A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Taylor SwiftWikipedia:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTemplate:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTaylor Swift articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Just in case I get reverted again, the information about Katy Perry does not belong. Per WP:SPECULATION: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." And since it is speculation, it is from reliable sources, but it cannot be included. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(merging the two threads; as you posted yours while I was preparing mine) Joseph Prasad has repeatedly removed references to reliable sources suggesting that Katy Perry may be the subject of the song, on the grounds that Swift has not said so. Ordinarily, such gossip wouldn't be worthy of inclusion, but when it's reported by a multitude of sources including Washington Post (includes lyrical analysis), Time (includes lyrical analysis), USA Today, Billboard, E!, LA Times, Telegraph, MTV, and Gawker – amongst others – the omission becomes quite glaring. WP:SPECULATION tells us not to include speculation about future events, speculation based on original research, or speculation/rumors (even from reliable sources) about new products. Note that SPECULATION points to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, which solely discusses future or anticipated events. WP:ANALYSIS, however, tells us that "Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Joseph (and anyone else interested), would you care to discuss this? –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not even when the sources refer to lyrics and evaluate them? Critical analysis and commentary that does not involve the creator of the work is permitted for books, films, etc.; songs should be no exception. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not even then. I would only include this type of thing for songs if the singer(s) and/or songwriter(s) themselves confirm it. If on the other hand they specifically deny a song is about something, their response could be worth mentioning. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Perry information should be included as long as we attribute it as an interpretation or however else we classify it. CalidumT|C02:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with including this isn't so much reliability of sources as it is unverified presumptions. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a gossip site, and adding such presumptions can come off as gossipy. If however someone involved with song creation comments on such presumptions—whether it is confirmation or denial—then perhaps their word could be included. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the Katy Perry speculations come from analysis of the song by critics at reputed publications. It's why we include, for example, reported parallels between Let It Go (Disney song) and the gay community. If noted critics discuss a work and analyze its lyrics/composition, that lends to its notability and should be included. It's not like we're citing the National EnquirerorTiger Beat's sensationalized drama headlines. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
should be mentioned the association of this song to Katy Parry as it has become a pop reference, and widely stated in media, even if not true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citation Needed in Critical Reception section[edit]
The last sentence of the first paragraph requests a citation for Entertainment Weekly declaring "Bad Blood" as one of the best tracks on the album. The Entertainment Weekly review of 1989, available here lists Bad Blood as one of the best tracks on the album at the end of the article. I would add the citation myself but the article is currently under semi-protected status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richestmanintown (talk • contribs) 02:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is the song "Bad Blood" actually in G major or E minor. On musicnotes.com it says that the song is in G major. If the song is actually in E minor, change the key. Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have several reviews cited. We do not, however, have reliable sources that say reviews have been mixed, mixed to negative, negative or anything else. Instead, this is synthesis: combining material from multiple sources to say something that none of the sources say directly. The article has been edited numerous times to change the particular synthesis.
The solution is simple. Rather than combining sources to come up with a synthetic statement, let the sources speak for themselves. Quote individual sources. Comments? - SummerPhDv2.001:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song). 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, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
I have just modified one external link on Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song). 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.
Added. Sorry it took so long, Richestmanintown. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
