Jump to content

Talk:Like a G6/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"G6" meaning

I really don't see how people are relating G6 as it is used in this song. "I'm feelin' so fly, like a G6" How can that be related to a Gulfstream G650 or Pontiac G6?! ... I venture to say that they're using "G6" as a numeronym (like we developers use i18n and L10), and that it stands for a simple word (or slang) that actually flows well with the song -- possibly, "gangsta". --Qsheets (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the first citation: “It’s open to interpretation, but I think when we were writing, David wanted it to rhyme with three-six, which was a reference to the rap group, Three 6 Mafia, and he’s like, ‘Well there’s a G5; why not take it to the next level and call it G6?’ We made it up ’cause it sounded cool,” Hollowell-Dhar said. --173.75.159.54 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

According to James Roh (Prohgress), it does refer to the Gulfstream G650. (His Facebook response to someone asking what a g6 is: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204689756&v=wall&story_fbid=443556504756). Although, to be fair, since the Cataracs wrote the song, James' opinion would probably fall under the "many [who] consider the name to refer to the Gulfstream G650." 71.165.78.147 (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure in the end it's a G6, although it could be any plane Jasonxu98 (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The G6 they is the Gulfstream G6, Considering how they fly like a "G6," as it is debatably the fastest civilian plane.--68.42.67.169 (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Gulfstream G6. Gulfstream Aerospace aircraft IDs start from 150 to 650. They has ceased using Roman numerals since 1998 and thr G650 is not based on any previous plane models. Neovu79 (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Where did it mention the G650 had to be based on a previous plane? We have references mentioning the "G4" as well, implying a shortening of the name.
I have not seen an source yet from the Far East Movement stating this as fact. If you can show a article that states as much, then it should be mentioned as a rumor, not stated as fact. Neovu79 (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This means the feeling like you are powerful like a G6 when you are drunk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.49.166 (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for the sake of throwing another idea : G6 is also a music note. 74.57.234.140 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha yes it is. I don't think it's what they're referring to, though. Yves (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If Kev Nish says it refers to a G6 then I believe him, but what the article basically says in a very difficult manner is: "it refers to a Gulfstream G4 coz we think a G6 is flyer than a G4" That is stupid. It should be: "It regers to a G6 coz we were discussing it was even flyer than a G4" 29 december 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.134.243 (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Song meaning

I can only find an analysis of the song at http://www.hotforwords.com/2010/10/16/like-a-g6-lyrics-analyzed-by-kimberly-cole/ where she says she's shocked they're saying what they're doing. The only other analysis is where the performers are cited as saying it's about their lifestyle. So my question is, how can we best present the information of what this group is talking about? Can we get better sources for analysis than hotforwords? I think that since the subject is popular culture, a blog source is fine since that's the best we can find, but if someone has access to lexisnexus, or better, please find it. Aaronchall (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A blog source is certainly not fine. I could write a blog saying the song is about evolutionary adaptations of giant pandas, or the inflation rate and its effect on kidney beans in Bolivia. If you can't find a reliable source to support the information you want to include, don't include it at all. A video source like that is also not reliable. Yves (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS, "The reliability of a source and the basis of this reliability depends on the context. No source is universally reliable. Each source must be carefully weighed in the context of an article to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source." In this context, regarding a popular media figure, analysis from vloggers, video bloggers, is certainly appropriate in light of a dearth of commentary from other sources. In the context of translating slang into proper English understood by old and young alike, such a source is appropriate. There is a principle that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The logical corollary is that unexceptional claims do not require exceptional sources. Hotforwords is far from an exceptional resource. However, it is a flourishing publisher of material with a strong popular following. Your own blog would be nothing relative to hotforwords, because hotforwords has been around for a long time, and its author, Marina Orlova, has a good reputation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Orlova I wouldn't use her for a post on the Declaration of Independence, but for translating the meaning of pop-culture, she is a decent source. The claim that this song is about getting drunk, doing drugs while driving, and the lifestyle of the performers is not an extraordinary claim, rather it is a quite simple and ordinary fact. I think you're wanting to remove it not because you disagree with the source, but because you want to protect your precious performers from critical facts about their music. Aaronchall (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, repeated deletions of my material seem to fall under this category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete I believe it is within the spirit of Wikipedia to allow my additions to stand until such time as they can be improved to meet the perfect standards of some. Based on this policy, I will be adding back my text, with improvements and wikification. I do not claim ownership of this page, but I stand by my work. Aaronchall (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Section removed, opinions presented as facts by utilizing WP:SYNTH of sources and undue weight on lyrics which might present "bad things". Section was added solely because the editor believs that something negative should be added about a pop song that children (or douchebags, as the editor originally stated) may listen to, at the behest of parents. Your intent in editing this article is not constructive, we are an encyclopedia, not a battleground for morality. You are attempting to create a controversy when none exists. Until the lyrics become something of notable discussion, there is no need to analyze the lyrics or your belief in what they mean.
Beyond that, Orlova's background is etymology, not involvement in the music industry or any involvement in the interpretation of lyrics. Definitions of specific single words does not mean the same thing as lyrical interpretation. See "Bad Romance" for an example of another pop song in which only a basic description of the intent of the song is included, with refrences from music publications (Rolling Stone) and the artist themself being utilized. Also note that "Bad Romance" has been rated as a WP:Good Article by the community. Further, read WP:SONG, the guidelines for articles on songs as agreed upon by the WikiProject. Specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SONG#Main_body. The359 (Talk) 11:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why you feel like you have to resort to a video web log for a reliable source when many such sources exist, including The Canadian Press, Billboard, MTV News and many others. These reliable sources, which are widely used in articles on pop songs, don't even feel the expression "getting slizzard" deserves an explanation. The song's lyrics are not difficult to understand and not very disputable. Yves (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
These "reliable" sources read like the editors were too lazy to write their own print (except maybe Billboard) used whatever PR release they had under their noses at the time. In short, they are little more than hype, and do not critically analyze or discuss the music. Aaronchall (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I have found sufficient evidence to support an entire criticism section. Feel free to improve the section as well as the article.Aaronchall (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you're attempting to sneak your viewpoint of what the song is about by creating criticism that does not exist. The359 (Talk) 19:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Did you even read the sources? It does exist. 66.108.146.155 (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Really, think about concensus building when you're editing, from the concensus editing page: "In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute. Use clear edit summaries that explain the purpose of the edit; If the edit is reverted, try making a compromise edit that addresses the other editors' concerns." Aaronchall (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuous removal of the criticism section

Continuous removal of the criticism section violates several principles of Wikipedia. As WP:ZEAL says: "But when meaningful contributions are made, it is important to assume good faith in the contributor and not to rush to "get rid" of someone else's writing. Even if it does not follow your own interests, it was written by someone for a good reason." I believe its removal constitutes vandalism as defined here (WP:VAN) "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles." Criticism and tolerance of criticism is an important part of an open society. Intolerance of criticism is immature and against the policies of wikipedia. Deletion of the criticism section causes the entire article to lose a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Aaronchall (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Since Criticism is a valid reason for existence of content in wikipedia, and since it is opinion, the sources cited are valid. The sources are also notable, and have (or their parent organization has) wikipedia articles themselves. Since these are relevant opinions, they should follow the guidelines in describing opinions, or points of view, of critics. (WP:POV) This section probably falls under the guidelines for controversial articles (WP:GFCA). Aaronchall (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Under the structure (WP:STRUCTURE) issue, I am very open to discussion of how best to state the criticism section. I do not believe that full quotes are required, except that without the full quotes, the section was being deleted citing that the sources did not say what they in fact did say. But we should not give undue weight of the article to criticism (WP:DUE). Complete removal of the criticism section, however, also causes undue weight to be given to favorable information. It will read like a hype press release without the criticism included. I do want the article maintain a neutral tone, so assistance in editing it such would be welcome. Aaronchall (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been many reasons cited killing the section: original research, author's point of view, quality of sources, etc... essentially policy shopping (WP:PS), but it basically boiled down to "I don't like it." (WP:IDL) The article has recently stood for hours without change, and then immediately three different ID's sought to completely remove the section, and did so identically. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but these circumstances appear out of the ordinary. "When reverting an edit you disagree with, it helps to state the actual disagreement rather than citing "no consensus"." -WP:CONS Aaronchall (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your your unattributed "withering statements" and ideas about how you think someone else is "alluding to the fact that the song's topic is embarrassing." When you find your poorly written material repeatedly removed by multiple editors, it's probably a good time to realize that consensus is against your attempt to push your critical point of view about this song. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
You removed far more than that, you removed the entire section. I have changed the CNN paragraph. The "withering statement" accurately describes the preceding quoted phrases, which are cited. Removing the whole section is bad. WP:ZEAL Instead, you should seek to improve the article, and the section. Aaronchall (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
"While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion." - WP:IDL Aaronchall (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, good faith is assumed when the editor has not made any other contributions that may show an intent to promote an agenda or to edit an article because of his like or dislike for the subject matter.
Further, a section on a song's popularity or chart performance is not a "good" section, and there is absolutely no requirement for it to be equaled out with a "bad" section.
And no, criticism sections being opinions does not mean that any and every reference is allowable. Reliable referencing requirements are still in play. And of course, synthesis of information is still not allowed.
You have done nothing to "improve" this article, your intent on this article is clearly to concentrate solely on adding the "bad" elements you feel are so necessary. You are also edit warring in order to maintain your idealized version of the webpage, while telling others to take their opinions to the talk page rather than revert your edits. You have already stated your bias against this particular song, so you should not be editing this article. You are also now in violation of WP:3RR. The359 (Talk) 07:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
When a section is repeatedly blanked, with poor or no explanations or no discussion on the talk page, all at once, it looks to me like bad faith.
Well, that's your point of view, isn't it? And we should attempt to have a neutral point of view. To me, without the criticism section, it reads like pure hype. I'm sure we can find some middle ground, that's what the talk page is for, right? WP:NPOV
WP:POV gives guidelines for the presentation of opinions, specifically critical opinions. There is no synthesis in the writing, but combining multiple sources is supported in Wikipedia: "Invariably, articles will quite rightly draw from more than one source. So some forms of synthesis are allowed. It can be legitimate for a single compound statement to be supported by more than one source, even in cases where all the information relayed in the statement is not explicitly to be found in either individual source. Doing so can help editors avoid the appearance of plagiarism while also improving the quality of our articles." - WP:Combining_Sources.
Can you criticize the work, instead of making ad-hominem attacks, perhaps refuting the central point? Questioning my work in terms of my personal point of view and accusing me of edit warring is in bad faith. I'm merely attempting to be a good wikipedia editor. Undoing Vandalism is specifically excluded from the three revert rule (WP:3RR), and deletion of entire sections without cause or with poor cause is vandalism akin to blanking pages under the terms of WP:VANDALISM. Aaronchall (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
3RR applies to obvious vandalism, which is not the case here. Yves (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The section is repeatedly blanked for fully explained reasoning, backed by Wikipedia policy. And if there has been no discussion, what exactly is all this text on this talk page? Or on your talk page? Or in the Wikipedia chat room where you personally talked to me? Further, claiming that there has been no discussion goes both ways: you cannot repeatedly add a section without discussion and consensus if others have objected to it. And hell, now you're telling us that we're acting in bad faith with these reversions? You have absolutely not a single shred of proof of any editor who has reverted your edits acting in bad faith.
No, it's not a bloody point of view, it's a simple fact. It's an encyclopedia article on the song, we are discussing the song and what the song has done. These are not "positive" elements. We have songs on Wikipedia with almost no chart history and are known only for their controversy, are you implying that these articles are biased? The only point of view in these edits has been your belief that you believe the article is not neutral without a criticism section or without anything refering to "drinking and drugs and driving". Nothing in this article is hype, it is all coming from independent third party sources. Just because you believe it is hype is irrelevant, you have nothing to factually discredit the sources.
And yes, some forms of synthesis are presentable, as already stated on WP:SYNTH. But your type of synthesis you have attempted to use is not one of the examples that passes the criteria. You are taking two sources which are not discussing the same subject matter and attempting to use them to form your own original thought.
What attacks? These are facts that you stated, and I can easily show to anyone. You are coming to this article to edit it to further your personal agenda. That is prime reason number one of why you should not be editing it. Beyonf that, the point has been refuted, but you simply claim everyone else is wrong. How many editors now have reverted your edits? How many more need to before you might take a hint that you might be wrong? Yes, we are viewing you in bad faith, because you made your opinion of this song, it's listeners, and your editing intent known. There is no good faith when you vehemently admit you have an agenda. And are you seriously claiming that five different editors are all vandalizing the same article in the same way?
Well, at least now we are finally having a discussion. You say I shouldn't edit it because I have a point of view, and I told it to you (an act of good faith). Are you saying you don't have a point of view? What about the apparent fanboys who kept deleting the criticism section with no talk or justification, they don't have a point of view? Everyone has a point of view. We should make these edits based on logic, references, and discussion, not based on obtuse arguments about my personal motivation. As far as original thought, my last edit removed all relation of interpretation from the quoted material, and presented them as they stood. If we created a page about Hitler, and talked about how he went up in his career, and led Germany to nearly conquer the entirety of Europe, and did not mention the Holocaust, would that have a neutral point of view? I'm not attempting to discredit the positive information about them. I'm attempting to ensure that the reader will also see the negative information. "While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion." - WP:IDL Just because you dislike the negative information doesn't give you a reason to exclude it.
The section was not blanked for repeatedly explained reasons. It was blanked with no reasons given, and no policy justification. Further, if policy were given, the entire section would be deleted instead of the specific critical element changed. This is bad. WP:ZEAL When an entire section is deleted without justification given for the entire section, it is WP:VANDALISM. You cannot completely remove a section with no communication. I understand that this music group has a large fan base, but there is a reason for communication. We are here to improve wikipedia. I am here to improve wikipedia. And wikipedia is improved when we give a stereoscopic view of subjects, instead of a narrow one-sided view. You've said I'm not a noob, yet you continue to threaten me with templates. Please, let's dispense with the aggressive posturing and accusations, and work together to improve this article. Having balanced articles is part of improving wikipedia, and that's what I'm here for. Aaronchall (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
What fanboys? We've already address your bad faith assumption that there would even be fanboys on this article, which you claimed is the reason you threatened to revert anyone who removed your edits in your very first edit to this article. There still are no fanboys, so why you seem to keep using this term is beyond me.
No, I don't have a POV, you brought my attention to this article asking for help. What POV are you implying I have? And every bloody statement on this talk page has been made ragarding references and your edits. Your agenda pushing is simply a further problem that has to be dealt with, it is not to be ignored just because it is not about encyclopedic content. Your last edit did not remove your interpretation at all, and still relies heavily on the opine of an internet vlogger. Famous does not mean notable when it comes to discussions about music articles. If you think your example of Hitler's article is anything related to this discussion, then you're completely off base. You just compared a lack of criticism of pop music lyrics to the Holocaust. Really?
Ensuring that the reader sees whatever little negative information you might be able to conjur up is not the purpose of Wikipedia. We do not have to find bad things about every single subject matter in order to be neutral. This statement simply furthers the need to address your agenda with this article, as it is the key influence on your editing behaviour and your lack of actual discussion, compromise, understand, listening, or consensus. "There must be negative information" is not a constructive editing policy.
And for the last time, where has anyone stated that they are removing your information because they don't like it? No one has! You're making up this assumption in your head! Every editor has given reasoning behind their reversion of your edits, and policy has been quoted from here to kingdom come, both in discussion and in edit summaries. Do you not realize that we can see every edit summary? How in the world can you claim policy has not been quoted and no reasoning given? Everyone has communicated their reasons to you. So, yes, we can remove an entire section that is POV pushing and poorly sourced.
You haven't improved a damn thing on Wikipedia. You can tell yourself that, but you have plainly stated that you are a new editor, so why you would think experienced editors telling you otherwise are wrong is beyond me. You don't want to improve anything, you want the article to say what you want. The article was balanced as it was, your edits are biased and give undue weight.
Threatening with templates? They're warnings that your behaviour is not something that is tolerated by the community. They're there to warn you that you're doing things wrong. It might be a hint. The359 (Talk) 09:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, denying you have a point of view? I don't know why you're being so combative, except that you must be offended by the criticisms of this song. Well, personal opinion is really irrelevant, what really matters is logic and reason. You have two new sections to respond to specifically refuting the central points you've made in deleting these quotes, both of which seem to me to be disingenuous. Threatening me with a template means YOU don't like something, not that you represent the entire community. Well, I suppose now that you're swearing at me, that means that I've won on logic, here, right? Well, we don't delete documented resources just because we don't like them. I am concerned about undue weight, but I think we can strike a good balance. Please, respond to the sections below. Aaronchall (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
You asked me to look at the article, how can I have a point of view over something I had not looked at until you brought it to my attention? Why would I be offended by a criticism section for a song I don't listen to? You're just making up accusations without any substance to back them. Just because you made the poor choice of making your agenda with this article known, does not mean everyone else has an agenda that they are trying to promote. You are here solely for the purpose of twisting a Wikipedia article about a song you do not like, for the people who you have already stated at "douchebags". How is that not relevant to your editing? I mean, it's incredible to me that you continue to blab on and on about how other users are reverting your edits because of your belief that they do not like something, when you've said from day one that you are here because you do not like this song. That is the very heart of the matter. Logic and reason are great and all, but you're grasping at straws in order to try and make your POV stick. That's not logical or reasonable in the slightest. You are looking for facts to back your point of view, not looking for facts to improve the article. You're only searching out those that match your "this is bad" viewpoint. Criticism section, lyrical analysis, call it what you like, you've done nothing but attempt to put a "this song is bad" section into this article. Your only other edits to the article have been to argue that it is somehow "not a song", and to remove other sections of the article in a fit of revenge just because your edits do not pass muster. How is any of this improvement?
Warning messages for you violating Wikipedia policies is not a threat, nor is it because I don't like something. It's policy, if you violate it, you get warned. Period. If you don't want to be warned, then edit in a proper manner. And yes, these policies do represent the community, and I doubt you will find many in the community who would argue that the various warning templates that fill your talk page were put there incorrectly. They are there to tell you that you are doing something wrong, ignoring them out of some silly admiration for WP:ZEAL (which, by the way, is not a policy but an essay) and WP:BOLD is just a good way to get yourself blocked. The359 (Talk) 15:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Marina Orlova, Music Critic

The359 wrote at latest revision: "PluggedIn.com quote is not a criticism. Combining all relevant, reliably sourced material into a proper section. Orlova's opinion is still not a reliable source when it comes to content in songs, she's not related to the music industry." I disagree, but to separate the issues for logical analysis, let's address each one at a time. In this section, let us consider Orlova. As a radio show host, youtube channel host, and philologist, she can provide relevant commentary and criticism regarding the lyrics. She spent an entire video presentation on the meaning of the words and phrases in the song. Her expression of shock is criticism of the content. Aaronchall (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC) She is a philologist with TWO degrees in it. According to our own wikipedia, this study combines literary studies, history and linguistics. There could be no one better to tell us the meaning of a song's lyrics and to criticize them. She doesn't have to be in the music industry to comment on it, and this comment instantly relates her to it. She is a notable person who has her own page on wikipedia and millions of subscribers on youtube, and if she specifically devotes an entire show to the meaning of this song, and has a critical statement to make regarding it, it is worth documenting as a criticism of the song. Simply removing it because you don't like it is a violation of WP:IDL. The question of reliability is moot as well, as I am merely attempting to present, in her own words, her criticism as a notable public figure, which is relevant. Aaronchall (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Being a Youtube vlogger, talk radio show host, and philologist has absolutely nothing to do with music. Wikipedia even having an article on her has absolutely nothing to do with music. Period. I could make a blog stating my opinion of the song. Or, why not put up the opinion of Rush Limbaugh while we're at it? We have an article on him, he's notable, he's famous, he has millions of followers, he can state his opinion. That must pass for a reliable reference for a musical article, right?
No. Just because someone has stated an opinion and happens to look up the origin of some lyrics doesn't make them a good reference. And no, knowing the definition of a word does not make her relevant when it comes to opinions on songs. Hell, I'm sure she still likes dancing to the song, despite her opinion of a few lyrics. You want to put that in the article as well?
Again, bringing up "I don't like it" needs some sort of backing. A clear explanation of why Orlova's opinion is not relevant in the edit summary makes "I don't like it" not part of the equation by default. The359 (Talk) 15:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
So being president has nothing to do with music, and Obama's criticism of Kanye West is on Kanye's page (but probably not for long now that I mentioned it, huh?). Orlova has over 375 Million total upload views, and over 400,000 subscribers. Ok, so let's put in her quote with reference to her dancing excitedly to it. She is referenced in pop culture quite a lot:

"The sexy master of language, among the who's who on YouTube" - G4 Television;

"One of the most popular women on the Internet" - O'Reilly Factor - Fox News;

"The world's sexiest philologist" - New Yorker Magazine;

"#1 Sexiest Geek of the Year" - Wired Magazine;

"Sexicon" - The New York Times Magazine;

"I think she's a star" - Mark Simpson, inventor of the word Metrosexual.;

"Most subscribed to YouTube Guru" - Cosmopolitan Magazine;

"Sie ist blond, blauäugig und clever" - Spiegel Online;

"Things we like" - Gawker.com;

"The best way to learn English" - laSexta, Spanish TV"

She's notable since she has her own wikipedia page, and she's very relevant to pop culture, thus she is important. Since Orlova is important, her opinion is notable. The source of her opinion is reliable, since it is her own video blog. She expressed her opinions about this song, thus it is worthy of inclusion on this page. QED Aaronchall (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Being notable does not make someone's opinion relevant by default. How you came to this conclusion is beyond me. Since you seem to be on a policy frenzy, I would love to see which Wikipedia policy says people we have articles on automatically deserve to have their opinions quoted. And no, we don't put in whether or not she likes ths song, because that's just flat out dumb. At this point I think you're being obtuse on purpose.
Further, Obama's criticsm of Kanye West had nothing to do with his music, and Obama was not making a musical critique. Your example is poorly thought out. The359 (Talk) 08:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Marina Orlova, a noted philologist and popular blogger, opined
"Sizzurp is an illegal drink that contains promethazine and codeine syrup mixed with Sprite and sometimes Jolly Rancher's candies. The combination of the drugs makes you extremely lethargic and is dangerous. So I recommend that you DO NOT TRY IT! I am shocked that these singers are singing about such a thing!"[1]
Is this about the song? Or is this about the music? Or is this about the topic? She has over 375 million uploads viewed. She's pretty relevant to the song, and she's a response to it. Obama said of Kanye, "Jackass." Orlova said of the singers, "I'm shocked they are singing about such a thing." Think about it.Aaronchall (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
No, it's her personal opinion. And her personal opinion is irrelevant to this article. Number of views has squat to do with whether or not she is a relavant source. There is nothing to think about, you clearly do not understand the policies you throw out here. "This person is famous" is a moot point.
And I'm not going to argue the finer points of the Kanye West article, because we're discussing this article. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because something may exist on another page, does not mean this it is inherently allowable on every page. If you want to discuss the matters of this page, discuss the matters of this page. Although I would suggest actually reading what the Obama comment was about, since hint hint, it's not about a song or anything musically related. The359 (Talk) 10:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.hotforwords.com/2010/10/16/like-a-g6-lyrics-analyzed-by-kimberly-cole/

PluggedIn's criticism

The359 wrote: "PluggedIn.com quote is not a criticism..." Actually, it is, and it's really disingenuous to say that it isn't. Here's the quote: "As for the song's actual subject matter? Alas, it's as predictable and one-dimensional as the band's sound is fresh and energetic." The entire article was both complimentary and derogatory. In short, it was the most balanced treatment of the song that I have seen, even if they did miss the allusion to drugs. It was the first real review I've seen of the song. They talked about it from every angle. All I'm asking for is inclusion of the quote here, which represents their attitude towards the song. Lest you begin arguing that it's not a legitimate source, as you keep switching reasons for exclusion of critical material, it is the popular media reviewer of the Christian Conservative group Focus on the Family. Many people listen to their radio broadcasts and receive their publications in both print and online. They are intimately connected with the music industry in that they review many top charting popular music songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronchall (talk • contribs) 10:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Really, you want that quote in the article? Because that's not the quote you actually put in the article. You clearly left off the entire "band's sound is fresh and energetic". Instead, you took what you claim is a balanced treatment, and added the only derogatory quote to our article. I mean hell, you even say that they missed your favorite addition, the drugs, so clearly it does not have as much of the derogatory comments as you would have liked. And the entire article is a simple review as well, one of which can be found all over the internet. In fact, Yves linked you to three, but you seemingly felt they were all irrelevant. Nor is "the lyrics sound like other lyrics in the genre" really much of a criticism. It's a critique, sure, but it certainly is not enough to support the creation of an entire criticism section. I mean, honestly, you could probably find a source to back the claim of "this song sounds like other songs in the genre" for every single song article on Wikipedia.
And really, why would one want to use the review from a conservative Christian article, when there are many others out there which are more likely to not only be more balanced, but more knowledgeable of the subject matter and genre? This is exactly what I have said before: You are fishing solely for references which back your point of view. That's not how we improve articles. We do not say "Hey, I need a criticism section, let me find some references that criticize it".
Exactly what reasonings have I switched? I may have listed multiple reasonings, but that's quite different from switching. The359 (Talk) 15:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, unoriginality is a fair criticism to make, just as original and fresh is a compliment. If you can find any music critics reviewing it, please submit their opinions, since I think we need to think more critically about music. That quote WAS in the original version I posted, look at the revisions. You're being rather sloppy in your responses here. Aaronchall (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm removing this and your other source again per consensus here on the talk page. You would be well advised to succeed at building a consensus for adding them before adding them back. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
You were given several links to reviews, you claimed they were "hype" and said they should not be allowed in the article. The359 (Talk) 08:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Then add them in, don't be lazy, and Starblue, The358's filibustering hardly makes for consensus. Aaronchall (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Reversion by at least five separate editors is pretty good community consensus that what you are adding is not constructive. Yves (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Well the article has improved quite a lot since I first looked at it. You fanboys just want to protect your favorite celebs from reliably documented criticism. Well, we'll keep trying to find a middle ground, now, won't we? Aaronchall (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, what fanboys? We're removing your section because you're POV pushing and violating policy. You aren't searching for a middle ground at all. You're not fooling anyone either. The article doesn't need any addition of "praise" because the article is balanced as is. You still don't get that statistics about chart performance and remixes by other artists are not "positive" in the slighests. They're facts, plain and simple, not opinions. The359 (Talk) 10:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Reaction from Gulfstream

This article previously had a sentence regarding Gulfstream's reaction to this song, however it has just now been removed by Aaronchall.[1] That sentence read: "Business magazine Fortune wrote that Gulfstream Aerospace "said that they were 'thrilled' about the enthusiasm for the product in the song." I thought that was an interesting fact, and I can't imagine a more reliable source for a company's reaction than Fortune magazine. I'm interested in finding out what others think. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. Though the same user has now added a quote form the article that says something completely different and is noncontextually confusing. Yves (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Once again, Aaronchall clearly wanting to put "this article is about drinking and driving" into the article, no matter how much he has to contort policy to get it. Agenda pushing will not be tolerated, period. The359 (Talk) 10:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise on reviews

It's not "about drinking and driving," it's about drinking and doing drugs (while in a car), here are the lyrics which are repeated over and over in the song:

Poppin' bottles in the ice, like a blizzard
When we drink we do it right gettin' slizzard
Sippin' sizzurp in my ride, like Three 6
Now I'm feelin' so fly like a G6.

I'm sure some kids will get jail time for drinking and driving while attempting to emulate this song. But I am concerned about proportionality. There has been a lot of positive press about this song, and I am concerned about due weight and proportionality. So allow me to propose a compromise. We have one sentence or two summarizing all of the press, with an allusion to the negative reviews as well, specifically mentioning illegal drugs, (syzzurp). I think this is a good compromise because it will contain factual information about the opinions of many people on all sides. It will be fair to FEM and its fans, and additionally serve curious people who would like to see a review summary of the song that encompasses every angle. Aaronchall (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What kids may do because of this song is not Wikipedia's problem. You've been told this, repeatedly. Weight has to do with the article itself. You cannot create an article saying the song is bad in order to balance the amount of press outside of Wikipedia. We are also not here to serve Far East Movement or their fans, we're an encyclopedia. That also means we are not here to serve your interests. If someone is curious and wants to know what slizzard and sizzurp mean, they can look them up. Because shock and awe, they already have definitions elsewhere on Wikipedia and anyone looking them up can get a clear answer!
Your compromise is rubbish because you're still attempting to skew the article and attempting to use Wikipedia to target a specific group and imply that this song is bad. For the last time, your clear agenda pushing means you should not be editing this article. The359 (Talk) 20:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a specific proposal here. Starblueheather (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Description of the song is missing a few things

The article would be more accurate and useful if it referenced Gulfstream G650, Roland TR-808, Purple Drank, and Three 6 Mafia among other things. Billgordon1099 (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It already refrences the "G6" Gulfstream. How is the article inaccurate without specifically linking to the other three? Certainly if someone wished to look up the articles, they would easily find the existing articles you have already linked to. The359 (Talk) 04:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Date of recording

So, I was wondering as to how this song could have possibly have been recorded on February 2010, if the song had been released on YouTube in 2009, or is the date referring to a remastered version that the group did for their Free Wired album? Leventio (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Booty Bounce sample

The article states that Like a G6 "samples Dev's single "Booty Bounce" which is the hook/chorus" and the Booty Bounce article says that ""Booty Bounce" was sampled in Far East Movement's hit single "Like a G6"", but I'm wondering how this is possible when Like a G6 was released 4 months before Booty Bounce. Wouldn't that mean that Booty Bounce samples like a G6 instead of the other way around? Charwinger21 (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No. It doesn't matter what song was released first They were both made in the same summer, and when making G6, the Cataracs decided to sample a verse from Booty Bounce. Pancake (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
actually, according to this article like a G6 was finished recording in the winter, february specifically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.58.85 (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Reliable sources say that "Like a G6" samples "Booty Bounce." Since both are produced by the Cataracs, it's not hard to imagine "Booty Bounce" could be sampled before its official release date. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I realize that it is quite possible that Booty Bounce samples Like a G6, the problem that I have is that there is no link to any "Reliable sources" next to the statement on either page. If the sources are indeed reliable, then why not post a link to one of them in the article? As far as I can tell, it would only enhance the quality of both articles. Charwinger21 (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It's been a month, and I'm just wondering if there is any word on those "reliable sources" as I'm having a bit of trouble finding them. Charwinger21 (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Kirby G Six?

This song is totally pointless. I think they stole from the Kirby company who used the G Six name 10 years earlier on their model G Six. I'm not sure what they are refering to in the song rather it's the Pontiac G6, Kirby G Six or someting like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PS31994 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The band has said that they were referring to the Gulfstream G650, in a reference to how Drake talks about how he "know[s] G4 pilots on a first name basis" in his song Forever. In fact, the plane that they board at the end of the music video is a G4, not a G6. Charwinger21 (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The opening has quotes from Far East Movement discussing how they came up with the "G6" term. However, immediately after that it says it's from the Dev song "Booty Bounce" instead. Who came up with it, Far East Movement or Dev? It can't be both.Josh (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

With a G6

This should also ref parodies like "Roll a D6" and With a G6, not simply via the merge template at the top. – SJ + 01:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Asian?

"Like a G6" made Far East Movement the first Asian artist to ever top the Billboard Hot 100.

They are an American band, not Asian. Nahum (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Asian-American more approriate

The more PC term would be "Asian-American." and they aren't even the first.... That honor would go to Yvonne Elliman (who is half-Asian in 1978)... And they weren't even the first Asian... that honor went to J-Pop artist Kyu Sakamoto in 1963 with the much recorded "Sukiyaki.".... Therefore the statement that they are the first will be deleted.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.68.146 (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Like a G6. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Like a G6. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Like a G6. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on date.

The Official YouTube channel for the Far East Movement originally published the song in 2009, while there is no mention of this in the article, crediting it as a 2010 single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomelena (talk • contribs) 21:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Like_a_G6/Archive_1&oldid=1136262422"