Talk:Harlem Shake (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHarlem Shake (song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 21, 2013Good article nomineeListed

70 bpm = uptempo?[edit]

The article calls the song "uptempo". I understand that this is very dependent upon your frame of reference (and this song is not part of my usual diet), but to me this song is slow. Not even "medium paced", but decidedly in the "slow" end of the spectrum. So, is this just me being weird, or does this need changing? 46.194.185.47 (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpretation[edit]

I added the "failed verification" and "better source" template 2 times and was reverted.

  • Why I added the "failed verification" template
    • Because this edit completely misinterpreted what Billboard wrote. Where does Billboard say that there are "quick edits showing groups of people breaking out into spontaneous dances and spasms" in the video by Filthy Frank?
      • Again, it's the second paragraph, which I'll copy/paste here for you: Dan56 (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

        • First some quick background for the uninitiated: the craze began with a video posted by YouTube personality Filthy Frank on his DisastaMusic channel on Feb. 2, featuring a basic template that has been spoofed over 3,000 times. Start with 15 seconds of one or a handful of people dancing in place to the song, then watch the video erupt into groups of people breaking out into spontaneous bursts of dance, shakes and other spasms via quick edits for the remaining 15 seconds.
          — "Harlem Shake: The Making and Monetizing of Baauer's Viral Hit", Billboard

  • Why I added the "better source" template
    • Because Billboard tells the story differently from many other reliable sources who say that it was the Shiny Coast Skate who created the meme. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What "many other reliable sources"? Dan56 (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apart from YouTube Trends (it's a blog by YouTube, and YouTube knows what happened better than anyone else cause they have access to all the technical data), there are also: The Sunshine Coast Daily, International Business Times, The Australian. There are many more for sure, these are what I either already knew or found in 10 minutes. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • A news report by Nine News: [1] --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your YouTube source says that the meme is "attributed to a silly video from a vlogger named 'Filthy Frank.' Though it was another user named SunnyCoastSkate who then established the form we've become familiar with: the jump cut, the helmet, etc." The "form"/"template" that the Billboard source is referring to is Frank's video, and the article subsequently attributes the response to that video as fueling this song's chart climb. American sources such as Billboard and The Root ([2]) seem to attribute it to Frank, while the foreign sources to those from Australia. Either way, this detail about the video can be reduced to "In February 2012, the song's music was set to an internet meme that was parodied..." rather than include both conflicting sources, which would be relevant at the meme article (Wikipedia:Conflicting sources). Dan56 (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you very much for removing the part! The problem with Frank is that this timeline shows that Frank uploaded his 30-second video after the Australian team. "Silly video" may refer to Filthy Frank's video from January 30. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


(Reply to the Billboard quote.)

  • The second sentence in the Billboard article describes the "basic template". (Sorry, I didn't noticed your reply before.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

The genre of this track is in fact trap, not Hip Hop/Bass.

  • I've added trap to the list of music genres (sourced from Spinner), but I left bass there too (sourced from Resident Advisor). --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do both trap and hip hop need to be listed as genres? I agree the song is obviously a hip hop beat (especially the percussion, which is almost identical to many hip hop songs), but trap, even the electronic trap from the past couple of years, is a sub-genre of hip hop anyway. It's like listing the same thing twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.31.243 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Atlantic source attributes its origins to either EDM or Southern hip hop, (as mentioned in the "background section") so since it's either/or, it's safe to have both. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I will change the order to "hip hop, trap, bass". A possible solution is to write it like "Hip hop (trap), bass". But I saw plenty of articles that list a wide genre along with subgenres. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the second thought, I don't think this track's genre is a subgenre of hip hop. It's a derivative. I would have nothing against removing hip hop from the list. I just thought what if every trip hop single listed hip hop in the infobox, and I thought it wouldn't look right. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) My change of order was reverted by Dan56: [3]. I will not start an edit war, but I think other people should be let to edit the article. Especially the people who can define the genre of the track correctly and who make constructive and well-argumented suggestions on the talk page. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:V, Wikipedia's content is "determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." With that and WP:GWAR in mind, this discussion isnt necessary. Just go by what professional critiques say when it comes to aesthetic opinions like genres. Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What well-argumented suggestion? All you said was that you are going to change the order, citing no reason, after I had explained that the source used acknowledged the controversy with hip hop purists as it pertains to what is "trap". Dude, we dont go by what editors "define" or their opinions. This discussion is moot, because describing works of art is usually subjective ("who can define the genre of the track correctly"). Stick to the sources, which in the case of aesthetic opinions are professional critiques. Dan56 (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason was that trap is a subgenre or a derivative genre of hip hop, not bass. Therefore, I tried to make the list of genres look like "trap" was an elaboration of "hip hop". Like, "it's hip hop, but more precisely, it's trap". The change of order doesn't contradict the review in Resident Advisor, where the genre is defined as "hip hop, bass". As I suggested below, I think Wikipedia should welcome new editors, who might know better about the subject, and support their attempts to make the encyclopedia better. I looked in the edit history and there are many unnecessary reverts. I think experienced Wikipedia editors who are not into trap music should step aside and let new people who are edit the article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editors are not experts and should not claim to be, so statements like your opening about what is trap music should only be taken as opinion, especially if a source used in the context of this song acknowledges a rift in opinion: "...a budding offshoot of EDM called trap. Hip-hop purists will tell you that this emerging genre rips off and waters down the original 'trap' music, a drug-running subgenre of Southern rap that's been around for years". While interest in a topic is fine, a common aspect is fancruft, where editors often disregard encyclopedic guidelines and their opinion or presumed knowledge of a topic clouds their judgement, and the article becomes poor in quality. There are many reverts in this article because most people who edit Wikipedia do not have a grasp on guidelines and policies. A song becomes popular, and (most often, new) editors begin littering articles with erroneous and unsourced additions. Other than our little back-and-forth about the video description/origin, which reverts werent warranted? Dan56 (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess all reverts were warranted cause people didn't know they had to add sources for what they added. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am closing the {{edit semi-protected}} as the original request has been "answered". Whether or not that "answer" is to the OP's satisfaction is immaterial. Feel free to continue this discussion as appropriate. It appears that if a consensus is reached there are enough autoconfirmed editors involved here to make the edit. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meme?[edit]

I think the appearance of the song in the Harlem Shake meme should be cross-referenced in the article, since the song is used in pretty much all videos. Do you agree? (Jeimii (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

  • I agree. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a major restructure and separated the song's burst of popularity after the eruption of the meme into a separate section. I also added an explanation about what the meme is, etc. I guess the link to the Harlem Shake meme is noticeable enough now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the meme's page and the song's page should be consolidated, since both pages have so much in common (similar to the Gangnam Style meme, which has different pages for the song/meme and in popular culture, but has one page for the song and the meme.) Epic Genius 01:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicgenius (talk • contribs)

That article includes information for both the meme and the song because there is no article for the meme to redistribute the meme information to, whereas with this, there's this song article and the meme article. We should try to avoid content forking; readers who've already read the meme article would have no use for this article repeating any more than is relevant to the song in this article. And if they are interested in information on the meme, they would ideally visit the meme article. Also, in the case of Gangnam Style, that song's official music video became a meme. Here, it's a different dynamic, as the Baauer's song did not have a music video. Dan56 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of the article[edit]

The article seems to belong to one editor. I'm asking the editor to let other people edit it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty inappropriate: "it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Therefore, when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor, it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them—even if you think they are acting as if they "own" the article." This is pretty ridiculous. Disagreeing with you over how you want to structure the article does not constitute me owning or not letting anyone else edit. Who else are we talking about? I just disagree with your change, reverted it, proposed at your talk page that we discuss it, and we are. Dan56 (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both Dan and yourself are undoing each others edits too often, both of you need to discuss changes before you make them, enough warring NYSMy talk page 00:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOS, "Revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Your unnecessary restructuring of the article conflicts with the layout guidelines set at Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Your expansion of the video description is not relevant in the context of the song. The meme's success contributed to the song's subsequent success, leading to the commercial performance section, as documented by Billboard and OCC sources. Dan56 (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To Nowyouseeme, Moscow Connection made unexplained, unconstructive changes to this article and is offended when I revert him with an explanation that cites Wikipedia guidelines. Dan56 (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Layout and MOS:PARAGRAPHS encourages grouping paragraphs that are not too short, nor long in a way that gives the prose flow, and says to avoid single-sentence paragraphs and short-paragraph sub/sections. Dan56 (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of the internet meme is established in so far as its effect on the song's commercial success, as cited in the article. Moscow himself said in the section above that he agreed removing the extended detail about what goes on in the video was appropriate. Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not agree to do what you've done, to bury the story about the meme into the article. I though you will just remove the part about who created it. But it was obvious to me that the story about the meme should be introduced in the article and readers invited to read the page about the meme. The article is developing, everyone can add info to it any time. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is this "reader/editor encouragement" ethos you seem to be talking about? The story is relevant in that article, so add to that article. Is there a description of the song's music in the meme article? Dan56 (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to contribute to the article several times and got my edits reverted. I believe all my edits were constructive. 1. I added templates to tell Dan56 that the article said something that was not in the source cited and that contradicted other sources. You can read the section Misinterpretation, I happened to be right; 2. I changed the order of music styles based on a suggestion by an IP; 3. My latest edit was utterly constructive and added info to the article, while Dan656 is trying to keep it in its current (bad) state. I have not deleted what Dan56 has written, I simply restructured the article and added more info. I think Dan56 should cooperate with other editors, not revert. -Moscow Connection (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. You were not right, the Billboard source verified the video description (which you originally disputed wasnt in the article), and there were conflicting sources in regards to the origin, so we comprimised by excluding that part as well. 2. An IP requesting a genre change you agree with, but offering no rationale for the change, should probably be informed of Wikipedia guidelines on unsourced, aesthetic opinions. 3. I just explained above your comment why it wasnt constructive. Would you care to respond to any of the guidelines I cited in my response? Dan56 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is simple, before either of you want to make any major changes they need to be discussed here first since you two don't agree. Some reverts such as this seem completely unnecessary though, minor edits like that should not be reverted. NYSMy talk page 01:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree with changing the genre order for no reason? Dan56 (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think editors should understand guidelines and policies before they "cooperate". Dan56 (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain where any guidelines were not followed and I will correct my additions accordingly. You are saying "guidelines", "guidelines" without elaborating. I changed the one-sentence paragraph. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not contributed to the article at all, all my edits have been reverted, except a minor one. Let me contribute. Dan56 simply defends what he wrote. If there were many editors who contributed lately, if it was a good article, I would discuss. The article needs a major restructure. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There may be reason behind it even if it was't mentioned in the edit summary. Possibly the song leans towards one genre more than another, which would warrant an order change. An uncontroversial edit should not be reverted, even if the reason of it isn't explained in the edit summary, instead if an editor has a problem with the change it should be discussed. I support a more prominent subsection for the Meme due to its current immense popularity. NYSMy talk page 01:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is controversial if an editor is asserting that it leans toward... if it's not supported by any source, as far as whatever is leans toward. The genres are ordered in the way they are described in the section's prose. Dan56 (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I linked the relevant guidelines both here and at your talk page, Moscow. Please take them into consideration before commenting. I'll reiterate them. MOS:PARAGRAPHS: minimize single-sentence paragraphs, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading". As far as the meme, this article is about the song, so an expansion on the meme requires establishing its relevance to the song. The only aspect of the meme that is relevant to an aspect of the song is, as documented by sources, how its popularity propelled the song to sell and chart. If either of my points dont sit well with you, please explain why. Dan56 (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please describe, based on Wikipedia guidelines, what is wrong with my version. What I did:

  1. Moved the description of the song's musical style from a section vaguely entitled "Background" to a separate section;
"Background" is not too vague for other music projects. Dan56 (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Renamed the rest to "Release and commercial performance" and divided it into 2 subsections: before and after the meme erupted;
Why should the article structure be centered around another article? The entire article is about the song, so your change is giving undue weight to the meme. The restructure also required making single-sentence paragraphs, which should be avoided (Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Paragraphs). Also, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading" (MOS:PARAGRAPHS) Dan56 (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Merged the section "Commercial performance" with the section "The Harlem Shake" (simply because the single hadn't charted before February 2013 and I believed the article should clearly show it);
Wikipedia#SONG#Chart performance and charts. Also, the section titles should presumably be titled with the implication that it's about the song; ex. "Background" instead of "Song's background, as "(Song's) Background is implied (Wikipedia#SONG#Article body) Dan56 (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Rewrote the very short part about the meme, adding more details to clear the matter up (because the current description is unclear, almost incomprehensive);
It's a meme; readers who do not know what that is have "internet meme" linked there for them. Dan56 (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Did not delete the list of famous personalities who had done the Harlem Shake (because I didn't want to delete any of Dan56's contributions). But I believe it's excessive and should be removed. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I might agree with removing the list of personalities. That it was parodied sums it up well enough. Dan56 (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the meme, this article is about the song, so an expansion on the meme requires establishing its relevance to the song. The only aspect of the meme that is relevant to an aspect of the song is, as documented by sources, how its popularity propelled the song to sell and chart. Dan56 (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not proposing to expand the paragraph about the meme. I just moved it into a separate subsection and rewrote it. If the list of several random people who performed the Harlem Shake is deleted, the paragraph will be roughly the same size. Also, I added a comparison with "Gangnam Style", which is relevant. And one sentence doesn't count as an expansion. Plus, I honestly find the current part about the meme simply incomprehensive. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same size as what? Perhaps moving the last two sentences of the "background" section to the next section, as it's retail release and cause of subsequent charting (i.e. the meme) are more relevant there, along with the "see also" hatnote? The line about the "video meme" is a concise summary, and if readers are interested to know more, they'd click the link to the meme article. Changeslike this? Dan56 (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked a more experienced writer and reviewer of articles to comment here, for a fresh outside opinion. Dan56 (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is changed. I don't agree. The list of people who performed the Harlem Shake has been removed, that's all. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently has the meme buried inside a paragraph about the iTunes release. You say the prose should flow but it should flow only if it describes events that are connected. The paragraph has everything piled in a heap, unconnected events connected. The musical style also deserves a separate section, encouraging a further expansion by editors who know more about the genre. Chart performances "before" and "after" should be divided too. If the song hadn't charted before the meme, it should be seen clearly, even without reading the article. In short, the article is a mess. I saw it, I understood nothing, I wanted to make it decent. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed your points. In my opinion, you want to give undue weight to the meme. It's relevance in this article is solely in the commercial performance of the song, therefore it's included there. Sections are used to separate things topically. I dont understand expanding by editors "who know more about the genre", when this article is about the song. Do you mean expanding the information about the song's music? I agree that it should be expanded, but that doesnt mean it can be. I've looked for articles or reviews discussing its music and found very few, as the song isnt as notable or covered as the meme. The article structure should conform to those limitations, and as of right now, that piece of information about its music is where it's most appropriate. If more information becomes available, I'll be happy to expand and separate it appropriately. Dan56 (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of your explanations or messages or numbered list of points addressed the guidelines I cited about paragraphs, subheadings, and article flow. In short, this is getting nowhere if you wont address those points. And this may sound tacky, but "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." I would like to get on the same page instead. Dan56 (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't address my points. you are repeating the same things: that the article should flow and that the meme is not so relevant. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nowyouseeme wrote above: "I support a more prominent subsection for the Meme due to its current immense popularity." Didn't you notice? --03:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want to give more emphasis to: 2. the meme - absolutely, the meme should stand out; 1. the musical composition; 3. the chart performances before and after the release; plus, they should be clearly divided. Also, I want to clearly explain what the meme was and why the song was important. Preferably, what part of the song was used. Then, I want readers to be ponted to the article about the meme in case they want to know more. The whole structure of the article should be clear. So that people who read it won't have to search inside long paragraphs for the info they came here for, and they came here for: 1. the meme; 2. charts; 3. musical genre description. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree that the meme should stand out prominently, seeing as how the meme is the only reason why this article has 300,000 views in 4 days. Moscow, all chart positions are from this past week I believe. NYSMy talk page 03:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that "if discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor" is void, then. How do you think it should be done? Let's decide what's the best way, and then restructure the article. Will my version of the article's structure be okay as a starting point? Maybe, the commerical performance section can stay separate, but I think it should be clear either from its title or from the first sentence that the song charted in 2013 and because of the meme. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dan556 has just created a section named "Music and lyrics", but rehid the story about the meme to the "Commercial performance" section. Also, there's still a section vaguely named "Background". -Moscow Connection (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Background": "3.Information relevant to the current situation about past events". Have either of you edited a song article before? (ce. Commander (song), Complicated (Rihanna song), Butterfly (Mariah Carey song), Breathe (Taylor Swift song)) Dan56 (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the 4 articles include release details in the background section as "Harlem Shake (song)" presently does. The current section can be divided into two: "Composition" and "Release". Also, the first sentence repeats who Baauer is and therefore seems completely random. (Yes, I know I left exactly the same words in when I attempted to restructure the article, but it was because I wanted to make as little changes as possible and didn't want to delete other editor's contributions.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Breathe (Taylor Swift song)#Background. Dan56 (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, there was one. But there are 3 that don't. I guess it shows that it is not the best way to include it. By the way, the Taylor Swift's single was released only once. "Harlem Shake" was released 2 times, and the info about its releases is scattered across the article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, it's not void. Neither of you have addressed WP:SONG#Article body, WP:LAYOUT, MOS:PARAGRAPHS, or WP:PARAGRAPH. Cite a guideline please. Speaking of void, or moot, if what you're saying about readers is correct, then the hatnote included at the top of the page will already lead them to the article they're actually interested in. Why would they stick around this article if the interest lies in the meme? Dan56 (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are continuing to name Wikipedia guidelines without pointing to where they proscribe to leave the article as it is now. I can't see where they say to divide the article into sections the way you did and that short paragraphs are not allowed. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:PARAGRAPHS: "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading", which you did in this revision's "Release and commercial performance#Initial release". Which is erroneously titled, as song articles should carry the implication that the sections will be about something about the song (WP:SONG#Article body), such as its commercial performance, which you decided to title "The Harlem Shake" rather than what is suggested at WP:SONG#Chart performance and charts. Dan56 (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It says "generally", so it's an editorial decision. If a person doesn't agree with a section or a title, the person can simply merge the section or change the title or move the part about charts back into a separate section, there's no need to revert. I think the story about the meme should be separated into its own section and titled so that it would be clear what it is about. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph should develop some idea. That's what paragraphs are for. Not only in Wikipedia, everywhere. The paragraph where the story about the meme is hidden starts with the single being released on iTunes in January, which is absolutely unconnected. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A song has to be released for retail in order to chart. And stop referring to the meme "story" as "hidden". It's been given due weight. A description of the video and its origins will be connected to nothing about the song. Dan56 (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a correction, a song doesn't have to be released at all to chart, songs regularly chart from unsolicited airplay. NYSMy talk page 06:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This song didnt chart on any of Billboard's airplay charts. And it would have to be released for retail in order to sell, which is what this section deals with. Dan56 (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of these Wikilinks to policies are suffocating. I think that this revision is an improvement to the article, and if a policy prevents you from improving an article ignore it. The article was just created, give people a chance to actually expand on it without reverting immediately, even if it means having sections with short paragraphs. NYSMy talk page 05:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How convenient. BTW, even Moscow admitted that my previous reverts were warranted at the end of the above discussion. Dan56 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer you question Dan, yes, about 90% of what I edit are articles within WP:WikiProject Discographies & WP:WikiProject Songs. NYSMy talk page 05:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yet this looks foreign to you? Pardon me, but after expanding this article from this, I would like to hear a guideline or policy-based argument for facilitating an unnecessary rearrangement of an article I wouldnt mind nominating for GA even at this point. Dan56 (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you just wrote is a blatant WP:OWNERSHIP problem. NYSMy talk page 06:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well didnt you just say if a policy prevents you from improving an article ignore it? LOL, seriously though, this rearrangement is unnecessary and looks quite ugly. You know where I stand. BTW, Moscow want some more examples of good-quality song articles: Breathing (Jason Derülo song), Breakaway (Kelly Clarkson song), Break the Ice (Britney Spears song), just to go from the first page of the GA-song category page. Dan56 (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Admitting to ownership? Highly inappropriate. You claiming ownership is not improving the article at all. NYSMy talk page 06:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was being facetious (LOL?). In all seriousness, though, so is accusing. Dan56 (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained you why the current division is not logical. It looks confusing to me. When you write something, not only in Wikipedia, anything, you should highlight what is the most important. Other examples are irrelevant. Neither of the songs owes its popularity to a meme. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This song does. I too have explained why your structure doesnt make sense. The song doesnt owe its existence to the meme and is not a subtopic of the meme. The song shouldnt be structured around a current event, in this case the meme, that might blow over ([4], [5]). Nor should it be centered around a current remix controversy with Azealia Banks. Your idea about organizing an article based on importance of information sounds like news style, which is appropriate for news events and reporting, articles on current events such as the meme article you've been working on. Dan56 (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Gangnam Style"? Bad example. "Gangman Style" has a section entitled ""Background and release", and not "Background". This is not how you said the section should be named. There are also sections with unusual titles like: "Live performances", "Cultural impact", "Consequences", "Formats and track listings", "Credits and personnel", "Accolades and records". I think you should go to "Gangnam Style" and fix the titles and make it look like any other generic song. Just like the current version of "Harlem Shake (song)". --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The revision of the page as of its GA promotion shows that a "background" section was not a problem. Do you still want to use news style here? Dan56 (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, in the chart performance section, the second paragraph (starting with "In the United Kingdom, "Harlem Shake" reached number 22") is also confusing. It emphasizes how the song went from number 22 to number 3 and that the climb was immense. It is basically dedicated to the rise from 22 to 3. That doesn't make sense at all. The track never entered the charts before the meme broke out, it was simply that the climb of the meme to the top of the trends either took 2 weeks of was divided between two chart weeks. Since neither I nor anyone else can edit the article, I'm telling this to you. --07:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean by the "top of the trends"? The OCC source said that their "Wednesday’s Official Chart Update" reported that the song broke into the top-40 midweek at #22. Then, this source (dated on a Sunday) said that it moved "an astonishing 19 places since midweek to land inside the Top 3 at Number 3." Dan56 (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rise from 22 to 3 would be worth emphasizing if the song charted at number 22 without the meme. The meme's popularity was rising, it didn't take one day or one chart week. It is perfectly normal that the song first charted at number 22, and the next week at number 3. Many songs do that. But rare songs owe its popularity to a meme and rise from outside of the chart to number 3 suddenly. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your point? Dan56 (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should just invite me and everyone else to edit the article. I said the paragraph is illogical, now I have to explain it... This is too tiring... Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You have already said that you are the one who wrote the whole article. Now, you should let other people edit it too. You should be prepared that other people may change what you wrote, even completely. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Is there a page block preventing you from editing this article? The only issue here was your frivolous rearrangement of the prose and layout. You're the one that was offended by my reverting you and started this accusatory talk page post, and know you're telling me I should be prepared? Dan56 (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To note, viewers are not happy with the state of this article and are responding negatively to it. They want more information about the meme. NYSMy talk page 08:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell them there's an article on it. Dan56 (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To note as well, one reader wants a "link to download song please", and another wants to know the origins of the samples, which are in the article anyway. Dan56 (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "Commercial reception" section is illogical. I'm inserting it here for convenience:

"Harlem Shake" was released for retail to the iTunes Store on January 8, 2013.<ref name="iTunes">{{cite web|url=https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/harlem-shake-single/id601136812|title=Harlem Shake - Single|publisher=[[iTunes Store|iTunes]]. [[Apple Inc.]]|accessdate=February 17, 2013|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6EXjyyd9Q|archivedate=February 19, 2013|deadurl=no}}</ref> In February 2013, the song's music was set to an video meme that was subsequently parodied more than 3,000 times in other user-submitted videos.<ref name="Hampp">{{cite journal|last=Hampp|first=Andrew|date=February 15, 2013|url=http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1539277/harlem-shake-the-making-and-monetizing-of-baauers-viral-hit|title='Harlem Shake': The Making and Monetizing of Baauer's Viral Hit|journal=[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|accessdate=February 16, 2013|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6EXk1ZYx0|archivedate=February 19, 2013|deadurl=no}}</ref> The late-week media response to the meme helped the single sell 12,000 units on iTunes in the week ending February 10, according to Nielsen SoundScan. It consequently entered the US Dance/Electronic Digital Songs at number nine and the Dance/Electronic Songs at number 12.<ref name="Hampp"/> Mad Decent's manager Jasper Goggins said that "Harlem Shake" is the "biggest thing we've released on Mad Decent as a label, and it's happened within six days. It's really crazy. Every 15 minutes my mind is blown by something else."<ref name="Hampp"/>


In the United Kingdom, "Harlem Shake" reached number 22 on the UK Singles Chart in the week during the meme's phenomena. Its popularity helped the single climb 19 spots to number 3 on the chart. Martin Talbot, the Official Charts Company's managing director, said that the single's climb on the chart "underlines just how quickly this track has turned into a bone fide phenomenon. At the start of the week, it wasn't even selling enough to make the Top 20 - but it is now one of the UK's most popular tracks."<ref>{{cite web|last=Kreisler|first=Lauren|date=February 17, 2013|url=http://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/harlem-shake-fires-into-top-3-1862/|title=Harlem Shake fires into Top 3|publisher=[[Official Charts Company]]|accessdate=February 17, 2013|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6EXk5hGDr|archivedate=February 19, 2013|deadurl=no}}</ref>

(That is all the article says about the meme, by the way.)
I honestly tried to change the first sentence to say the truth. The song wasn't set to a meme. I tried, I was reverted. The person who wrote the section defends it and doesn't let anyone touch it. It doesn't seem right. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time you've brought up any issue with the first sentence. Your revision was reverted because it was a large-scale, inappropriate restructuring of the article. No one reverted any attempt of yours to revise the bit "was set to a meme", which I copy-edited. Now, enough with the accusations. News style? Dan56 (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. I brought up an issue by rewriting the sentence. You reverted. You said that I made "unconstructive changes to this article" (01:01, 19 February 2013) and that my "expansion of the video description is not relevant in the context of the song." (00:54, 19 February 2013) Therefore, you perfectly saw the changes. You didn't allow me to change the first sentence. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You expected me to notice nitpicky semantics over three or four words in this tactless mass edit of yours? I never objected to correcting "set to a meme" to "set to a video that developed into a meme", or any variation. Dan56 (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are we done? B/c I would like to nominate this article for good-article status, but if the article "is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars", it may be failed immediately (WP:GAQF). Dan56 (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not done. You are rejecting the changes I proposed and Nowyouseeme supported. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Instead of getting this article promoted, let's continue this pissing contest. BTW, I've asked a couple of editors who are experienced in writing and reviewing articles just in case. Dan56 (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been 9 hours. I believe an admin should be called in to decide if this is a case of ownership or not. (I've already explained that the article is bad. It has gaps, it has illogical parts. It is badly structured. Please understand.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You havent explained. It's your opinion, which I respect, but simply dont agree with. I believe the way I structured the article is more appropriate and have cited guidelines. What more can I do? I went to your talk page after the first time I reverted your massive restructuring and proposed to talk about it. It's okay. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia. J Milburn, one of the editors I originally asked, happens to be an admin. Dan56 (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry. You are right. WP:OWN says: "Provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded, being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership." Should we go to WP:DRN now? --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(By the way, I don't really care about it that much. I will take a break from the discussion. I will remove it from my watchlist for a while. The article must be corrected as soon as possible, though. I hope someone else comes and rewrites it.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the noticeboard, I just want to nominate this article. All I/we can do is wait for the editors I've contacted to chime in; soliciting outside/objective opinion is always recommended in a dispute. WP:SEEKHELP says that the DRN is for a dispute involving many different issues. Dan56 (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is a compromise possible?[edit]

Dan56 asked me to have a look at this situation. I'm not an administrator but I do have experience with editing song articles (mostly by Australian artists). I believe that both sides need to compromise to reach a consensus.

  1. My first suggestion is to re-name 'Commercial performance' as 'Commercial performance and internet meme'. Although this is a non-standard subheading its relevance to this song is supported by the discussions above and in reliable sources. An additional paragraph of information on the internet meme in that section would be justified due to the observation that the song became much more popular commercially as a direct result of the meme's phenomenon. A see also template already exists to point interested readers to find out more about the phenomenon but casual readers may not go there and wikipedia exists to make it informative for them too without becoming overly detailed. Lets see if we can start the compromising with a good three paragraph sub-section here. Some confusion arose in my mind about the release dates. Infobox has May 22, 2012 whereas first sentence here has January 8, 2013. The distinction between its free download date and retail at iTunes should be clarified here. What, if anything, was the song doing from May to December 2012?
  • Why would the readers not go there if it interests them? Dan56 (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why I made the distinction between interested readers (who do go there) and casual readers (who don't). Unfortunately many wikilinked terms are not looked at by casual readers: they expect to find enough explanation here without going anywhere else. I'm suggesting a balance between the two with slightly more explanation of the meme phenomenon in this article without overly detailed description which would be justified for the wikilinked article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well a search for "harlem shake" would lead them to a disambiguation page listing the three different articles, dance song & meme, as would a google search. If this is a primary topic issue, maybe the meme article should be at the top of the list? Dan56 (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What more should be added about the video? The sources used for the song's sales and charting attribute it to the meme's popularity and media response to it; the meme's popularity and media response are encapsulated with "being parodied more than...". If you're referring to a description of what goes on in the video, then how is that relevant to the song's success? Wouldnt by the same token the meme article require a description of the song, since it was "fueled by the song's audio as a backing track"? In light of this new source, though, I summed up what the source summed up about the video, as well as what/when its commercial release was, thereby changing the dynamic of this discussion, I think. Anyway, added before the line about "being parodied" the "30-second video featured people dancing to the song". Dan56 (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest another sentence on the form of the majority of the parodies: if most of the early parodies have a high degree of commonality then it is significant enough for this article to include a description. From what I read the user-friendly format of the YouTube meme made it easier for non-experts to contribute their version(s) and hence accelerated the popularity of the song. As for the meme's article itself that's a discussion for another talkpage.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section title would be confusing, as it's in no particular order; the performance discussed in the section happened/is mentioned after the line about the meme. If retitled to "Internet meme and commercial performance", that may suggest it is about the performance of the meme, not the song. Headings are normally expected to be about the subject, and preferably be concise. Dan56 (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a new reader (e.g. me) reads the article's Lead for the first time and wants to know more about this 'internet meme' stuff and how it relates to this song their first thought might be to look for it in the article's contents (I did). Having the phrase added in the subheading enables the new reader to find the subsection which deals with this information without going to the meme's article. Having the naming as 'Commercial performance and internet meme" implies this subsection deals with the commercial performance and internet meme of the "Harlem Shake" song. I believe it is informative and as brief as can be expected without generating a sub-subsection under Commercial performance which would have information on the internet meme but would probably only be a paragraph long.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll revise the lead to transition to the meme's effect as it is in the performance section: did not sell upon its commercial release until the video... etc. As far as the meme "of the" song, that's misattributing the relationship of the meme to the song. It was not a promotional effort by the artist like a music video would and had no official tie to the song. A phrase like "the song's meme" is not grammatically correct, and neither would be "the song's video", because it wasnt its video. Technical, but so is this stylistic preference/issue. Dan56 (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Infobox single says to note the earliest known date, which is cited in the "background" section. Dan56 (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I know that. However the problem was that the first sentence of Commercial performance had started with the iTunes release in January 2013. Its now better.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Allied to this I'd suggest a slight change to the Lead: to "Harlem Shake" developed into an [[Harlem Shake (meme)|internet meme]]. > to "Harlem Shake" developed into an [[internet meme]] of the [[Harlem Shake (meme)|same name]]. This is justified where an average reader is expecting to find out what an internet meme means but goes to the specific one instead.

I'll have more to say on other sections later.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add, I structured the article in a way that was conducive to the information available on the song, using both summary style and MOS:ALBUM's guide (unfortunately WikiProject Song lacks a similar guide). The latter suggests merging a too-small amount of information (i.e. a sentence or two) with a relevant section rather than providing it its own section, as suggested in WP:PARAGRAPH. Dan56 (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am familiar with these and applaud your efforts at adhering to these guidelines.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The 'Background' subsection is a little thin on content, some further explanation for casual readers is required. Probably another paragraph in there. Possible ideas for expansion: more on Baauer before the song; explain what is meant by "rededicated himself to music"; a little more on identifying both Rustie and Essential Mix; why is it called Harlem Shake: a tie-in with the dance itself is needed but try to avoid repeating information that's in 'Music and lyrics'.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biographical information not tied to the song would feel like content forking, as the bio article should elaborate on what I've already added, which is limited to say the least; this is his first official release. There's no source (i.e. interview of Baauer) saying why, just the assumption that it's the sampled vocal, which should be clear enough for readers. If not, it is what it is. Dan56 (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In the 'Critical reception' section maybe two paragraphs? Try one for before meme and one for after. Some sort of time-line might be needed e.g. before Andrew Ryce use something like "In August that year, ". The second paragraph can provide some critical reception of the music video(s) too which helped to sell the song to consumers.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this meme has no relevance to the critical reception. The paragraphs are organized as any art/media article's reception, positive → negative/ambivalent, or vice versa. The only critique drifting away from criticism of the song is Caramanica's quote on a macro perspective of the song's success and the future of hip hop, which I found interesting as it is a commentary of music criticism. What music videos are you referring to? Dan56 (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, you've convinced me that this article is going in the right direction. I've learnt more about internet memes. I'd like to thank you for your clarifications and consideration. I hope you can organise this for a tilt at GAC.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chart Performance[edit]

Why is Scottish and UK chart performance listed separate; when Scotland is part of the UK, and the song reached the same chart position in both territories?

It would be like pointing out Harlem Shake reached e.g. Number 10 in both Texas and the USA. Irrelevant. Suggest remove / tighten up? 86.136.71.13 (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC) D[reply]

They are two charts, which is why they are linked to separate articles: Scottish Singles Chart and UK Singles Chart. I agree that the former is a component chart of the latter, but it is cited in the article Scotland as being a country, albeit part of the UK; the article United Kingdom seems to refer to the UK as a sovereign state in the first sentence, then a country in the next. So it's not exactly analogous to USA and Texas, which doesnt have its own music chart. Dan56 (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics[edit]

Just want to add that "con los terroristas" literally means "with the terrorists". It may be useful for people that don't speak spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.216.182.136 (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The singer's Hispanic. Epic Genius 01:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

There's some guy called Dan arguing that the voice is feminine. I'm latin and I hear reggaeton and the voice is definitely masculine. Maybe this guy is gringo and he doesn't know what he's talking about saying I'm making changes deliberately incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.62.242.213 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The voice behind "Con los terroristas" is obviously's Héctor el Father's, a former reggaeton singer. [6] [7] [8] Lester Foster (talk | talk) 17:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Feminine" (not "female voice") means characteristic of a female, in this context, female-sounding, which is what the source supports, unsigned IP. Dan56 (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how does the source supports it's a feminine voice? It does not have the characteristics of a feminine voice, it's high pitched, yes, but definitely sounds male. How do you, Dan56, mistake a high-pitched male for a high-pitched female? Especially since, you know, it's also a known man who sings it, Hector el Father. It drives me wild that you are the only one who thinks it's feminine and don't let us change this. I am from Puerto Rico, and have heard Hector el Father say this countless times, he says it with such disdain, in the way it's pronounced, it's not even culturally possible to think of a feminine side to it. Yubal (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Feminine-sounding voice" → "which several listeners assumed is a female voice". Is this really that confounding? Dan56 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number-one hit[edit]

It is now a number-one hit!--150.216.174.235 (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism concern[edit]

Could someone put a protection template on this page to protect it against vandals? I've noticed a lot of vandalism on this page. Epic Genius 02:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

"Remix" heading[edit]

Per MOS:HEAD, "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated.)" WP:NAMINGCRITERIA also says to be concise. In this case, it is "(This song's) Remix", not "Azealia Banks remix".

The heading as is, "Remix", is concise. There's no need to distinguish if there's only one remix discussed, and using "Azealia Banks" as the adjective to "remix" is not a grammatically correct phrase. One of the article's shown at WP:SONGS#Models that has a remix section, Hollaback Girl, uses the heading "Remixes". Dan56 (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "Azaelia Banks", however, will remind people that there is only one remix, which is the one by Banks. People might try to change the page if this disambiguation is not made. Epic Genius 01:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
That's not as practical as "remix", which is in the singular form, which already tells readers it's one/only, as opposed to the plural "remixes". Again, more concise while implying the same thing: only one. Dan56 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Sorry, I must have misinterpreted the heading beforehand. Epic Genius 03:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Billboard inclusion of video streams in Hot 100 charts[edit]

The wiki states "The success of "Harlem Shake" prompted Billboard to include video streams as a new component of their charts."

This is not true. Refer to this article: http://www.avclub.com/articles/billboards-director-of-charts-explains-how-a-track,93406/

In an interview with Billboard's Director of Charts, he is asked: Why did Billboard just now decide to add YouTube streaming to the Hot 100? His response: It’s not a matter of, “Hey, we wanted to do it now.” It just happened that we did it now. “Harlem Shake” is a pretty big song out there that sort of shines a light on what kind of effect it can have on the chart.

He also outlines in his responses how this change in the way the charts are tabulated has been in the works for quite some time. Definitely not prompted by the success of Harlem Shake, as this wiki states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.146.129 (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki cites this source, an article by The Guardian quoting an interview from Billboard. Dan56 (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the article then at least acknowledge the conflicting information coming from Billboard concerning this, rather than assuming one is more correct than the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.146.129 (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dan56 (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add reference to Music and Lyrics Section[edit]

Would it be possible to add a reference to this infographic source to the Music and Lyrics section where the viral nature of the song is addressed? The piece was picked up by a number of popular news outlets and has pertinent data to the Harlem Shake phenomenon.

Thanks for considering its inclusion.

Shawncohen56 (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the song's music or lyrics? Dan56 (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sample reference is incorrect[edit]

I'm am pretty tired of Dan reverting this change when any person could easily tell after a single listen that the sample is incorrect. The song does NOT sample, at any point, any line from the song "Maldades" and DOES in fact sample THE VERY FIRST LINE from the song "Los Terroristas." It literally takes 20 seconds to listen to the song to figure out that it's wrong.

WHY THE FUCK do Wikipedia editors absolutely insist on reverting changes by people who ACTUALLY CARE about the content that they're editing? It would be one thing if this could even be falsely interpreted as vandalism, but this was a SIMPLE ONE FUCKING LINE CHANGE that I wanted to make to help people figure out the correct song to listen to if they wanted to hear the original version of the sample. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to revert this change except for just being a hard-headed idiot. /rant

27,500 hits on Google, including New York Times and Rolling Stone sources, verifying the sample is of the "con los terroristas" vocal from "Maldades". The source you cited again in your vandalism--WhoSampled--is a self-published source based on user-submitted content, as was explained to you at your talk page. *drops mic* Dan56 (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
your own flawed logic you're wrong. The fact is clear and simple that the sample came from "Los Terroristas." You have absolutely no proof otherwise. PERSONALLY FIND the exact part of the song that that sample came from and I would back down. It's as simple as that! Except you can't because YOU ARE WRONG. You are just being difficult because you are too thick-skulled to look for facts. Any source on the internet can be real or fake, even "published" ones. We're all human and we all make mistakes. The absolute fact of the matter is that the sample in the song is NOT from "Maldades" and IS from "Los Terroristas." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheeseman585 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the personal attacks. Stop the battleground mentality. Wikipedia is not about 'absolute proof'. We report what reliable sources report. That's the entire basis of the project. If reliable sources report it, we do. Demanding that an editor prove something a reliable source states is not a valid request. --Tarage (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to make this page a battleground. You guys are. I am simply trying to add correct information to a page. It shouldn't be hard. It shouldn't be a conflict. The edits I made are correct. I have references. There is no reason to change them. If you do, YOU are the reason for this being a struggle. Just leave the information in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheeseman585 (talk • contribs)
Stop edit warring. Reliable sources contradict what you are saying. You will be blocked if you continue. --Tarage (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I don't want to get into an edit war, because clearly this user went about this whole thing the wrong way but... you know he's right, right? Here's what happened: I was listening to this song earlier today when I became curious as to where the lyrics came from. So I came here to find the source and I find out it's a sample (well multiple samples but the other one checked out). I listen to the Hector Delgado song and I didn't hear it anywhere, so I listened a second time closer. Nothing. Then I looked up the lyrics and didn't see them there, so I double-checked the article. It said it came from a remix so I looked those up and didn't find them there either. So I foraged around on the internet until I found the Billboard article that had the sample right then and there in the first 20 seconds of "Los Terroristas." I was confused about the misprint in the article and it looks like a bunch of media outlets all just copied the info from each other without taking the five minutes to check the source. Figures. Naturally, I wanted to fix the error on this page and when I check the edit history I see it was already edited in once! I reused the relevant part of the edit but it got rolled back. I can understand if you're upset at that guy for being a dick or whatever, but encyclopedias aren't about people, they're about information. And unfortunately, the article as it currently stands provides false information. 2601:2C6:4900:A53C:C4EA:54D1:5E7E:B5 (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Socking is not the best way to get your way buddy... --Tarage (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was reverted by Isento, regarding the sample of the lyric "con los terroristas", when that lyric is clearly not taken from Héctor el Father's song "Maldades". Evidence:

  • You can listen to that song here, the lyric is not contained in it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFgWPnOaj7U
  • You can read that song's lyrics here, and they do not contain it: https://www.lyricsmania.com/maldades_lyrics_hector_el_father.html
  • A Vice article from 2013 points this out in its second paragraph: https://www.vice.com/en/article/ry3jwr/cool-research-new-york-times-skinny-real-mad
  • There is a different song by Héctor el Father that does contain the lyric, called "Los Terroristas". You can listen to it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY7g1a9VA78
  • There may be other songs by Héctor el Father that contain that lyric. I could not find an official listing for "Los Terroristas" on Spotify, and I am not an expert on Héctor el Father's music catalog, but it's clearly a mistake to say that the lyric is in the song "Maldades", and it is clearly contained in the song at the previous YouTube link.
  • Regardless of whether or not Héctor el Father claimed in the past that the sample came from his song "Maldades", this was likely a mistake on his part. On the contrary if there is some earlier version of Maldades that contained the sample, please provide evidence of this.
  • The claim in the Harlem Shake Wikipedia article that it is from the song "Maldades" cites no reference, so it should either be corrected, or the claim should be removed.

mmortal03 (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited in the article says it is sampled from a remix of Maldades, not the original. isento (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
isento, the NY Times article that is cited (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/arts/music/baauers-harlem-shake-hits-no-1-with-unlicensed-samples.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) says the following:
  • "The sample can be traced back to a remix of Mr. Delgado’s 2006 single “Maldades” from the album “The Bad Boy,” released on Machete records, on which it was a refrain"
  • but then the same NY Times article hyperlinks the last part of that line to the following YouTube video titled "Hector El Father -- Los Terroristas (Harlem Shake)" which is clearly *not* a remix of Maldades, but clearly *does* contain the lyric: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5viGE-lTLU
  • So, we know the article made at least one mistake, either by linking to a track that contains the lyric but that isn't a remix of Maldades, or by claiming the lyric came from a remix of Maldades when it actually came from a different song.
  • And here is a remix of Maldades that I found that *also* does not contain the lyric: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvEJ3N6TZng
  • I'm sure there could theoretically be other remixes of Maldades, but until you present us with such a remix, I think the best explanation is that the NY Times article simply got the name of the track wrong. It's quite possible that even Héctor got it wrong when interviewed.

The Times article has a postscript explaining the mistake and that it had been revised to say it was the remix, which would explain the incorrect link.

Here is a remix of Maldades that has the sampled lyric: [9]. isento (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harlem_Shake_(song)&oldid=1207552294"