page of Harlem Shake (song), here: Talk:Harlem Shake (song)#Misinterpretation. Please visit. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Original research tag

The article has been tagged as an original research again: [2]. Where's the original research? Everything is referenced. No explanation has been given. By the way, I know that the article is bad, doesn't really explain what the meme is clearly, but the quality of the article is not relevant. I think the original research tag is not the right tag to use. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. The article has to be rewritten anyway. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a good case to be made for removing the original research tag now that there has been a substantial rewrite with more than 40 references. David cambridge (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of notable versions?

Is this section intended merely to clarify the timeline of how the meme started to go viral, as per the discussion above, or is there scope here to add other notable versions such as Harlem Shake (original army edition) and UGA Men's Swim & Dive Harlem Shake. If this were the case, given the large number of versions in existence, what criteria might be used? Would distinctiveness and popularity be a suitable measure? David cambridge (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I intended it to clarify who was the first to create the meme. I think it's unnecessary to list all the companies that used the meme to advertise themselves. Maybe we can rename it to something like "Timeline of going viral". Cause if more versions are added, the section may be contested or deleted. (While it is needed. Especially since media reports are contradictory. The actual YouTube technical data is the most reliable source.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If 'Timeline of going viral" or something like that sounds good to you, better rename it. Cause if people start adding more versions there, the list won't look good. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Thank you. 82.27.237.113 (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to remove the timeline, I will point them to this discussion. They should read: #Original research, #Link to original video? to understand that the timeline was an attempt to show who created the meme without original research. The timeline is essential at the moment. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the current controversy / ambiguity surrounding the meme's breakout, I strongly share the view that this timeline is a vital part of the jigsaw. David cambridge (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

External Link Suggestion

Maybe include some links to where the most popular ones are displayed like (It seems that they're fairly new but could help with numbers):

http://www.harlemshakev.com/ or — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shernder (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC) http://www.voteharlemshake.com/ or http://www.harlem-shake.info/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilwupster (talk • contribs) 06:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"Projected Lifespan" Section

Is this section really necessary? What does it add or contribute to the article but baseless speculation? I think the section ought to be removed. The meme is in its infancy, and the article can be filled out with more sourced information as time goes on, but really a section called "projected lifespan" is just ridiculous. --スピード (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There has been considerable debate in the media and among informed advertising professionals as to whether this meme represents a radical departure from all previously successful virals, both in terms of the short length of the video itself, and the view, held by many, that it will disappear as suddenly as it arrived into public consciousness. The view that many have expressed is that the same factors that made it popular in the first instance may lead to a rapid demise. The articles cited could not be described as "baseless speculation" since they give a carefully considered asessment based on currenty available data. Given that they may in turn become an intrinsic self fulfilling prophecy, they are part of the phenomenon. Of course it will soon be appropriate to rename this section as "short life cycle", or some other heading that best describes the unique nature of this particular meme's evolution. David cambridge (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2013

On February 16th, 2013, during the second half of the University of Maryland vs Duke basketball game, the Maryland student section did a version of the Harlem Shake on ESPN.

74.108.20.171 (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: We don't need to list every single instance of the Harlem Shake here. If another editor in good standing sees fit to make this change with a reference I will no object. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of going viral

The Timeline of going viral section is nothing more than listcruft. We are not a directory of memes or an indiscriminate collection of information. Why can't this be added in history section in prose if it is so important? --Guerillero | My Talk 23:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above and in particular Moscowconnection's justification. The information already exists "in prose" in the history section but in view of the current controversy this provides clear incontrovertible evidence. To provide this much information in prose would make the history section unreadable. David cambridge (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As Guerillero suggests I have added all the relevant information in prose, but left it in this section. It is worded very precisely, and contains statements of verifiable fact such as the time and date when clips were released and the length of such clips. It is nothing more than a factual description of the timeline and the content of the videos referenced therein. In the absence of any other online clarification as yet, citing the information in the timeline, and the original videos referenced therein, becomes the "research" upon which the prose is based for the time being. I realise this is not an ideal solution, but hope it is in accordance with best practice and will address as many as possible of the concerns that have been raised here and earlier. David cambridge (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 February 2013

Grammar correction(s?) needed. "Broadcast" is right form for "was broadcast", not "was broadcasted." ZekeDMS (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Done InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2013

Here's 1 of the Largest Harlem Shake Compilation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFthFBUcIKk Dbandit2 (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Researchers of Fermilab made a video on Feb. 15th. I think it should be added to section 5 of article "Notable people and groups who performed the Harlem Shake" since Fermilab is one of the most notable scientific reasearch labs in the world.

The Kansas Jayhawk Basketball Team [3]. I think it should be added to section 5 of article "Notable people and groups who performed the Harlem Shake" since the Men's Team is a perennial top program and well known in NCAA Division 1 Basketball.

Rice University has created the largest yet Harlem Shake video with roughly a thousand people participating. [4] Featured in the video are Wallace Spearmon and Usain Bolt.

Not done: Just because the university, team, or company is notable does not mean anything they do is notable. Please link to reliable sources (examples in section five) that makes their performances notable. We can't include every single instance somebody does the Harlem Shake. Vacation9 12:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Include the consensus against the meme

People across the internet seem to broadly be tiring of this meme in a very quick fashion. Perhaps include something on the dynamics of it reaching fame in such a short space of time, and over-use in the internet community? I see comments on reddit, Facebook, 4chan, various forums and other places all discussing how worn out it is, yet it's only been around for a short while. Zealotti (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me like a lame "hipster" craze (which takes an existing dance and white-washes it into crazy jerks) that's become mainstream way too quickly. Anyways, the dynamics can be discussed in the article and expanded in the Reception section if we have reliable sources analyzing it. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I made some additions along those lines. —rybec 12:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

harlemshake.be

I see this in the external links. It looks spammy to me. —rybec 04:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed all external links, leaving only the official YouTube Trends list for now. Until the actual, "original" video is positively and definitely identified, it's not going to be added yet. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the Belgian site out of the list, but I don't see the benefit in removing the links to the videos by Filthy Frank and by TheSunnyCoastShake. Multiple sources talk about them as important in starting this, and the discussion here under "Link to original video?" would seem to support their inclusion. —rybec 06:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added the links to the videos by Filthy Frank and by TheSunnyCoastShake back. As it is shown in this article, these two videos are the ones that created the meme, therefore for this article they are official (from the creators of the meme). --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Link to original video?

I'm having a bit of a headache finding the original video, which is bonkers considering how big this thing is. If anyone at all can find a high quality source that links to the video that started this, the first video with crazy dancing and that section of the Baauer song, I encourage you to add it to this article. My Googlefu is not good enough to track this video down. 182.239.182.110 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a difficulty here. This one is the "original" while this one has been referred to as the one that started it all. Ryan Vesey 17:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the "original" original http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeO3yCpLt0Q but i think the TSCS version was inspired by the original and they changed some things which made it to the meme we know today. 62.194.194.2 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Vesey seems to have identified it correctly. I would attribute the current meme to the TSCS video too. 2.103.10.142 (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Pls bear with me, kinda new at this. YouTube data validates the TSCS meme was uploaded on 02 February 2013 at 15:17 (UTC), more than 2 hours before the Filthy Frank meme was uploaded on 02 February 2013 at 17:38 (UTC). The TSCS meme was uploaded prior to the 0:36 version from FF. [5] and [6] ..... Look for the word uploaded near the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracknology (talk • contribs)

Thanks for proving what I had assumed. Filthy Frank's video was a small portion of a longer video they had made. They re-uploaded just the short portion after TSCS uploaded theirs. Ryan Vesey 20:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! What shall we do now? (I suspected it might be the case, that's why I used the exact words used by YouTube Trends to be safe.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If it was the TSCS meme that sent this thing viral (which has been validated by YT), should this clip replace the Rolling Stones video on the Right hand side ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=384IUU43bfQ There are already 2 images of the Rolling Stones above the Rolling Stones video clip. It would seem to fit in quite well, as it would appear right next to the clause about it. (hope my signature works this time).Tracknology (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't This article give some form of credit to Filthy Frank? As it was from his video that the meme [with several alterations was created] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJiSSAMNWw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattgoby (talk • contribs) 22:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Filthy Franks Version was upload Jan 30, 2013! Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeO3yCpLt0Q. 2 Days before TSCS. TSCS made their own version of Filthy Franks' Video which started the meme. Then Filthy Frank upload a shorter version with only the Harlem Shake. TSCS's video was based off of Filthy Franks' Video, which makes Filthy Franks Video the starter of this meme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Filthy Frank Created the Harlem Shake

I don't know where you guys got your sources from, but Filthy Frank create the Harlem Shake meme.

He used the song: Harlem Shake He did the weird humping action <-- which was toned down by corporate Harlem shakes videos, but is the focal point of all harlem shake video's He did the crazy dance move when the beat dropped

Also, a masked guy in public dancing when no one else is, is also typical Filthy Frank

If you look at his YouTube channel and past videos you can see that this is his MO 100%

What's the big deal on trying to give credit else where, IDK, maybe someone Wikipedia editor want to be history writers, But Filthy Frank create and started the Harlem Shake.

All other versions copied his Style 100%, then they copied, and copied, and you know the rest.

It's a meme and it belongs to everyone's now, but it came from the Crazy Mind of Filthy Frank.

I wish someone would set the record straight in the article.

Something like this:

Filthly Frank, a weird and crazy comedian who creates videos on YouTube, made a dance video of him playing his character "Pink Man" who goes around recreating popular dances in a wild and crazy style while costumed. On "The date" he and a group of his friend create a video dancing to the song Harlem Shake. Viewers of his video, created their own version of his Crazy Harlem shake, and it went viral spawn 10,000 of other to create their own versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

His Video: Dancing In public, Masked, Humping Move: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHW7JkHWtf4&list=UUqSHAXN5sqtyE93A-w-8Ddw&index=59 Doing the Gangam Style: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xMTxn7vrfA&list=UUqSHAXN5sqtyE93A-w-8Ddw&index=25 Dancing to Skrillex: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueNUQ-7PIVY&list=UUqSHAXN5sqtyE93A-w-8Ddw&index=49

Also, All the Source Quote (The meme was established in a video uploaded on February 2 by five teenagers from Queensland, Australia.[2][3][4] ) Say Filthy Franks Version was the First Version, the five teenagers from Queensland, Australia where the first to respond

Let's put this back into perspective. FF did not create the Harlem Shake, which is a dance credited to other creators. He did not create the music, which was created by Baauer (and potentially subject to 3rd party claims for using other artist's content without permission, but that's for another place). The internet meme that went viral was created by the TSCS boys, as validated by Kevun Allocca from YouTube (Trends Manager). See also note below (First versions on the HS) about the key differences in the versions from FF and TSCS, and which went viral. The FF version does not contain the elements of the meme that went viral. Tracknology (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Harlem Shake World Record

As far as I know the world record is 70K people from Israel Tel-Aviv. Published on Feb 22, 2013 by depluspro
"Officially the biggest Harlem Shake in the World 70K ppl @ Tel Aviv"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmqJ1FoC404
84.109.85.85 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Done —rybec 01:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

First Versions of the Harlem Shake ( Did the Wikipedia Editor Do any Research???? AND Why is Page Locked?)

I went to Filthy Franks Facebook Page, and went through the comments of his First Video "Smell my finger" and found the first Harlem Shake revision made 2013-01-31T22:16:51.000Z Feb 1st, 2013 at 16:51 Zulu by Alessandro Zermo. The Video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YizP4iT8sA0 and the youtube data is here: http://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/videos/YizP4iT8sA0

This was the first spin off from Filthy Franks Original Video. It's the 30 second version, looped over and over. Also on his Facebook page people were asking him to make a video for the Harlem shake alone when he share his Original video "Smell my fingers" Jan 30, 2013

Also on Feb 2, 2013 at 12:00, someone created a Harlem Shake Animated GIF http://imgflip.com/i/iunv before the TSCS.

Also Feb 2 at 2013-02-03T06:11:37.000Z Over 8 Hours before TSCS someone uploaded DO THE HARLEM SHAKE (FILTHY REMIX) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ew7BfTnhGAI and youtube data here: http://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/videos/ew7BfTnhGAI

Go To Filthy Franks' Facebook page and you can see the whole story!

Did the Original Wikipedia Editor Do Any research???

Why is the page Locked, with all these fact's left out?

Is it because the page is getting so much traffic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article doesn't strictly follow WP:MoS at the moment, hence some of the information in the lead may not be in the body, however if you bothered to read the entire article, you would've noticed that filthy frank and his contribution to the creation of the meme has been noted in article, specifically the lead. In actual fact, he didn't create the meme but rather created the "dance" if you can even refer to it as that - there's a fine difference between the two. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 11:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The videos you provided can't be mentioned in the article unless they are mentioned in relable sources. By the way, "[LOOPED] Mr. Pink FILTHY COMPILATION #6" has 1,660 views, the GIF has 33 views, and "DO THE HARLEM SHAKE (FILTHY REMIX)" has 13,729 views. They don't look viral to me. I'm not against changing the article a bit to give more credit to Filthy Frank. But the article was protected simply because it was vandalized constantly, not because someone wanted to prevent people from improving it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, perhaps it should be noted here that "[LOOPED] Mr. Pink FILTHY COMPILATION #6" does not resemble the meme in its final art form. The length of this is 1:01 not :30 to :32 and it has numerous jump cuts, not the single cut that characterise the later versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David cambridge (talk • contribs) 09:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

To clarify the point in the lead, perhaps the art-form text should be reinserted "The art form of the meme was established in a video" so that it further clarifies the TSCS meme was copied and went viral, while leaving the balance of the text as is, which already references the FF version. Tracknology (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

WOW!! can't believe what I just read. you two actually said that? SMH! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Please word your suggestions on improving the article more clearly. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• I can only admit that different sources attribute the creation of the meme to different people. It can be said in the article. I thought about adding a section about that, but I didn't get to it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of key elements in the creation of the Harlem Shake meme, as opposed to simply dancing in front of a camera. Also, the 00:36 version uploaded by FF on 02 Feb after the TSCS version is consists of different elements, i.e. The FF version does not have the voice introduction, it has all members doing an air-hump, all members fall backwards into a dance, has six different interrupted cuts/edits/sequences and an inconsistent ending. However, compare that to the art-form of the meme created by the SunnyCoastSkate members who have a single person air-humping while others ignore, it has the voice intro, it also has a split at 15 sec, all members go crazy when the "bass drops" doing whatever they want (and mostly different actions by different people), and an ending with the growl. Very clearly, it was the TSCS version that went viral, and the vast majority of replications are on this basis, including the new iPhone apps that replicate the voice intro, 15 sec / 15 sec, and then the growling ending. This article is about the creation of the meme, of the art-form that went viral, and it is clear the TSCS version was the source, while also acknowledging the FF version exists. Even YouTube acknowledge they created the art-form that went viral. Best suggested remedy is to add the words to the opening statement that reinforces the art-form of the meme that went viral was created by TSCS, while leaving balance of text as is, which credits FF .... suggested text "The art form of the meme was established in a video uploaded on February 2 by The Sunny Coast Skate,[2] five teenagers from Queensland, Australia." Tracknology (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I later understood that I had misinterpreted the YouTube Trends article previously. Surely, it acknowledges TSCS as the ones who created the meme. It just says that the meme "is attributed" to Filthy Frank (meaning that generally everyone attributes the meme to Filthy Frank), while "it was another user named SunnyCoastSkate" who "established the form". --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The opening statement now appears to tell the facts exactly as they are, that the "meme" was created by TSCS, that their meme created the viral trend as the established form, while acknowledging the FF video was uploaded had prior featuring costumed people dancing to the song. It pretty much emulates what is being said in the YouTube blog by Allocca. Only recommendation for edit to the opening line is to mention the SunnyCoastSkate by name if Filthy Frank is also mentioned by name, so that a clear reference between the versions can be established. Tracknology (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just added "known on YouTube as The Sunny Coast Skate" to the lead and "registered on YouTube as TheSunnyCoastSkate" to the Creation section. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Definition.

Hi there,

An internet meme can be basically anything at all, provided it is spread via the internet. Therefore, defining something as an "internet meme" is roughly as meaningful as beginning an article with:

The Harlem Shake is a thing. It became popular in February 2013.

So please put in some effort, and actually give this term a definition; I've done my best to be concise and accurate. Feel free to refine the definition, but do be aware that defining something as an "internet meme" is the same as defining it as a "thing", and defeats the point of an encyclopedia.

InternetMeme (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• "The Harlem Shake is an Internet meme" is a definition, a correct one. The subject of this article is an Internet meme. (For example, not a dance. I previously reverted you cause you defined the Harlem Shake as a dance.) The current definition (after you changed the first sentence) is better, but "dancing or performing" sounds confusing. Especially since there is no "or", everyone does the same thing in "Harlem Shake" videos. But I also think that we should write a clearer definition, elaborating a bit what's an Internet meme is. Simply because most people don't know it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I changed "dancing or performing" to "performing a skit". I'm not sure "comprising a video" is a good wording, though. I think it sounds confusing. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've changed "comprising a video" to "in the form of a video" (to how it was before you changed it). In my opinion, the current definition is not bad. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Now I rewrote the second sentence to say "It being a meme means that the video is being replicated according to a similar concept by many people." It is not the best writing, but this may be an answer to the people who said that we should explain everything more clearly. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice work! I've tried to improving the wording of the second sentence a little. InternetMeme (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The part that says "the video was replicated using the same concept by many people, which eventually led to it becoming viral" seems to be trying to explain what a meme is, but readers either know that, or can read about it in the Internet meme article that's linked from the first sentence. "It became popular in early February 2013" (as formulated above) would be more concise. —rybec 02:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did it because I thought that most people didn't know what a meme was and that the definition in the Internet meme article wouldn't help them too. The definition in the meme article is better (I linked the article from the second sentence yesterday), but still... I think someone should write a better, clearer explanation of what this particular meme is, and preferably the explanation should be understood by those who don't know what memes are at all. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have tidied up the first three paragraphs to make them read a bit better, mostly just by changing the order of words and a few other cosmetic changes. Feel free to revert if inappropriate. Also, significantly, I replaced 'eventually' with 'rapidly' to better describe the meme's spread, since within two weeks the video went from a single instance to 4000 new versions uploaded per day. There is still scope for improvement, but I can't think how at the moment. David cambridge (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Graph

I suggest that a graph of some sort be added to help with the visualization of the rise and fall in the Harlem Shake's popularity. Whether it should be a measure of Google searches, Youtube video views, or something else, I don't know. Thoughts? --Philpill691 (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree that this would be very helpful indeed, particularly if, as I strongly suspect, with hindsight the Harlem Shake comes to be viewed as a pivotal moment in internet virality. It is (a) short in duration (b) a superfast trend that lived and died in less than a month (c) a new method of music promotion, when an arguably mediocre track without its own music video went super viral thanks to an initial fan video, rather than a corporate offering (d) a model for the music industry to collaborate with fans without losing revenue or artistic control, as demonstrated when Baauer took down the Azaelia version he didn't like (e) a major headache for YouTube and ad agencies, as the 30 second ad may now be effectively dead, if it is the same length or longer than the main video being watched (f) a defining moment for the charts as Billboard brings forward plans to incorporate YouTube views into the Hot 100, changing the musical landscape forever. David cambridge (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

May I also suggest that any graph has YouTube views and Google searches overlaid on the same graph, with possibly some other metric in addition, such as for example, number of videos upoloaded per day, if this latter information can be easily obtained. I don't have the graphical skills to do this, but hope there is someone who can assist. David cambridge (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not fond of the overlaying idea. If we are going to have data for both Google and Youtube then I think they should be presented in separate graphs. But if we are to do either then we need data. I don't know where to start with Youtube. For Google I have found some data on Google Trends, but this data does not graph actual numbers of searches, but instead seems to show relative search popularity over time. This could work, but I think data showing total daily searches over time would be better. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philpill691 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. My bad for the unsigned comment. That's always embarrassing... --Philpill691 (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? Please? --Philpill691 (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Apple approves new DIY Harlem Shake videos

On March 1st, Apple approved the first free apps that allow anyone to make their own Harlem Shake Videos and post them to YouTube. Several cracked the top 100 apps in the app store entertainment section within the first day, such as this one: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/the-harlem-shaker-maker/id608126914?ls=1 This may cause an explosion of new Harlem Shake videos to be posted, continuing the growth of the meme. RonDr (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format.  TOW  talk  00:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As political protest

As covered in Fareed Zakaria's GPS on CNN this week, one version caused "reports of an investigation by (Tunisia's) Minister of Education, prompting (many more videos) in protest". Also, in Egypt, "four Egyptian pharmaceutical students were arrested for this Harlem Shake version in front of the pyramids...late in the week in Cairo, there was a mass-shake in front of the Muslim Brotherhood Headquarters to protest." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.108.107 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done – David cambridge (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

More notable people doing the Harlem Shake

McFly have done a version,[7] and I saw a Simpsons version too. Also, The Midnight Beast have done a song in response.[8] Could they be included? I'm sure there are many more, and I understand that not every version needs to be included, but I just thought I'd point these ones out. –anemoneprojectors– 13:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose they're not really notable versions, just notable people and don't necessarily need including. –anemoneprojectors– 13:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Simpsons

It should be noted that The Simpsons doing the Harlem Shake was actually the couch gag for the latest episode Gorgeous Grampa. It should be edited as such. 142.68.50.108 (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's considered notable. I mean, trends appear on popular TV shows all the time. That's some of why they're popular. Either way, how would you cite that? –TCN7JM 22:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I see it was already added and cited. That answers my question :\ –TCN7JM 22:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Youtube Shake

When the page can be edited again, I would suggest that someone edit the sentence [YouTube made its own version of the Harlem Shake by making the items of the page shake when the user searches for "do the Harlem Shake."] (found under "Notable performances of the Harlem Shake") in such a way that the full stop (.) can be moved out from between the quotation marks, as people might think that it should be included in the search. I myself will likely not do so, as I've probably forgotten about it by the time the page can be edited again. 92.254.54.172 (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done –TCN7JM 23:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Fallout

This article should also cover the bad outcomes of making Harlem Shake videos. Such as the Israeli soldiers jailed for making a video on a tank, the Australian miners fired for doing it in a mine, the FAA investigation of one on a plane, the Tunisians that started a riot by doing one outdoors. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 10:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done – David cambridge (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please can somebody edit section 5.1 - Caldicot Comprehensive school is in WALES, not England. 146.90.45.103 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done ZappaOMati 23:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Catagious social disease?

Is it a contagious social disease?--75.139.106.179 (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The precursor of the idea being the Harlem Shake might be Fatboy Slim if you look at the video Ya Mama "push the tempo". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.206.6 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

famous sport team

hi guys, I would tell u that also the italian Juventus Football Club plays the harlem shake.... thanks bye--2.33.23.21 (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Circuit detects 1st time "Do the Harlem Shake" is said in the song

What is this Link an external link section to EDACafe? This is spam! Someone please remove that link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The Top Most Viewed Harlem Shake Videos should be noted on the Page And mention Growth of Compliations

Top 5 Most Viewed Harlem Shake Videos:

1. Harlem Shake (original army edition)

by Norwegian Army, views: 69 Million

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hpEnLtqUDg

2. Miami heat Version

By Maimi Heat, views 40 Million

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir2TdfSwH8g

"Views Increased by Youtube Advertising"

3. DO THE HARLEM SHAKE (ORIGINAL)

by Filthy Frank, views 39 Million

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJiSSAMNWw

4. UGA Men's Swim & Dive Harlem Shake

by Georgia Mens Swimming Team, views: 32 Million

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkNrSpqUr-E

5. Harlem Shake v3 (office edition)

by Himmrawn, view: 29 Million

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IJoKuTlvuM

Source: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=harlem+shake&search_sort=video_view_count&search_type=videos

--

We Should also mention the number of Harlem Shake Compilation being Created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to mention the top Harlem Shakes? This isn't Billboard. If something is to be entered, the data is likely to change over time and would need to be constantly edited, so why not refer readers directly to YouTube resources to identify the top Harlem Shake videos themselves, which can be found at YouTubes Trends page focusing on the Harlem Shake. YouTube have identified the Top 25 clips, and I note that this information is already covered in the External Links section, so there no need to include another link, certainly no need to add a new section for monitoring the top videos and if a compilation gets enough hits it will appear in YouTubes trends and spotlight page accessed via the External Links section. Tracknology (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• If the intention was to mention or link to these specific videos: number 1, 2 and 4 on the list are mentioned in the "Notable performances" section. Number 3 was formerly in the "External links" section but was removed after some discussion. As for number 5, I did a search for "Himmrawn" on Google News and there were no news stories mentioning the performer's name. —rybec 22:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Harlem residents

It would be interesting adding to the article the reaction of the actual Harlem residents. [9][10][11][12]--93.36.122.163 (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The idea to add the reaction of Harlem residents and people who actually know how to dance the real Harlem shake is certainly interesting. It would be a nice addition to the article, but... Wikipedia articles are basically summaries of what has been already written in so-called reliable sources. Therefore, you should find a better source for that information (a newspaper, a big news provider, a large reliable website, etc.) The sources you provided don't look reliable, cause YouTube videos are certainly not reliable sources as defined in WP:RS, and the Videogum website doesn't look serious enough. Find a better source. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you register in Wikipedia, by the way? And the article is not protected anymore. (I hope no one has noticed yet.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Because I don't speak/write english very well (However I'm registered in another language's wikipedia). I found some reliable articles about this topic and all of them cite the videos linked before, if someone want to add it to the text. There is also a site to protect the Harlem culture. savetheshake.org--93.36.87.163 (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Kia Gregory (28 February 2013). "It's a Worldwide Dance Craze, but It's Not the Real Harlem Shake". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 March 2013.
• "Harlem Shake, The Life-Ruining Meme". KROQ-FM. 6 March 2013. Retrieved 30 March 2013.
• Gabe Delahaye (20 February 2013). "Actual Residents Of Harlem Respond To "Harlem Shake" Meme". Videogum. Retrieved 30 March 2013.
  • I'm not sure what I should add, but I'll write one sentence now and I hope someone expands from that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The Time Line Section is a little Off

There were a total of 3 Videos uploaded after Filthy Compilation #6, and before the Sunny Coast Skate Version:

First, by Youtube channel Gam3xpert Upload Date Jan 31, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbfcZ_O4Uc8

Second, by Youtube channel Alessandro Zermo Upload Date Jan 31, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YizP4iT8sA0

Third, by Youtube channel hectecdesign Upload Date Feb 2, 2013 at 06:11 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew7BfTnhGAI

The Timeline should read as such:

--

All times UTC

2013-01-30 22:34: "Filthy Compilation #6 - Smell My Fingers" by Filthy Frank (channel DizastaMusic) uploaded to YouTube[105]

2013-01-31 01:47: "Baauer - Harlem Shake (Filthy Frank Style)" (channel Gam3xpert)uploaded to YouTube

2013-01-31 22:16: "[LOOPED] Harlem Shake FILTHY COMPILATION #6" (channel Alessandro Zermo)uploaded to YouTube

2013-02-03 06:11: "DO THE HARLEM SHAKE (FILTHY REMIX)" (channel hectecdesign) uploaded to YouTube

2013-02-02 15:17: The Sunny Coast Skate's version uploaded[106]

2013-02-02 17:38: Filthy Frank's version uploaded[107]

--

Also I found over a lot more video mixes, video chops and edits of the 19 second Skit from the "Filth Compilation - Smell My Fingers" uploaded to YouTube on and Feb 1st and 2nd.

Source: YouTube Search for First Harlem Shake Videos by Upload Date.

--

There are versions going back as far as June 2012, where people are either dancing to the Harlem Shake, or dancing as well as adding an overlay of their own lyrics or music to Baaeur's Harlem Shake, and even 30 second video game highlights set to the music. These are from other independent YT account holders, with their own versions of the Harlem Shake that were uploaded well before FF's version. These clips vary in length from the very short, to longer 4+ minute versions. However, this does raise an interesting scenario, that any reference to FF's version of the Harlem Shake as being the "first" is not correct. It now appears that FF's was also a response to other videos loaded prior to his ? Tracknology (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems at least one of these additional versions cited above is a remix/edit by one of those account holders, and I really don't think they hold any relevance to the timeline of significant versions. One of those videos acknowledges it is 'fan-made'. But, none of these FF formats or any other video over the preceding 7 months was adopted as the meme, i.e. it seemed to gather momentum until it reached a point where the TSCS version established the accepted format when released on Feb 02. If you watch the videos after this date, a couple of the early ones directly credit TSCS in their video, not just in the description of the upload. But it's probably more clea now that all the different versions of the FF clip were ignored in favour of the TSCS version as the standard meme. Tracknology (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Where is this discussion regarding Filthy Frank? AppleInYourEye (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a link to "Archives" on this page. All discussions get archived after some time of inactivity. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

origins

Whilst the account is accurate of the viral version of the Harlem Shake, the article appears to credit TheSunnyCoastSkat as creators of the Harlem Shake meme, which is not correct.

It was created by blogger Filthy_Frank, who doesn't appear to be credited with its creation. It is alluded to here about the time line, but the concept was first performed in a comedy skit video, featuring various content, part of which was the original Harlem Shake, seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8vJiSSAMNWw

Also see http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/harlem-shake for a more accurate sequence of events.22/04/13 5.58pm GMT

I think you should read the above section. ZappaOMati 01:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

revert

For what reason was this reverted? [13] AppleInYourEye (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Because it was an attempt to change a part supported by reliable sources (more reliable than an editorial piece on the Quartz website) to say the opposite of what it says now. I can only suggest to cite the opposite opinion in a separate paragraph. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• I read the publication on the Quartz website, it's interesting, but it was written to push a new and original point of view that it was big corporations who created the meme. And there are a lot of strange statements, like "Miller also posted all 36 seconds of the dance footage he had shot originally". "Originally"? "All 36 seconds"? How does the author know Frank shot only 36 seconds and not an hour? Does the author suggest that Filthy Frank conceived a 36-second version, but cut it to 20 seconds for the compilation he uploaded? If even he conceived it years ago, he wasn't the one who posted it first. And as it was already said on this talk page (here by Ryan Vesey, sourced from the ABC News website), the Frank's version lacked the key elements of the meme. The meme as it is described in the Wikipedia article itself was created by the Australian team. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The 36 seconds is this link [14]. It wasn't hard to find that, it is even mentioned on this talk page. I don't see any discussion on the key elements of the meme. In fact I believe listing key elements of the meme counts as original research? AppleInYourEye (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The sources it seems to 'contadict' are the blogspot source (not 'more reliable') and an Australian paper (possibly biased?).. Am I missing anything? AppleInYourEye (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • My opinion is that the YouTube Trends blog is the most reliable source for all things YouTube. I've already hinted about how I think you can include "an alternate theory" into any Wikipedia article. But if you simply want to change the article to say quite the opposite, it won't work cause what it says now is reliably sourced. Anyway, I think we need more people to participate in this discussion. My guess is that no other more or less substantive contributors to the article have come cause it already says what they believe is the correct version. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The person making this argument, a recognized expert, is a stronger source than the mob of journalists who are repeating the common understanding on the topic. It's easy to see how an inaccurate understanding of events could be spread by the popular press. I don't think we can discount the weight of the sources based on a single credible counterargument, however strong, but nor can we blindly accept the sources without a caveat. Under the circumstances I don't think we should use Wikipedia's authoritative voice to proclaim that the video went viral on its own, but rather should present this at a meta-level by saying that many sources describe it as viral, whereas some experts note that growth was accelerated by the deliberate efforts of people and companies promoting those videos. Most likey, our understanding of virality is going to change pretty quickly soon as deliberate / paid promotion of videos becomes the norm, not the exception. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to look mean when I'm reverting similar edits, changing "Australian teenagers" to "now famous channel DizastaMusic", etc. So I will repeat this again. If you want the article to present the matter from different viewpoints, just add it in a separate paragraph. You can't expect me to do it, cause I truly believe the Australians created it. Write something like "Some authors also attribute the meme to..." But if I wrote something like this, I would want to find a source that describes the meme and analyzes what was (inadvertently) conceived by Filthy Frank and what by the Australian team. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)