This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rich Men North of Richmond article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A fact from Rich Men North of Richmond appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 September 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
In this discussion, there is a clear consensus that it should include this statement in some form or another, both on strength of argument as evidenced by reference to several reliable sources and based on support among the community.
The consensus on the form the statement should take is less clear, with four options being discussed:
A strong argument against attribution was presented by FormalDude; since the assertion that the song includes/revolves around right-wing talking points is uncontested by reliable sources, per WP:NPOV we should normally state that in WikiVoice.
This argument was not rebutted, and so I see a rough consensus against requiring attribution.
Between option one and two I see a rough consensus for option two; no editor explicitly supported "revolve around right wing talking points", and arguments by editors explicitly arguing for "include right-wing talking points" are based in policy, arguing that this statement reflects the sources.
There is no consensus on the exact wording; some editors expressed preference for phrasing less awkward than "talking points"; there is also no consensus on where it should be included, although some editors mentioned the "reception" section. Both of these questions should be resolvable through normal editing. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The song's lyrics revolve around common right-wing talking points.
This sentence from the article has been the source of a lot of debate and has been removed and restored multiple times.
Should the article mention that the song's lyrics revolve around or include right-wing talking points? 22:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
While the song opens with an easy-to-appreciate message—the numbing grind of working for little pay, and frustration at the state of politics in 2023—it quickly takes a turn when Oliver Anthony addresses common right-wing talking points."
With lyrics that tout some of the most common right-wing talking points, it’s no surprise that the song is drumming up support from Republicans."
The supposed welfare abuse sounds like a rightwing talking point, and Anthony doesn’t appear to have considered that the nefarious fudge rounds might be feeding the very people he mentioned with nothing to eat."
From there, though, he hits a few talking points that are more Fox News than MSNBC at the moment, first wading into the culture war over personal liberty: 'These rich men north of Richmond/Lord knows they all just wanna have total control/Wanna know what you think, wanna know what you do/And they don't think you know, but I know that you do.'" and "
Anthony goes on to holler that 'your dollar ain't sh-t and it's taxed to no end,' another Fox News talking point relating to inflation (the I-word is an attack on Biden) and big government."
attracting a fair bit of political attention off-wiki (for example) by someone already in favor of removing the line.
Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.
The others aren’t mentioned on
WP:PERENNIAL.Emma Keates wrote in The A.V. Club that Anthony's lyrics are "not... as blatantly threatening" as those in Aldean's single, but "they're generally still based on a number of regressive and gross stereotypes that are filtering into mainstream music in a frightening way". Some criticized the song for its line about "the obese milkin' welfare", calling the line "fatphobic" and claiming that it draws on negative stereotypes about welfare recipients.
lyrics revolve around common right-wing talking points., but state it only as an opinion. Some of the sources used words like "sounds like" or "feels like", which are statements of personal feeling or opinion, not statements of fact. Hzh ( talk) 14:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
the song has been characterized as revolving around common right-wing politics.One last point, the reception section seems a little long and could be summarized better. I realize we live in the politicization of everything era, so there's clickbait frenzy going on with a viral song, but the current summary seems like overkill. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 17:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content.
The song includes various right-wing talking pointsor (even more moderate)
the song includes what have been described as right-wing talking points. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 18:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
... its broad range of themes have led to the song being described in diverse terms including a "blue-collar anthem", an "everyman anthem", but also as a conservative or "right-wing anthem".Hope that helps. Aszx5000 ( talk) 20:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
but No, don't state it as a fact that the lyrics revolve around common right-wing talking points.I could maybe support some alternative wording. PackMecEng ( talk) 22:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
for statements asserted as fact.. Hzh ( talk) 09:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
References
Oliver Anthony / RadioWV [from photo caption]
"It's a pleasure to meet you - part 2" (youtube: Oliver Anthony Music, August 25, 2023) Oliver Anthony Music
excerpt:
"..it's aggravating seeing people on conservative news try to identify with me like I'm one of them it's aggravating seeing certain musicians and politicians act like we're buddies and and act like we're fighting the same struggle here like that we're trying to present the same message... it was fun it was funny seeing it at the presidential debate because it's like I wrote that song about those people you know so for them to have to sit there and listen to that that cracks me up uh but it was funny kind of seeing the response to it like that song has nothing to do with Joe Biden you know it's a lot bigger than Joe Biden um that song is written about the people on the on that stage and a lot more too not just them but definitely them.... it's cool seeing some of my other music come out because people are I guess starting to appreciate and understand what it is I'm really trying to say it's hard to get a message out about about your political ideology or your belief about the world in three minutes and some change... but I hate I do hate to see that song being weaponized, I see the right trying to characterize me as one of their own and I see the left trying to trying to discredit me I guess in retaliation... I don't know that I've seen anything get such positive response from such a diverse group of people and I think that terrifies the people that I sing about in that song and they've done everything they can the last two weeks to make me look like a fool to spin my words... I do feel compelled to address something since I have addressed the conservatives I do need to address the left as well because they're sending a message out that that that initial song that sort of shot me up the radar Richmond north of Richmond is an attack against the poor if you listen to my other music it's obvious that all of my songs that reference class defend the poor uh dog on it's a good example of that needles in the street, folks hardly surviving on sidewalks next to highways full of cars self-driving the poor keep hurting in the rich keep thriving it's like that's what I like to sing about and you know the English language is interpretive and so I do understand like there may be some people who who misunderstood my words in Rich Men North of Richmond but I've got to be clear that my message like with any of my songs it references the inefficiencies of the government because of the politicians within it that are engulfed in bribes and extortion and you know the words say that there's people on the street with nothing to eat in the obese milk and Welfare that references a news article I read earlier this summer that adolescent kids in Richmond are missing meals over the summer because their parents can't afford to feed them and they're not in school to eat cafeteria lunch and meanwhile I think like 30 or 40 percent of the food bought with welfare or EBT money is um is in a classification of like snack food and soda I think 10 spit on soda and I want to say like 20 or 30 percent spent on junk food and that's not the fault of those people uh welfare only makes up a small percentage of our budget you know we can if we can fuel a proxy war in a foreign land but we can't take care of our own that's all the songs trying to say it's just saying that the government takes people who are needy dependent and makes them needy independent and at some point I will dissect all my lyrics of all my songs if that's what I need to do I mean 30 some million people understood what I was saying but it only takes a few to try to uh derail the train you know to try to send out false narratives and I'm sure there'll be more of that to come, it's driving people crazy to see the unity that's come from this from all walks this isn't a Republican and Democrat thing this isn't even a a United States thing like this has been a Global Response and don't let anybody tell you otherwise go on YouTube and watch all the response videos you know and don't shoot the messenger like I'm a nobody it's my belief that divine intervention has put me in this position and this point in time to get a message" TMZ [1] Central16 ( talk) 17:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
References
There was no consensus for the location and exact wording for the right-wing talking points in the previous RFC. Aszx5000 and FormalDude have presented two options that can be view here. [5]. I'll reiterate my support position from the previous RFC. This belongs in the reception section and attributed to some critics of the song. I would support the version closer to the Aszx5000 version, but I'd welcome the opinions of others to come to a consensus. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 22:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
have been considered), when there was a consensus to state it in Wikivoice. If there are other questions about the close, please feel free to ping me or comment on my talk page. BilledMammal ( talk) 14:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Since it wasn't determined in the RFC, I propose that the location for the "right-wing talking points" (whatever the final wording) be placed in the reception section of the article. There's a load of opinions about this song that are all well sourced and this is where this content belongs. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 14:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute. As there are no reliable sources disputing that some of the lyrics are right-wing talking points, it is for all intents and purposes a fact. To display it as an opinion in the reception section would create the impression of doubt or disagreement where there is none. For these reasons it should be kept in the Lyrics and musical structure section. –– FormalDude (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Has anyone remove DistroKid from the "Label" parameter at the infobox? Because it just a distributor. 183.171.122.225 ( talk) 09:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Oliver Anthony isn't the first artist to debut at number 1 with no prior chart success. If you mean to debut at number 1 without chart sucess on the billbord hot 100 chart then he is the fourth ( technically)and the second with no technicalities. Lauryn Hill was the first with doo wop ( that thing) which debuted at number one in 1998. Lauryn Hill did have success with her group the fugees though and this was her first as a solo artist. Next is Clay Aiken ( this is the night) in 2003, but Billboard counts him with the group American Idol Finalists eventhough this is a first as a solo artist. The one without technicalities is Fantasia who debuted at number one with her song I believe in 2004. She wasawinner of American Idol ,but unlike Clay, she was't packaged with an American Idol Finalists song. This was her debut single and it did debut at number one. Oliver Anthony is the fourth or the second depending on how you look at it TheWikiLlama123 ( talk) 23:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rich Men North of Richmond article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A fact from Rich Men North of Richmond appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 September 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
In this discussion, there is a clear consensus that it should include this statement in some form or another, both on strength of argument as evidenced by reference to several reliable sources and based on support among the community.
The consensus on the form the statement should take is less clear, with four options being discussed:
A strong argument against attribution was presented by FormalDude; since the assertion that the song includes/revolves around right-wing talking points is uncontested by reliable sources, per WP:NPOV we should normally state that in WikiVoice.
This argument was not rebutted, and so I see a rough consensus against requiring attribution.
Between option one and two I see a rough consensus for option two; no editor explicitly supported "revolve around right wing talking points", and arguments by editors explicitly arguing for "include right-wing talking points" are based in policy, arguing that this statement reflects the sources.
There is no consensus on the exact wording; some editors expressed preference for phrasing less awkward than "talking points"; there is also no consensus on where it should be included, although some editors mentioned the "reception" section. Both of these questions should be resolvable through normal editing. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The song's lyrics revolve around common right-wing talking points.
This sentence from the article has been the source of a lot of debate and has been removed and restored multiple times.
Should the article mention that the song's lyrics revolve around or include right-wing talking points? 22:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
While the song opens with an easy-to-appreciate message—the numbing grind of working for little pay, and frustration at the state of politics in 2023—it quickly takes a turn when Oliver Anthony addresses common right-wing talking points."
With lyrics that tout some of the most common right-wing talking points, it’s no surprise that the song is drumming up support from Republicans."
The supposed welfare abuse sounds like a rightwing talking point, and Anthony doesn’t appear to have considered that the nefarious fudge rounds might be feeding the very people he mentioned with nothing to eat."
From there, though, he hits a few talking points that are more Fox News than MSNBC at the moment, first wading into the culture war over personal liberty: 'These rich men north of Richmond/Lord knows they all just wanna have total control/Wanna know what you think, wanna know what you do/And they don't think you know, but I know that you do.'" and "
Anthony goes on to holler that 'your dollar ain't sh-t and it's taxed to no end,' another Fox News talking point relating to inflation (the I-word is an attack on Biden) and big government."
attracting a fair bit of political attention off-wiki (for example) by someone already in favor of removing the line.
Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.
The others aren’t mentioned on
WP:PERENNIAL.Emma Keates wrote in The A.V. Club that Anthony's lyrics are "not... as blatantly threatening" as those in Aldean's single, but "they're generally still based on a number of regressive and gross stereotypes that are filtering into mainstream music in a frightening way". Some criticized the song for its line about "the obese milkin' welfare", calling the line "fatphobic" and claiming that it draws on negative stereotypes about welfare recipients.
lyrics revolve around common right-wing talking points., but state it only as an opinion. Some of the sources used words like "sounds like" or "feels like", which are statements of personal feeling or opinion, not statements of fact. Hzh ( talk) 14:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
the song has been characterized as revolving around common right-wing politics.One last point, the reception section seems a little long and could be summarized better. I realize we live in the politicization of everything era, so there's clickbait frenzy going on with a viral song, but the current summary seems like overkill. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 17:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content.
The song includes various right-wing talking pointsor (even more moderate)
the song includes what have been described as right-wing talking points. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk 18:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
... its broad range of themes have led to the song being described in diverse terms including a "blue-collar anthem", an "everyman anthem", but also as a conservative or "right-wing anthem".Hope that helps. Aszx5000 ( talk) 20:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
but No, don't state it as a fact that the lyrics revolve around common right-wing talking points.I could maybe support some alternative wording. PackMecEng ( talk) 22:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
for statements asserted as fact.. Hzh ( talk) 09:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
References
Oliver Anthony / RadioWV [from photo caption]
"It's a pleasure to meet you - part 2" (youtube: Oliver Anthony Music, August 25, 2023) Oliver Anthony Music
excerpt:
"..it's aggravating seeing people on conservative news try to identify with me like I'm one of them it's aggravating seeing certain musicians and politicians act like we're buddies and and act like we're fighting the same struggle here like that we're trying to present the same message... it was fun it was funny seeing it at the presidential debate because it's like I wrote that song about those people you know so for them to have to sit there and listen to that that cracks me up uh but it was funny kind of seeing the response to it like that song has nothing to do with Joe Biden you know it's a lot bigger than Joe Biden um that song is written about the people on the on that stage and a lot more too not just them but definitely them.... it's cool seeing some of my other music come out because people are I guess starting to appreciate and understand what it is I'm really trying to say it's hard to get a message out about about your political ideology or your belief about the world in three minutes and some change... but I hate I do hate to see that song being weaponized, I see the right trying to characterize me as one of their own and I see the left trying to trying to discredit me I guess in retaliation... I don't know that I've seen anything get such positive response from such a diverse group of people and I think that terrifies the people that I sing about in that song and they've done everything they can the last two weeks to make me look like a fool to spin my words... I do feel compelled to address something since I have addressed the conservatives I do need to address the left as well because they're sending a message out that that that initial song that sort of shot me up the radar Richmond north of Richmond is an attack against the poor if you listen to my other music it's obvious that all of my songs that reference class defend the poor uh dog on it's a good example of that needles in the street, folks hardly surviving on sidewalks next to highways full of cars self-driving the poor keep hurting in the rich keep thriving it's like that's what I like to sing about and you know the English language is interpretive and so I do understand like there may be some people who who misunderstood my words in Rich Men North of Richmond but I've got to be clear that my message like with any of my songs it references the inefficiencies of the government because of the politicians within it that are engulfed in bribes and extortion and you know the words say that there's people on the street with nothing to eat in the obese milk and Welfare that references a news article I read earlier this summer that adolescent kids in Richmond are missing meals over the summer because their parents can't afford to feed them and they're not in school to eat cafeteria lunch and meanwhile I think like 30 or 40 percent of the food bought with welfare or EBT money is um is in a classification of like snack food and soda I think 10 spit on soda and I want to say like 20 or 30 percent spent on junk food and that's not the fault of those people uh welfare only makes up a small percentage of our budget you know we can if we can fuel a proxy war in a foreign land but we can't take care of our own that's all the songs trying to say it's just saying that the government takes people who are needy dependent and makes them needy independent and at some point I will dissect all my lyrics of all my songs if that's what I need to do I mean 30 some million people understood what I was saying but it only takes a few to try to uh derail the train you know to try to send out false narratives and I'm sure there'll be more of that to come, it's driving people crazy to see the unity that's come from this from all walks this isn't a Republican and Democrat thing this isn't even a a United States thing like this has been a Global Response and don't let anybody tell you otherwise go on YouTube and watch all the response videos you know and don't shoot the messenger like I'm a nobody it's my belief that divine intervention has put me in this position and this point in time to get a message" TMZ [1] Central16 ( talk) 17:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
References
There was no consensus for the location and exact wording for the right-wing talking points in the previous RFC. Aszx5000 and FormalDude have presented two options that can be view here. [5]. I'll reiterate my support position from the previous RFC. This belongs in the reception section and attributed to some critics of the song. I would support the version closer to the Aszx5000 version, but I'd welcome the opinions of others to come to a consensus. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 22:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
have been considered), when there was a consensus to state it in Wikivoice. If there are other questions about the close, please feel free to ping me or comment on my talk page. BilledMammal ( talk) 14:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Since it wasn't determined in the RFC, I propose that the location for the "right-wing talking points" (whatever the final wording) be placed in the reception section of the article. There's a load of opinions about this song that are all well sourced and this is where this content belongs. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 14:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute. As there are no reliable sources disputing that some of the lyrics are right-wing talking points, it is for all intents and purposes a fact. To display it as an opinion in the reception section would create the impression of doubt or disagreement where there is none. For these reasons it should be kept in the Lyrics and musical structure section. –– FormalDude (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Has anyone remove DistroKid from the "Label" parameter at the infobox? Because it just a distributor. 183.171.122.225 ( talk) 09:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Oliver Anthony isn't the first artist to debut at number 1 with no prior chart success. If you mean to debut at number 1 without chart sucess on the billbord hot 100 chart then he is the fourth ( technically)and the second with no technicalities. Lauryn Hill was the first with doo wop ( that thing) which debuted at number one in 1998. Lauryn Hill did have success with her group the fugees though and this was her first as a solo artist. Next is Clay Aiken ( this is the night) in 2003, but Billboard counts him with the group American Idol Finalists eventhough this is a first as a solo artist. The one without technicalities is Fantasia who debuted at number one with her song I believe in 2004. She wasawinner of American Idol ,but unlike Clay, she was't packaged with an American Idol Finalists song. This was her debut single and it did debut at number one. Oliver Anthony is the fourth or the second depending on how you look at it TheWikiLlama123 ( talk) 23:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)