Talk:Rich Men North of Richmond

RfC on "right-wing talking points"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC asks whether the article should mention that the song's lyrics revolve around, or include, right-wing talking points.

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:

1. That the lyrics revolve around right wing talking points
2. That the lyrics include right wing talking points
3. That the lyrics revolve around right wing talking points, attributed
4. That the lyrics include right wing talking points, attributed

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)

• Yes. There are multiple sources that support the sentence:
  • Complex: "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."
  • NY Daily News: "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 Guardian: "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."
  • Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "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."

Given that it's reported in multiple reliable sources, and that it is a single sentence, there is little room to argue about undue weight. As for neutrality, our job as editors is not to document exclusively neutral facts or opinions; it is to write about facts and opinions neutrally. Leaving out this perspective from reliable sources would not be neutral editing. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Yes, per the multitude of sources:
  • "With lyrics that tout some of the most common right-wing talking points..." — New York Daily News
  • "The supposed welfare abuse sounds like a rightwing talking point...", similar commentary on the "islands" line — The Guardian
  • "... the right-wing meme politics running through the lyrics is exactly why the song resonates with people." – Reason (notably a right-leaning publication themselves)
  • "It also revealed some verses that feel like cribbed right-wing talking points." — Mashable
  • "The Let’s Go Brandon spirit is alive and well in these lines..." — SFGate

etc. etc. The "consensus" supposedly achieved above seems to have been a mere vote count of a discussion attracting a fair bit of political attention off-wiki (for example) by someone already in favor of removing the line. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare Mind adding an archive.org link please? Thx :) RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

For which? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

attracting a fair bit of political attention off-wiki (for example) by someone already in favor of removing the line.

Musk’s Twitter X requires an account now to view tweets. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Unfortunately that also stymies archive.org. Here's an excerpt: [1]. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. (I came here from the RfC listing.) Based on multiple sources listed above, and having read what this page says about the lyrics, it's clearly the well-sourced case that the lyrics do reflect US right-wing talking points. To omit that obvious fact would be very strange, and perhaps motivated by POV-pushing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I feel the term “right-wing talking points” might not be the best way to phrase it, because it could be construed as an unencyclopedic/journalistic and perhaps less than neutral tone. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes (Summoned by bot), although I do wonder if there is a more precise and less awkward description than "talking points". It surely stay a very brief comment, however: while it seems very obviously WP:DUE under the sourcing (and frankly not something I can imagine the lyricist disagreeing with, given those particular observations), my support is not unqualified: this can and should be treated with a very simply and to-the-point statement. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Do you not recognize that "right wing talking points" is biased rhetoric, not suitable for an objective entry on this topic? Why no mention of the thousands of worldwide responses from many who have nothing to do with US politics. This is a significant part of the story and should be accurately and objectively referenced. 45.46.23.187 (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

State with attribution Simple solution, as well as perhaps the most correct. All the sources quoted above take polemical tones. The Guardian is often considered (both here on WP and by bias-raters) to be somewhat biased in politics, while per WP:MASHABLE, Mashable needs to be evaluated carefully. Regarding Reason, 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.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have some proposed wording for what you had in mind? It's a little awkward when there are 5+ sources. BTW, New York Daily News is on WP:RSP, where it's listed as generally reliable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that it’s listed there (missed it the first time). The issue though is that music journalism normally isn’t required to maintain the same tone as politics reporting, let alone WP. Stating with attribution is not only the easy way out, but in my opinion the most strictly neutral way.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's definitely another feasible way to go, but it would certainly involve growing this line of discussion considerably, as multiple different attributions would be valid and small variety necessary to emphasize the same point as can be made by a more general statement in Wikivoice. I'm not sure that's going to be more to the liking of whoever opposed the disputed language in the first place, so much as less. That said, having read the whole article now, I'm kind of a little confused as to how this one sentence became a sticking point when so much of the rest of the article already broadly treats coverage of the same or similar notions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Mainly it’s that I generally prefer not to make statements like that in Wikivoice when attribution is perfectly feasible. Basic principle of conscientious NPOV.

And about the last bit you wrote — yeah, me too. It is a bit odd. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, uncontested assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. no need for specific attribution for the assertion). There's no reliable sources that contest that the lyrics revolve around right-wing talking points. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair, but in that case a bland phrasing like “complaints commonly voiced by right-wing politicians” would be preferable.

The very term “talking points” carries heavy connotation.

Anyway, I’ve said my piece. I’d rather not keep coming back every 15 minutes to find three new comments. Rather a lot of metaphorical ink is being spent on something that will hopefully be forgotten (if technically notable) five or ten years from now.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Additional comment Two other already attributed statements in the article stand out as deserving further inspection:

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.

If not for the fact that there’s an RfC ongoing, if I had come across it randomly I’d have just cut one or both of them, for reasons that should be straightforward to experienced editors.

P.S. I generally try to avoid this topic area (I was invited here by bot).

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That's outside the scope of this RfC, but it has been discussed at Talk:Rich Men North of Richmond § Reception section. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see.

Wait, that discussion all the way up there happened a day and a half ago?!? This page is moving really fast…y’all might want to read WP:DEADLINE (essay not guideline)… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Or is that speed normal on TPs for recent events in this topic area? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• No, although in all fairness, I don’t see any problem with it, since the right owns the fight against:
  • government funds fraud and abuse (food stamp abuse by "300-lb" obese people)
  • the fight against pedophilia (“minors" in Epstein island)
  • abusive Washington elites who "wanna have total control"
  • inflation which makes dollars worth little (“worth sh*t”)
  • the struggle against “taxed to no end.”
  Etcetera. Now that I think about it, heck yea, maybe the guys above are correct that these are right wing talking points! (sources in quotes: from the lyrics). Carry on, people! XavierItzm (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, but you do realize that no part of your !vote should be based on 1) whether you personally think that the creators of this song would embrace the descriptions in question; 2) whether the ideas represented by those descriptions are virtuous, or whether the association with them is a positive one for your favoured political identity; or 3) whether you think those values are heavily championed by one political pole or another?

The only factor that matters here, and the only one upon which a policy-valid !vote can be based, is whether the description can be WP:verified by WP:reliable sources and whether the description accords with WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT among such sources. You should be checking your personal politics and value judgments at the door, not WP:SOAPBOXING about them in a WP:FORUM-like manner, which can only actually hurt the seriousness with which your perspective is received on this project .SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, "right-wing talking points" can be mentioned, but No, don't state it as a fact that the 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)

  By my count it looks like only 3 of the sources mentioned so far use sounds/feels like. The rest claim it as a factual assertion. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

That some of them said it is so doesn't make it so, because they are still opinions. The examples of sources that express it as an opinion would indicate that this is not a universally-accepted fact. Hzh (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you're talking about if the statements are actually true facts or not. That doesn't matter, what matters is a majority of sources claim they're true facts. WP:Verifiability, not truth. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't know how you can claim that. I read some of them and even when they don't say "sounds like" or "feels like", they sound like their personal assessment of the song. Hzh (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, with attribution in the reception section Since the description is a matter of opinion, this is where this type of content belongs. This should be worded something like 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)

Many pop songs have similar or longer reception section, e.g. Shallow (Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper song), Moves like Jagger. Given the controversy and how many have commented on it, you can easily make it longer to cover all the points made by various people. Hzh (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

With the information availabe today you can easily make any article longer than it needs to be... longer doesn't always mean better. Nemov (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

True, but the content given here at the moment deals with different things and not all of it is what we normally thought of as critical reception. Some of it is about political interpretation (I would argue that this discussion is about that), some are criticisms of its lyrical content, and some are commentaries on its socio-political significance, etc. There are also sources that commented on Anthony's voice and delivery and why people find the song appealing, which are legitimate content for reception but not given here. Could easily be split into different sections. Hzh (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov: It was in the background and content section as the first sentence of the final paragraph when it was most recently removed. I think that's where it belongs because the majority of the sources are claiming it as a fact, and the articles are all from source's news/music sections rather than their opinion sections. Reception is normally more for editorials. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This type of thing belongs in the reception because it's by definition editorized content. These sources are interpretations of a song, not declarations of how many feet are in a mile. If this is mentioned outside of reception a note could be made that the song was characterized as political, but anything more definitive than that should be sorted out in the reception section. Nemov (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

They're descriptions of the song's content. They're not making an interpretation, they're saying what it is. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG: News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content.

Opinion content is precisely what this is and it's reliably sourced so it belongs in the reception section where opinion content belongs. Nemov (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Politics is not my thing, but shouldn't the sentence be qualified as: "Parts of the song's lyrics revolve right-wing talking points, but others reflect traditional left-wing themes". I don't think it is right to imply "all" lyrics are right-wing, and some seem to be left-wing? The references to "minors" seem to be taken as Qanon-type territory (although I thought it meant Epstein and thus Wall Street, which I assumed was the "rich men north of Richmond" element - i.e. anti-capitalist and left wing). However, the song seems right and left wing? Aszx5000 (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  To the best of my understanding, the reference to "rich men" is not so much left-wing anti-capitalism as right-wing populism. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Finance is my thing, and these lyrics imply wealth inequality (although I can find no RS on that, but journalists are poor on finance). Hitler realised that the extreme wealth inequality of the 1920s (the last time it was as extreme as it is now), was a right-wing and a left-wing grievance (i.e. hence the "Nationalists Socialists"). I think the songwriter has stumbled into the same space, which is why the song is so hard to categorize. Extremes of wealth inequality create left and right wing angst. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed with you. This song has left and right wing elements. I don’t know how to interpret the “minors on islands” line other than being more Q anon linked. 31.187.2.72 (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Have you got any links to sources interpreting the lyrics as using left-wing talking points? I haven't seen any. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't (sorry, very unwikipedia of me - I will have a look), but aside from the problematic lyric of politicians/minors/islands, the rest of the song seems straightforward pro-worker (i.e. left-wing), and not really right-wing? However, I am European, and perhaps the definitions of what is left and right are not the same in the US. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Had a look an could not find any RS on the "left wing talking points" in the song. In Europe, left=worker/labour and right=capitalist/corporate. From reading US RS on this song, I sense that in the US, left=pro-government/pro-taxes and right=anti-government/anti-taxes; which is slightly different. Apart from the politicians/minors/islands lyric, this song sounds like a left-wing anthem from the 1970s, but maybe in contemporary America, that seems no longer the case? Aszx5000 (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  This recent Guardian article by Kenan Malik captures what is odd to me about this song - its protest is more anti-government than anti-capitalist (traditional left-wing). I think it would be better to chronicle such nuances - which I think are interesting and important - than left-right labeling, which I think is confusing people (such as me). Aszx5000 (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• (from WP:RFC/A) I support including mention of the right wing views, per the sources listed at the top of this discussion, but I don't like the word "revolve" (none of the sources say that either). How about The song includes various right-wing talking points or (even more moderate) the song includes what have been described as right-wing talking points. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Given that only some of the song's lyrics relate to right wing talking points - mainly child trafficking, and probably the anti-government feeling - while other lyrics (i.e. low wages, high inflation, and food poverty) are clearly not right-wing talking points, I have updated the lede to say ... 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)

  Reverted. "broad range of themes" and "diverse terms" are both original research. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with the revert. It seems to me that there is clear sourcing for the wording asked about in this RfC, and editors need to be careful not to try to split the difference, even if doing so is well-intentioned. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no clear sourcing for stating it as a fact when it is primarily an opinion. No problem with stating it as an opinion, but people should not turn an opinion into a fact. Hzh (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Except that the majority of the sources state it as a fact, not an opinion. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You keep saying that but that is just not true. What's given in the sources are essentially interpretations of the lyrics, and that's opinion. The QAnon speculation is especially egregious, turning a single word into a conspiracy. If it is a fact, everyone would state that as a fact, and that is clearly not the case here. I don't even agree that all the sources are reliable (e.g. Complex?), and some have clear bias (e.g. the Guardian), therefore attribution of the opinion is more appropriate per WP:BIASED. And the proposed wording "revolve around" is essentially OR ("sounds like", "feels like", "touts some", "hit a few", "addresses some" absolutely does not mean "revolve around" which implies those things are the very centre of the song. Hzh (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It should not be attributed as it's verified by at least nine sources. To attribute it to a single organization would not be fair nor proportionate. And your issue with the wording is easily resolved by prefacing it with "some" of the lyrics. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It is an opinion, whether it's verified or not is irrelevant. You can attributed to "various sources". You keep saying that other people's opinion are OR, but the proposed wording is clearly OR (the "some of" you now suggest is not part of RfC). Hzh (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought given only one of his lyrics is a right-wing talking point (politicians/minors/island), while the majority of the others are if anything, are left-leaning, that I was stating it in wikivoice? Do we now consider high inflation, low wages, food hunger etc. as "right wing talking points" in the US? I understand this is a divisive song in the US (per the sources), but I think that we should maintain some perspective/commonsense here on what we are chronicling? Aszx5000 (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"only one of his lyrics is a right-wing talking point" is your personal opinion, not supported by any sources, and thus WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. It doesn't matter what you consider to be right wing talking points, it matters what reliable sources consider. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it is WP:COMMONSENSE. I don't need an RS to tell me the sky-is-blue, and there is zero chance that a reasonable person would assume that most lyrics of this song are "right-wing talking points". That is why we should be sensible in the wording and ensure it passes a basic test of balance, imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not commonsense or sky-is-blue territory, as evidenced by this dispute where multiple editors completely disagree with your personal interpretation. Honestly if you don't realize that you should be far far away from this topic area. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that "multiple editors" (or any editors) believe that inflation, wages and hunger are "right-wing talking points". If you are not willing to engage in the discussion, then why contribute? Aszx5000 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think Tryptofish, SnowRise, and GorillaWarfare would likely disagree with you. They probably just don't feel the need to engage with someone making as poor of an argument as yourself. At this point I don't feel it's beneficial either, so toodeloo. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Attacking the person and not the argument. Not a helpful way to engage. I don't any of the editors you quote have said that inflation, wages and hunger are "right-wing talking points"? Aszx5000 (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

To make clear what, specifically, I think about that, I'm OK with some amount of attribution, while also agreeing in part with FormalDude that we should not mislead readers into thinking that it's the opinion of a single source. I think a reasonable way to do that is to include direct quotes from a selection of the sources in the footnotes where those sources are cited. I'd support adding those quotes to those cites. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Tryptofish. What do think of the notion that the lede is probably fine as it is and does not need such an explicit sentence as proposed above (i.e. it shows the range of labels, not all of which are specifically right-wing). There is attribution and chronicling of views (e.g. left, right, Qanon etc), in the reception section, and no doubt this will get added to; but I agree, that attribution is important to avoid blanket statements?

This song does, as much RS says, and per commonsense, have "right-wing talking points" (e.g. minors/politicians/islands), but it also has many others that are not "right-wing talking points". Summarise the song as "revolving around right-wing talking points" is just too blanket a statement, and likely to result a less stable situation. It is an attribute of this song. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been following this RfC, but haven't so much been following the editing history of the page (subscribed to this talk section, but not watchlisting). So, in terms of the lead that I see when I look at the page right now, I notice that it no longer says what the RfC question asks about, which is the "revolving around" language. If you are asking me to contrast the current version of the lead, with a version that includes the language you proposed about a "broad range of themes" and "diverse terms", I am good with the language now on the page, and I oppose adding that further language about broad range, etc. I say that because the lead currently describes blue-collar, everyman, and right-wing, which seems to me to be fair and reflective of the sources. On the other hand, what I said above about broad range, etc., still stands. So: I'm good with the current language of the lead, with some quotes added to the footnotes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish. That makes sense to me and I understand your, and FormalDude's, issue with the "broad range of themes" and "diverse terms" language. I agree with you, and think the current page as it stands is fine, and doesn't need the RfC sentence anymore. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The text that this RfC is about was never included in the lede, it was in the background and content section at the start of what is now the second paragraph. See [2]. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

As I indicated, I don't know all the details of the edit history of the page – but once an RfC has been opened, it's disruptive for editors to remove the content that the RfC is about. Leave the content, tag it, but wait for the RfC consensus before reverting it. It's too difficult to expect uninvolved editors to give RfC feedback while the content that the RfC is about is being changed. As a matter of process, put the content back, until the RfC is over, and tag it as "under discussion". So to answer for a second time the RfC question, as it was asked, I'd say yes, that language about revolving around is appropriate, especially if it is not in the lead. That language can be attributed by using quotes in the footnotes citing the content. The nuances of stuff other-than-right-wing can be dealt with via additional text, especially since this is not in the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I restored the content but apparently XavierItzm disagrees. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not whether I agree or not; it is that our policy at WP:RFC says: «"Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring"». Please do not further engage in editing or edit warring. Thank you. XavierItzm (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

We are back to the same problem that "high inflation", "poor wages", "food poverty" (etc.) are not "right wing talking points"? "Child trafficking" definitely is, and "welfare abuse" probably is, but little else. If the phrase was important to you, you could break up that sentence in the middle to say .... "and includes some "right wing talking points" such as child trafficking ("minors on an island") and welfare abuse ("the obese milkin' welfare")". But including the first items is just not really defensible as being "right wing talking points". I think the article as is, doesn't need the labelling as the lede already has "right-wing anthem". Aszx5000 (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• No — not as written. The sentence implies that the entirety of the songs lyrics revolve around common right-wing talking points. It appears to me that sources are pointing out that there are specific lyrics in the song that reference right-wing talking points. If the sentence was re-worded to accurately reflect what the sources are saying, like the song includes some right-wing talking points, I would support that. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The song is apolitical, a piece of art. It is the media that has furiously spun and re-interpreted it.
Like The Atlantic (no fire-breathing conservative magazine, that one) said: "Why is so much press coverage of this viral song focused solely on politics? [...] I struggle to imagine a mainstream media site reacting to Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi’s praise of a songwriter by suggesting that the artist is therefore a presumptively leftist act who ought to be covered mainly as a political and politicized phenomenon."
Same is expressed at SFGATE, which also decries the politization of Anthony by third parties: «More likely, he was just singing whatever was on his mind, and then everyone else decided to use it for their own ends». (emphasis added).
So any mention of whether the song is politically this or that should always be attributed to the media doing that particular piece of spinning.XavierItzm (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"The media" which you keeping bagging on is what Wikipedia uses to create the majority of its articles. We as editors have no right to discredit the media in favor of our own personal interpretations, especially when the sources used have a consensus that they are reliable. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not I who made the point that this is art which has been wildly politicized by the media. It is left-leaning SFGATE and The Atlantic, among others, that make this point. Anyone unable to differentiate between wiki editor opinion and sourced material might wish to consider remaining far far away from this topic area. XavierItzm (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

That's an op/ed from the Atlantic, i.e. completely unreliable for anywhere but the reception section of this article. The SFGATE claim is in no way a contradiction to the song being political. It's highly possible Anthony was just "singing whatever was on his mind" and that some of the lyrics contain right-wing talking points. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Quite odd to claim the Atlantic is completely unreliable because it is op/ed, yet the Guardian piece you cite above is marked as comment (therefore it is an opinion piece, not news). You really need to examine closely the supposed RS used to bolster your claim. Hzh (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This article from The Guardian is absolutely not an opinion piece, it's in their music category. I have no idea where you're getting that from, the only place I even see the word "comment" is their link to comment on their article. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The "comment" links to all the Comment articles in the paper (the "comment" is given under topics, it indicates what the Guardian piece by Matthew Cantor is - a commentary, therefore an opinion). The "CommentS" section is pluralised. Look at Kenan Malik article which has both "comment" and "Comments" - [3] , but this one by Adrian Horton is the one that actually says it is "news" under topics - [4] (that describes the song as "conservative-leaning" not "conservative-centered" which "revolve around" means). I wouldn't be surprised if there are few sources given above that are true RS news source (probably only two, and I'm being generous since I can't access one of them). Hzh (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, The New Yorker pointed out — There has also been some online hand-wringing about a rant in the middle of the song against “the obese” who are “five foot three” and “three hundred pounds” and “milkin’ welfare.” Tax dollars, Anthony sings, should not be spent to buy them “bags of fudge rounds,” which, along with a line about how “your dollar ain’t shit and it’s taxed to no end,” is the only really explicit political comment in the lyrics. The New York Times also pointed out those specific lyrics, Mr. Anthony gives voice to the longstanding conservative critique of public assistance — he sings of “the obese milkin’ welfare” and adds, “Well, God, if you’re 5-foot-3 and you’re 300 pounds/taxes ought not to pay for your bags of fudge rounds”. And the New York Daily News used to support this RfC says some of the most common right-wing talking points. That's why I said we need to accurately reflect what the sources are saying. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• No. per my comments above, it is just extreme to use a sentence that implies most of these lyrics are "right-wing talking points". Some definitely are (e.g. minors/politicians/islands), but others are not (inflation, wages, hunger). We should use some WP:COMMONSENSE here (e.g. we don't need sources to tell us the sky-is-blue). Therefore, the sentence should be amended or qualified if it is to be used. The current lede which includes "right-wing anthem" is probably satisfactory already, so such a sentence may no longer be useful. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Maybe - I could see mention in the body but maybe not the lead as discussed above Talk:Rich Men North of Richmond#right wing talking points?. I also agree with Hzh above stating 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)
• No - Please note that nearly all sources that describe the song as "right-wing" as themselves left-wing. It's a political narrative: it's interesting in itself that these narrative exist, but they are not themselves objective analyses of the song. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Your personal opinion that those sources are themselves left-wing is completely irrelevant (and a rather fringe POV). There is a strong consensus that the sources used to verify "right-wing" are reliable. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. Even when the publications are RS, the sources provided give opinions, and WP:RSOPINION applies (i.e. not reliable for statements asserted as fact.. Hzh (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RSP for the existing consensuses. RSOPINION applies to editorials, not news reports. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You have no idea which source is a news article and which source is not. See the example of The Guardian article you gave above that you don't know is a commentary when it is clearly marked as such (news articles are marked as news in the paper, and the source you provided is not given as news). Hzh (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be the one struggling to discern the difference. Editorials from the Guardian are clearly marked "Opinion" at the very top of the article. This one is marked "Music". And the rest are all clearly news reports. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This is getting stupid. You just have to click on "comment" to see what articles are grouped under it (it includes opinion pieces, editorials, cartoons, commentaries, blogs, etc. i.e. practically anything that has opinions.) Something can be grouped under Music and comment at the same time, are you under the impression there can be no opinion in music? Why do you think there are articles are are listed as "news" and not "comment"? I've given an example that is given under "Music" and "news", while the one you gave is given as "Music" and "comment" (also under US politics and Country music). All articles in the paper are grouped under multiple categories. Hzh (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• No - per DenverCoder19 above me --FMSky (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• State with attribution. (Came from WP:-) I personally see it as applying to both the Dems and the GOP. When in doubt, attribute. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oliver Anthony clarifies Political intent in Rich Men North of Richmond:

"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 Central16 (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

That's all fine and good, but it doesn't clarify a thing. The song is good, nobody with half a brain will deny that. The question is whether it is political astroturf promoting the GOP. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

why exactly would it be astroturf???? AbiquiúBoy (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Post RFC Wording

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)

The closer of the RFC made a serious error in stating that the argument that attribution is not required was not rebutted, when WP:RSOPINION has been cited. The closer may well believe that WP:RSOPINION can be disregarded in this case, but they should give a reason for that. Because the closer failed to do that, there is ground to revisit the attribution question. Hzh (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The closer clearly determined a rough consensus against requiring attribution. If you want to challenge their closure, see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. You cannot override their decision just because you don't agree with it. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The closer made a statement that simply isn't true (that there was no rebuttal on the attribution question). The attribution issue however was not part of RFC, it was just one of the points made by those who contributed to the discussion, and the rebuttal on the attribution question got buried among other issues (presumably that's why it was missed). The conclusion was broadly correct on the question posed by the RFC itself (right wing talking point can be mentioned, but not "revolve around"); since I don't actually disagree with the conclusion on the question directly posed by the RFC, it is doubtful challenging something on what wasn't specifically posed in the RFC would be useful. Starting a new one that deals specifically with the attribution issue would be the better option. Ask the right question in the RFC so that we are sure that we are discussing the right subject. Hzh (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

There's no good reason to re-litigate it. Just because it wasn't specifically mentioned in the RfC statement doesn't mean the RfC can't come to a conclusion on it. If you're concerned with how the closer came to that decision, the correct procedure is to reach out to them directly rather than trying to WP:GAME the consensus with a repeat RfC. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

There is every reason to do another RFC. The attribution question wasn't in the original RFC, I cannot really challenge the closure because I don't disagree with the conclusion on the question that was posed in that RFC itself (the attribution question was a side issue raised by other respondents). How is it GAME to ask a specific question not posed in previous RFC, or consider it a repeat when that question wasn't in the first RFC? Hzh (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It appears very much like gaming to advocate for a new RfC on something that received a distinct consensus via RfC less than two weeks ago. As much as you may protest, there is actually nothing to prevent you from contacting the closer about your issue with a part of their decision.

And again, the attribution question doesn't have to be directly posed in the RfC in order to have a consensus reached, it just has to receive ample discussion, which it did. Do you understand that? ––FormalDude (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

If you notice, the person who raised the question wasn't me, and they asked a separate but related question. The attribution question in original RFC obviously wasn't considered discussed properly when the closer missed an important point, and the point raised in this thread wasn't really properly discussed, i.e. whether it should be placed in the reception section (where attribution would be appropriate), and that the closer didn't take any position apart from stating that it could be resolved through normal editing. If that failed to be resolved through normal editing, then an RFC is entirely appropriate. You should really stop telling other people what to do or insinuate that they are doing something in bad faith. Hzh (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• I would agree with you that it should be given in the reception section, so it's neither of the two options. It would mean some rewrite, and that's fine. Hzh (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Nemov asked me to come here and clarify my close. Of the two options presented in the diff above, FormalDude's is better aligned with the close; Aszx5000's include attribution (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)

If you don't think WP:RSOPINION applies, then that needs to be clarified. Many of the sources are clearly opinions (for example, the Guardian article is a comment article, the SFGate one was written by a columnist who typically offers commentaries), and those needed to be attributed. Hzh (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Location

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)

• Oppose. This content would be out of place in the reception section, which is for attributable reviews, critiques, and reactions. The four sources currently used are not opinion pieces or reviews, they are news reports. The content is not a criticism of the song, rather it is an objective description of what some of the song's lyrics consist of. There is a consensus to state this in wikivoice (without attribution) and nothing in the reception section is stated in wikivoice. The content is also not an opinion. Words mean things, and we follow reliable sources. Per WP:ASSERT, a fact is 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)

Asserting that the sources are not opinion pieces does not make it so. It's already been pointed out that the Guardian piece is marked as "comment", if you refuse to accept what the paper itself says what the article is, then you are refusing accept what is true. Complex is hardly a RS for social and political matter, you will see in RSP that for similar magazine, e.g. Rolling Stone, such magazine are not considered RS for social political matters. I actually manage to read the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, and it is clearly reporting on opinion with words like "branded" and "apparently", and the only line that's relevant is not an emphatic statement - "a few talking points that are more Fox News than MSNBC". The more you look at the sources, the less there is that supports your argument. Hzh (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support Any value-laden description of the song content would be more appropriate in the reception section. They are essentially opinions, and why the issues mentioned in the song are labelled "right-wing talking points" by some people can be expanded in the reception. These could be placed in a sub-section titled "Interpretations" within the reception section (alternatively, the interpretation could be its own section). I see that there are other interpretations scattered around (e.g. the QAnon speculation), putting them all in one place would be the right way to go. Hzh (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

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)

Removed since the distributor is not normally given. Hzh (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Some info at the beginning is wrong

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)

Hi I'm back and realized I made a mistake. Oliver Anthony is the fifth or third depending on how you look at it. Baauer's Harlem Shake debuted at number one too TheWikiLlama123 (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)