Talk:FourFiveSeconds

Peacock language

Tomica has repeatedly reverted the change from "rave" to "positive" when discussing critics' reviews of the song. Although this word is cited in the article body with this source, it means the same thing as "positive" – Dictionary.com defines it, when used as an adjective, as "extravagantly flattering or enthusiastic". WP:PEACOCK - which cites similar words such as "acclaimed" - as words that "promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information". Gloss agreed with me on this but was also reverted by Tomica. Seeking other users' opinions. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well as you said, I do agree with you that it should say "positive" or something similar. Just adding in this comment since nobody else seems to have any input so far. Gloss 03:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:PEA says those words are often used "without attribution" and warns to avoid making "unprovable proclamations". "Rave" in this case is attributed and proven by the source cited. It'd be best to replace it with something that means the same thing--like "highly positive" or "very favorable"--since the source uses "rave" and to properly paraphrase it where the source is cited. But I don't see a problem with having it in the lead. Dan56 (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Just because a source uses it doesn't make it any less puffery. "Awesome" is cited as an example and if the source said that, we would absolutely not use it in a paraphrase. "Highly positive" would be preferred in both the article body and lead. –Chase (talk / contribs) 13:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Chase has been extremely immature and trivial in this pursuit of word changing. Saying "positive" does not indicate the level to how good the song was received. It did indeed receive "rave" reviews, a word which has even been used in a source given. "Generally positive" does not equal "Rave". It implies two completely different levels of positively and reception. "Rave" should have remained in the article until a discussion had taken place as to whether or not it should be changed. Instead, like a child throwing its toys of out of the pram kicking and screaming, Chase deliberately provoked Tomica into reverting, knowing the response he would get out of it. Chase should have instead posted on this talk page or Tomica's talk page and discussed it like an adult, not edit warring purposely like a child. It has made the article history very unstable and an editor has been unfairly blocked as a result, while Chase has not even been given so much as a disapproved eye roll. It is quite clearly an attack on the Rihanna Wikiproject and it's members, once again. Most probably because Chase when on a deletion spree (arguably a rage fuelled vendetta) and nominated a ridiculous amount of Rihanna articles for deletion which all pass criteria, then gave up after none were deleted and the first 4 or 5 nominated were unanimously kept or overwhelming voted as keep, and then gave up nominating the rest because he knew what a complete fool he had made of himself, which was rather sad and embarrassing to witness (I speak on behalf of countless editors). I can't believe that a such a huge mountain has been made out of a tiny molehill. All of this has been caused because of one word. I need not remind certain individuals that there are far worse, horrific, things going on in the world, and other things on Wikipedia need more attention than your trolling over choice of word. I am happy to engage in discussion about this comment/paragraph with anyone who has a high level of common sense, intelligence and respect on my talk page. I shall not respond to childish exchanges in this thread. I speak from experience. Thank you.  — ₳aron 15:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)