# Talk:U Smile

Is the slowed-down ambient version of this song currently making the rounds on the internet worth mentioning in this article? It's been covered by entertainment blogs from several news outlets, including Entertainment Weekly, National Post, Exclaim!, Metro, CNET, NPR, Billboard, NY Mag, Gawker,
CBC.ca, and MTV. Guessing Game (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe it should since it has been covered to such an extent. Candyo32 00:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This claim, cited to MTV, is disputed.  Now I realize that a person could point to a certain interpretation of sourcing policy in an attempt to presumptively settle the matter.  But consider the fact that MTV, the source for this claim, attributed a quote to Justin Bieber in its story.  What if Bieber's verified Twitter account were to tweet a rejection of the quote's accuracy?  Would there be no concern at all based on the argument that anything that is tweeted is always unreliable?  How would that argument make sense when the source for MTV's Bieber quote is itself a tweet by Bieber?  The point being here that we have to use some logic.  There is considerable evidence that the video premiered online on September 29 or September 28.  The video director has said he suspects a "leak" occurred and I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of that statement.  For more on the "edit war" over this matter, see the associated discussion here. At a minimum, I think this should be revised from "September 30" to "end of September".  This may seem a minor issue but I have made an issue out of it because I think there is a larger issue in the background about how a readiness to revert back to previous versions with apparent attempts to incorporate added material is at odds with the idea of collaborative article development.  --Bdell555 (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I started the music video section on Sept 30, because thats when it premiered.
According to MTV (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1649096/20100930/bieber_justin.jhtml) The video; "premiered on Thursday (September 30)".
According to CMR (http://www.current-movie-reviews.com/music/2010/09/30/new-justin-bieber-video-here-u-smile-video-is-best-bieber-ever/] was published on September 30, and states; "The “U Smile” video has finally been released".
According to E! (http://uk.eonline.com/uberblog/b203297_exclusive_justin_biebers_u_smile_video.html) published Thu., Sep. 30, 2010 3:58 PM PDT by Jennifer Cady the video states; "The new Justin Bieber video is finally here! OMB! E! News is world premiering "U Smile" tonight at 7/6c but we've got an exclusive first look at the video right here"
Using the things above, it premiered on Sept 30, a few hours before it was suppose to. Vevo may state Sept 28 but Vevo gets their release dates wrong all of the time. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim that "Vevo gets their release dates wrong all the time"?  re MTV, that's begging the question because sourcing to MTV is the very matter at issue.  CMR does not imply that the video could not have appeared on VEVO a day or two early.  As for the E! blog, it actually contradicts the current reading of the article if anything, because E! is an American cable television network and the article says it "premiered ONLINE".  That said, I don't hold as strong an opinion about the matter now that it appears editors are prepared to discuss the matter.Bdell555 (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You may argue this all you want. Until you get a source stating it premiered on a different date it is not to be changed. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Sources were provided for the contention that the video "apparently appeared on VEVO" prematurely.  If you think the director was not in a position to know whether there was, in fact, a "leak" or not, I haven't seen a reason offered for that belief.  In any case, this wasn't the only element of my editing that you deleted, as you also deleted my identification of the video director, and I'm sorry but you do not WP:OWN the article.  If the community consensus is to change it, it will be changed.Bdell555 (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Im not owning, read what own is. Further, consensus is against you at the moment. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact still remains that we go by reliable sources on Wikipedia, so since MTV.com and the other sources are reliable, we go by what the articles state, rather than WP:TWITTER, which is not to be cited in any circumstances. Candyo32 22:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This response, of course, totally ignores the argument I have advanced, above.  Again, if Twitter is always unreliable, by extension MTV should be unreliable because it is citing an unreliable source.  Wikpedia policies are meant to supplement analysis, not excuse an absence of it.Bdell555 (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you will understand my upcoming statement, but by MTV posting it is kind of like confirming the information via Twitter is indeed true. Candyo32 22:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Now you are using logical reasoning instead of citing policy.  Leaving aside whether your argument is, in fact, valid, I commend the reasoning effort.  Both of you have previously insisted to me what the rules are while not following them yourselves.  Not following them actually made sense when you haven't followed them, such that it is your insistence on what you believe the rules are that is the problem.  I was previously told that "it needs a reliable source, no ifs, ands, or buts", yet what we've had here is a claim that I have made (which includes the claim that Colin Tilley directed this video; I have yet to hear an argument for why this information should not be included) which was inline cited to not one source but three, deleted in favour of a whole paragraph ("synopsis") that has NO SOURCE AT ALL.Bdell555 (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Synopsis does not need to contain a reference. Its the same with plots for movies, and books. In a synopsis the only thing that needs to be sourced is if you say for example, ; A specific location, or a specific brand, or if a guest like lets say Usher is featured in a video, those would need sources, but not when describing the Synopsis. Further i am all for adding who directed it to the background. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Is a "synopsis" an "if" an "and" or a "but" to your previous declaration that "All edits must contain a reliable source"?Bdell555 (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps i was wrong, because plots and Synopsis sections do not need sources. Now can we stop arguing, it seems you are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. There are sources above that state it was released/(leaked what ever u wanna call it, on the 30th). Can we agree now? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I am being argumentative for the sake of avoiding future edit wars involving you and Candy vs other editors.  This isn't the first time we've had a conflict.  You seem to be willing to grant that sourcing is not a totally black and white issue such that one often has to look at the specifics of the edit at issue instead of applying a blanket rule.  As such I'll concede the argument over editing this page.  I'm still not convinced that "September 30" is superior to "end of September" since I think less definitive wording would be prudent but it's not something I would revert, the larger background issue having at least been addressed if not settled.Bdell555 (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Look, we are just following Wiki guidelines and citing only reliable sources. So if you have a problem, go take it up with Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Candyo32 23:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Well in fact you don't "just follow Wiki guidelines" with the uncited synopsis being an example.  You've previously told me "EVERYTHING ON WIKIPEDIA MUST BE VERIFIABLE" yet the only way I can verify the synopsis is by watching the video on Youtube, which you insist is forever and always unreliable.  Note that on Wikipedia:Verifiability the words "challenged or likely to be challenged" are boldfaced.  If you are going to challenge something, that's fine, but to not even challenge the specific added facts and instead delete citing generalities is another.  In any case, I'll concede the matter for now on the grounds that you intend to substantively challenge the accuracy of the particular information I added as opposed to blindly applying rules when they so happen to serve your particular idea of how an article should read.Bdell555 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Reiterating my previous statement, I have no clue why you are arguing why we refuse to use a unreliable source, appropriate to start a discussion at WP:RS. Candyo32 23:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
In this case, no, it is not appropriate for a policy Talk page;  - not every dispute on Wikipedia is GENERAL, such that it should be discussed on a policy page.  Many, if not most, disputes can and should be discussed SPECIFICALLY.  That means here, and means addressing the substance of the edit, as opposed to applying some blanket rationale.  Why do article Talk pages exist, in your mind, if edit disputes are simply resolved by applying the policy such that any issues must be with the policy itself?  In any case, I might note that I came to this article today to restore a good chunk of the material you two editors want included.  If the screenshot in particular were not restored, Wiki robots would automatically put the screenshot up for deletion, which would have undone User:L-l-CLK-l-l's work in uploading File:U Smile Music Video.jpg.  The threats from this same user to have me blocked accordingly seemed a bit much; a little more caution and a little less self-certainty may keep things running more smoothly going forward.Bdell555 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
To act as my own critic here, I think the biggest problem with contending that there was a leak is WP:original research.  MTV was wrong about who the director was, so they are not infallible.  The director himself would be in a position to know if there was a leak or not, but a secondary source would be preferable because secondary sources are generally preferable as per the no original research policy.Bdell555 (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

However what you are arguing for is general. Surely several other articles use a reliable source that talks about a celebrity tweet. Candyo32 01:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I made the previous statement without reading your critique, but of course I don't think we expect reliable sources to be perfect all the time. Candyo32 01:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

See promo single. If this was released as a CD single that was for sale to the public then it is an official single. --Cprice1000talk2me 23:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. The article says it was an official single. At first it was promo, then it was released as the album's third single. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 00:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
And you know what? I need glasses :P --Cprice1000talk2me 03:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Lol, no problem. I get confused too. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 03:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Revert the single's cover to the original, because some bastard decided to replace it with a monkey. Also, protect it from being vandalized any further. StanMarsh21 (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on U Smile. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://cclamp.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite20/Members/Formats.aspx?FormatId=15
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allaccess.com/top40-rhythmic/future-releases
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed 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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on U Smile. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://cclamp.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite20/Members/Formats.aspx?FormatId=15
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170207200650/http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691 to http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=16691
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) 23:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)