Talk:We Found Love (music video)

Audio sample

Is there any way of putting it into the info box? Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 22:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a film infobox, so a song sample wouldn't be included in it. xD — Status {^talk_contribs 22:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Dayum. I wanted to add a double image to the Critical reception section with two pictures of the directors of the films mentioned, but the audio sample is there. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

OMG, look at this. Do you think a Popular culture section could be made? I didn't realise how many references their were in the video to film and music. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I said in the edit summary, it can be removed to a different section. Ooh, yes; a lot of info in that link could be used. :) This article is really coming along very well. — Status {^talk_contribs 22:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that there could be a "References to popular culture" with the sub sections of "Music" and "Film". Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 22:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. :D — Status {^talk_contribs 22:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I might start it tonight, it's getting late though. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 23:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Marijuana exhalations?

I thought it was pretty clear that it was cigarette smoke being blown (in Rihanna and Dudley's mouths from one another), not marijuana. I just re-watched the video and I see smoke being blown after several cigarettes are lit, not a marijuana joint or blunt. Please explain?--mikomango mwa! 20:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Critical sources say Marijuana. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 23:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's bizarre, given that he's clearly holding regular cigarettes. Oh well!!!--mikomango mwa! 05:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's clearly somewhere in the range of a whole pack of cigarettes being lit at once and smoked. That whole section which repeatedly uses the same reference (18) pointing out similarities contains a lot of real stretches. If one "critical source" makes an extreme stretch or a comment that is clearly wrong, it does not have to be included... it should not be included. That whole section makes tendentious connections, and misses the most apt ones. Take for example the music video for Try, Try, Try ([1] NOTE: Vevo even tones it down by removing the bloody miscarriage) by the Smashing Pumpkins, which was, on the whole, almost exactly the same concept of a loving couple with many of the same plot points (opening voice over, the couple robbing a convenience store, etc.), much more so than the other videos and films referenced, and, to boot, suffered from the same type of controversy much more strongly (because it was a much harsher treatment of the exact same subject, shooting of heroin, much more disturbing and traumatic hallucinations, use during pregnancy, etc.) and barely got aired because of it. But, since the journalist making comparisons was rather myopic, and instead of making meaningful comparisons, made simple pop references (like comparing it to Natural Born Killers because of projected imagery? Wow, that's deep), it would be WP:OR to add more substantial comparisons. Regardless, we should be able to remove obvious mistakes, like the cigarettes.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 08:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Just checked the source. It does not say marijuana. It just makes the comparison to a movie in which it is being done with marijuana.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 08:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This article makes the connections seem much more definitive as direct references. This is misleading. The original article, for many of the points, is just pointing out some similarities, not making it sound like definite references.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 08:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

EW

Can this be of any use for the article? "I appreciate that it’s different from the shtick she’s tried with her party anthems, but piggybacking so close to “We Found Love” by Rihanna isn’t doing this song any favors." My love is love (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That Katy shouldn't have released the video for TOTGA so close to We Found Love? Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 14:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Banned before 10pm in France

• http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1674742/rihanna-x-factor-uk-shoe.jhtml Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 20:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Really !? Π^x (discuter) 20:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM — Status {^talk_contribs 02:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Opppppp Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 13:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the point, seriously.

What's the point in having a talk page, where you are mean't to discuss things which people feel should perhaps be changed, if someone is going to change the name of the article without asking or giving any explanation as to why. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 16:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:We Found Love (video)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Matthew R Dunn (talk · contribs) 19:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I shall be reviewing this article. -- Matthew RD 19:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 19:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

This is how the article fairs against the GA criteria:

1. Well written: ✓ Pass. There were only a few slight issues that I took care of myself.
2. Verifiability: The sources appear reliable (mostly making up well known music-based magazine sites, news sites and billboard sites. However, there are the odd ref issues in the comments below.
3. Broadness in coverage: ✓ Pass. Stays focus on topic.
4. Neutral: ✓ Pass. Article represents the topics fairly, no bias.
5. Stability: ✓ Pass. No serious recent edit conflicts.
6. Images: ✓ Pass. One weird non-free image of what looks like Rihanna vomiting "tubby tustard", has the appropriate tags and fair use rationale. Other free images are also relevent to the topic of the article.

Comments

• Refs 2 and 5 are the same.

   Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• "Rap-Up reported that the video was reminiscent of the lead single from Rihanna's previous album Loud, "Only Girl (In the World)", which also featured Rihanna in the state of nature in a number of scenes including fields and hillsides.[8][9]" The references do not back up that statement, as the articles were published before the release of "We Found Love", and they do not mention the song either.

   Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• Where in this article does Jocelyn Vena say that the video's male lead resembles Rihanna's ex?

   Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• In the "Britney Spears' "Criminal"" section, you might need to elaborate who this "St Asaph" is. Like "It was noted by Katherine St Asaph of Popdust that..." or something.

   Done Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

• "although most pop stars release videos that draw from their personal lives, they do not make the viewer uncomfortable. The same cannot be said for Spears and Rihanna, and it does not matter if they themselves have moved on from past situations, because the discussion around them has not. St Asaph also expressed that neither Spears or Rihanna said much about the parallels to their lives, but that they do not need to: their videos are much more effective than anything they could reveal in an interview." Much of this sounds like a quote. I think adding quotations now and then wouldn't do any harm.

  It's not a quote. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

Overall, the article is in decent shape, and a nice (although rather "trippy", being a theme of the video) read. I will place the article on hold for seven days. -- Matthew RD 17:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with the issues. I will now pass the article. -- Matthew RD 18:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 18:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Director's cut and inspiration

• http://pitchfork.com/features/directors-cut/8741-rihanna-we-found-love/ 46.217.5.10 (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

---

We Found Love (video) → We Found Love (music video) – "Video" usually refers to video/DVD releases, such as In the Zone (video) and The Immaculate Collection (video). Pancake (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Seems like the better idea. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 16:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 16:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Jivesh1205 (Talk) 21:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - makes sense to have a more clear DAB. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Voice (SWE) (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

ritney Spears' "Criminal"

non npov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.26.184.219 (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

in man down it states that its directed by another director not same as on we found love

http://www.rap-up.com/2011/05/30/rihanna-sends-strong-message-in-man-down-video/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.26.184.219 (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the article should point out also the blatant similarities with Radioactive by Marina and the Diamonds, some critics must have noted it--94.36.28.21 (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Supposed "controversy"

Am I alone in finding the "controversy" section very silly? We have a "John Colonnello, a youth pastor from Athens, Alabama", a "Brandon Ward, a youth pastor of Oasis Christian Center in Staten Island", and one Doreen Reegan of the "Ulster Cancer Foundation" (whose opinion was so important it had to be sourced from the Hindustan Times of all places). Who are these people? What makes their opinions notable? Surely for controversy or criticism to be valid content it has to be from some person or some organisation of significance? I propose deleting the entire section, with the only salvageable content from it, the watershed banning on a french TV station, moved to another place if a source for it can be found (currently cited source is dead). 89.242.189.105 (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)