# Talk:Royals (song)

[1] Adabow (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Used it, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 12:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a huge section that centers on the opinion of a largely unknown feminist blogger? In that case, why don't we have a section for every bloggers alternative interpretation of the song? Since that would be unfeasible, let's minimize bias by removing the "alleged racism" section entirely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.112.90 (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC) 

The controversy about the blogger's comments received widespread coverage (see the multiple refs given), hence became notable. If other bloggers' comments about this song, and/or controversies they generate, receive a comparable amount of coverage, they may be considered for inclusion in this article. Dwpaul (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The topic is worth mentioning, but the current section is way too long - over 400 words! It's totally out of proportion with the rest of the article content. Specifically, there does not need to be a breakdown of every major blog or media mention of the incident. The situation could - and should - easily be summarised in one or two sentences. Something like this: In October 2013, blogger Verónica Bayetti Flores published a review of "Royals", criticising what she perceived to be racist themes in the song's lyrics. This sparked debate among bloggers and media commentators. Robyn2000 (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it has gotten out of hand, and should not have its own section, but just two sentences? And in which section should it go? BollyJeff | talk 13:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Royals (song)#Alleged racism: What Dwpaul said.  Also, we have two ref's justifying the blogger as influential – "largely unknown feminist blogger" is an unrepresentative description.  I think, it's a well verifiable historical item and should stay as a section.  However, the The Civilian and most quotes might be slimmed substantially.  Then, The Civilian para' might be merged with the following.  Overall, this might be reduced by about a third and still convey the useful facts, IMO.
Whilst there does come a come a point where coverage of such matters becomes more about systemics and how the media feeds itself, I don't think that's substantially happened here.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've bitten the bullet and made some changes. I replaced the big section with a couple of sentences, and references. It essentially summarises what the larger section previously said - that there were accusations of racism and a subsequent debate. And of course, being Wikipedia, anyone else is welcome to add/change it. :D Robyn2000 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems contra-consensual, fan-pagey/carpet-underswept and, now, ungrounded. (Meanwhile, there is beer in the world.)   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Catching-up: On 28 Nov 2013, the ungrounded portion of my criticism came home to roost and Robyn2000's (over-short, IMO) summary was wiped by another editor as under-cited.  Since I agreed it was under-cited, I reverted our coverage to the complete (sub-section) text.  This has undergone a couple of refinements and now forms a top-level section Royals_(song)#Racism_controversy.    – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it's predominantly good content and – googling around date-ranges of: "Verónica Flores" | "Verónica Bayetti Flores" | "Veronica Flores" | "Veronica Bayetti Flores" | "Feministing" "Royals" "Lorde" "Racism" | "Racist" – it seems we stopped covering the issue, due to article imbalance, when "Royals" was exonerated – not when the issue had ended.
I think the ideal solution is to float the section off as a dedicated article, where it's media-incestuousness, bigotry  PC vs systemic bigotry PC, etc. aspects can expand without further Royals_(song) imbalance.  Then the dedicated article carry the citations and coverage on this article can be summarised to about three sentences.  Do we think it's sufficiently notable? Do we have examples of similar situations, where such a split has worked?    – Ian,DjScrawl (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I've just made a couple of changes. I've removed the specific dates to each noted example, giving a general time of October 2013. Two months later, the story is no longer breaking news and we can start to look at it in terms of an event that happened in October 2013, rather than as something current. I've also removed the reference to the satirical article on The Civilian. That site is like a New Zealand version of The Onion, and Wikipedia doesn't typically note every time The Onion satirises a topic. As always, if you think either of these changes could be improved upon, go ahead. :-)
Also - I don't think the topic needs its own article. It's no longer a hot news story (at least in New Zealand - I don't know what it's like in other parts of the world) and I wouldn't say it's harmed Lorde's music career at all. Take a look at the controversy section for "Blurred Lines", another popular but controversial song from 2013 - one paragraph for each of the issues. I think that's all "Royals" needs. Consider also a song like "Give Ireland Back to the Irish" - 40 years ago it was banned in the UK, but that info is only mentioned as part of a regular Wikipedia single article. — Robyn2000 (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I think, relative timing is vital to the section.  I've recovered that, briefed The Civilian / CNN, and added some wikilinks.
My dedicated article idea's based on possible notability, not need.  Though reiterating, I do think there's more that's relevant to the media event, which is stymied by it's containment here. I don't think to was a stunt, more the product of the write like  a devil's advocate on coke style of commentary, pioneered by Julie Burchill.  I'd say the controversy improved the gravitas of "Royals", its notoriety and that of all involved, with The Civilian being the start of the fightback. We did miss-out on a cliché hip-hopper vs hip-hopper (Flores vs Yelich-O'Connor), metaphorical cap-poppin' exchange (I expect Lorde's schedule was a little tight).  However, I would be less surprised by a Pure Heroine follow-up including a "Dear Verónica" song, than by Flores coming-up with some music.
Thanks for the other song controversies, they do inform notability.  Another contributory question is that of novelty – How unusual is this particular juxtaposition of perspective / rhetoric in contemporary culture?    – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I like your latest edits. I would personally hold off creating a new article because at this stage I don't think the event is notable enough to warrant a page. If that "Dear Verónica" does eventuate (!), that would be the time to revisit. (By the way, I'm sure I've recently read a print article where Lorde comments on the racism situation. I'm not sure if it's online, though. I'll have a look through the recycling and see if I can find it...) - Robyn2000 (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm very late to this, but I'm a professional pop music critic, doing a sweep of the Hot 100 songs from the past year, and this is something I have some knowledge of. First, the Feministing piece was not the first to make this argument -- Feministing generally does more aggregation than original research, and when it (and Jezebel, etc.) cover music, they tend to pick up on things that critics and bloggers have already been saying. (I'm admittedly a bit biased here, because I commented on the hip-hop undertones in "Royals"' back in June, as did several of my colleagues.) Since then it's been cited as the only example of its kind and thus inherently more fringe (either as part of the clickbait cycle that turned "Blurred Lines" into a huge freaking deal or as a standard "here's one fringe blogger, can you give a canned response to refute it and look moderate" journalistic technique -- an otherwise excellent, high-access Lorde piece in Interview Magazine is the best example of the latter.) Admittedly there's not very much Wikipedia can do about that, and in any case it's no longer relevant because the controversy has taken on a life of its own -- but, well, that's why it seems like there's just one source.
I do think the second part of this needs more work -- not to flesh it out, per se, but to replace the hodgepodge of flimsy sources that currently exists. As you'd expect for a No. 1 pop song with a good deal of critical acclaim, every pop critic currently working has written something about "Royals" -- Slate's annual critics' roundtable addressed it for several installments, Spin did at least once piece, Vice (and maybe Noisey proper) and Complex weighed in, I'm sure Pitchfork and the New York Times wrote about it somewhere, etc. (Nowhere near a consensus, either -- Spin's writer has a different opinion from Slate's writers; another writer for 180 did a near-complete 180 in her year-end writeup, etc.) Again, I'm biased, being in this profession, but I think most people would agree these hold far more weight than citing some dismissive guy at "World Socialist Web Site," which is not generally known for its music criticism. Katherineonwiki (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
So where is the section placed now?  I don't see the subject as being mentioned at all currently.   GS438 (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The ARIA Digital Chart [2] lists "Royals (The Love Club EP)". Does this not mean it is a measure of the whole EP, with "Royals" as the 'main' track; ie "The Love Club EP including Royals"? Adabow (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

 Meganesia has contributed synthpop to infobox/genre, with a Pandora.com track URL citation.
The Wikipedia definition of synthpop chiefly relates to pop made with the analogue/monophonic synth's which predominated pre-mid-80s.  So, is Pandora saying "Royals" is somehow markedly 80s-retro or would we transpose synthpop to Wikipedia parlance for the modern equivalent, electropop?
Either way, neither synthpop or electropop are mentioned elsewhere on the article.
Anyhow, are Pandora.com URLs accepted for citations?  Do they even lead to webpages? When I visit the link, it wants me to register and, presumably, download a turnkey browser.    – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I have reverted the previous edit. — Simon (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed your Pandora is not a source for genres.  My questions were not entirely rhetorical.
Noospherologically (and aesthetically), insofar as synthpop or even electropop is applicable, it's by broadening their scope sufficiently that meaningfulness is lost in distinguishing this track from millions of others, i.e. the terms fail WP:PRECISE.
However, I am surprised by a categoric "Pandora is not a source for [track] genres" (WP search).  They have the funding and infrastructure to give world-class answers to track/album genre (assuming they're well motivated to be unbiased on the matter – I'm not intimately familiar with the service). If you have such, I'd value your fav'e link on the consensus.
BTW: I do think Infobox/genre content is sub-optimal and stymied by edit-war over-defensiveness.  I'll look for a rearrangement to harness WP:BOLD and drive it into a consensus-munger, around here someplace.    – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Page seems settled (mostly chart updates) and in great shape.
Do any of y'all think a  good article review would be better delayed further?    –  Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to tackle #Alleged racism overload before a GA review.    –  Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A question of how we represent "Royals" parental-release – The Love Club EP (then SoundCloud or retail) or Pure Heroine – from when/which we represent that on the Lorde discography#Singles table.
If editors would like to contribute, it's: Talk:Lorde discography#When's the 1st "Royals" could've been considered a download single?    –  Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know, perhaps from interviews with Lorde, where the music video was shot? I understand it was within Auckland, but my question is what area specifically? Ashton 29 (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It might be helpful to look for interviews with the video's director, Joel Kefali. I found one interview here, but he only says it's shot in Auckland. Robyn2000 (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
http://moot.co.nz/2013/05/13/video-premiere-royals-lorde/ says "Mt Wellington, Morningside train station, and a school gymnasium". The scene of a palm tree in front of an apartment building is definitely shot from the Morningside Train Station platform looking south-east. Perhaps all the train and train station scenes were shot there, I'm guessing. The recording studio, Golden Age, is one block from the station. If true that something was shot in Mt Wellington, my guess is that possibly it was the suburban street scene near the start and end. It looks like a new suburb, so possibly in Stonefields, to the north-west of Mt Wellington Domain. Nurg (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, a very informative response. Ashton 29 (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it's in D major, not G.86.156.55.182 (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The article says the singer wrote the lyrics, but who was credited as the composer of the music?Tito john (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I know this song's chart history and its recording artist are being compared to the singer Tiffany's comparable performance, but why have illustrate the Lorde article with picture of Tiffany? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to show a picture of Lorde?
Nuttyskin (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The dates in this article need to be cleaned up and standardized, especially in the sources.  In the accolades section, there are dates like December 18, 2013 alongside dates like 15 October 2013.  Presumably the latter is the form that should be maintained throughout this article.  only (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Only:  Fixed, using the later as you suggested. --AmaryllisGardener  talk 00:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@De88: @Sportomanokin: Upon its release, "Royals" garnered controversy for allegedly being racist. This significant controversy is never mention in this article, and that's a problem. The controversy should be mention for at least a paragraph or two, and it the article can certainly include quotes from articles that defend the song from charges of racism. -- MagicatthemovieS
This controversy was from one blogger not even notable enough for a Wikipedia article, on a politicised blog, Feministing. Flores calls herself a "Immigrant queer femme rabble-rouser" on Twitter, where the stuff she calls racist (I can't link a twitter search but just go with it) could go on forever. It's no surprise that this writer and this minor blog call something racist, just like it's no surprise when The Daily Stormer will call something "degenerate" or "Jewish", or Breitbart call something "liberal". Flores' blog post was referenced by other media, but the fact that most rebuked her means that this is best put for the article on Feministing/Flores rather than being taken as a serious piece of music criticism. There are also third-party articles about 4chan thinking a kids' show is anti-white (because that's what 4chan do with anything) [3] which was removed by consensus from the article about that show. See some of the arguments there: "WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and potentially libelous. We should not be giving a soapbox to a non-noteworthy fringe conspiracy. The agenda-driven issue doesn't become noteworthy and important simply because a few sources that are arguably more mainstream have started mocking it". This is it in a nutshell. It's a fringe view guided by one woman's politics, and the third-party coverage was debunking it. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Here. I want to add this, but the lens of the song's page is hip-hop influence (rather than being rap) and commentary however, so I don't want to be contradictory, but Rolling Stone said this, a well-known magazine. --69.47.9.70 (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Kurt St Thomas.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The Baltimore bluegrass band "The Dirty Grass Players" debuted their version of this song at the Hot August Music Festival in 2019 (Oregon Ridge Park). 2601:14A:503:6480:B96A:B097:8CE8:73B (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)