Talk:Oliver Anthony/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RfC about Oliver Anthony's YouTube playlist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus to introduce discussion about his playlist in the article, at least in the formulation proposed.

Despite the 2-to-1 margin of the !votes against, the arguments on the support side are stronger, hence "consensus against" outcome is inappropriate.

Supporters noted that the Washington Post is a generally reliable source, there are other sources discussing the playlist and that political views of Oliver Anthony are relevant in an article about Oliver Anthony, which is fairly obvious (if well-supported by sources). They rejected the argument that WP:NOTNEWS applies since his fame was earned a short time ago.

Opponents advanced three arguments. First, they believed that the Washington Post article is an "opinion think piece", but there is no indication this is the case. Anne Branigin is listed as a staff reporter of WaPo. Now, the sentence that is of interest in this discussion obviously references opinion (the most revealing window into Anthony’s worldview may be), but little argument was made that this opinion is UNDUE. (XavierItzm posted two links that were supposed to show that the discussion of his views based on the playlist was UNDUE, one in The Atlantic and the other in the San Francisco Chronicle, but they do not discuss his playlist at all and are therefore only tangentially relevant to this discussion).

Secondly, several editors said they were uncomfortable about inferring his political views from the assembled videos in the playlist. The sentence itself is speculation, they say. There was some pushback against this argument, but not enough to say that the concern was addressed. Even though WP:BLP does not say it explicitly, BLPs should not engage in innuendo. The fact is that the person has a playlist with 9/11 truther videos (cf. point 3 of this closure); the fact isn't that they believe in truther stuff. We should avoid implying that in any measure unless we have good sources saying this explicitly.

Thirdly, GretLomborg suggested that WaPo's reporting was sloppy using his analysis suggesting that the truther videos weren't in fact truther. However, this falls flat because there are other sources discussing his playlist in similar terms as WaPo: The Daily Dot, The Nation and Forbes, the first one in detail, and the other two published in generally reliable outlets. Granted, generally reliable does not mean always reliable, but a user's opinion does not outweigh the takes of multiple outlets (4 in this case, three as generally reliable).

In biographies of living persons, there must be consensus to retain content if it was challenged and is to stay. Supporters did not meet that threshold for the current version, but I cannot find from this discussion whether there is enough consensus to post anything related to the playlist. The only thing I can say that there is no consensus to mention his playlist as an indicator of his political beliefs. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Musician Oliver Anthony recently became notable after his song Rich Men North of Richmond went viral. Should information about a YouTube playlist[1] be included in his biography? Nemov (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the most recent version of the content in question. At the time of this RfC, the content has been removed. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes

1. Given the politicization of the song that made him famous (virtually every reliable source on the topic analyzes the politics of the song), Anthony's political views are highly WP:RELEVANT. The Washington Post is a reliable newspaper of record. Their claim that this is a valuable insight into Anthony's political views makes it way more than just trivia or a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. There's no reason to avoid adding this content based on BLP policy either. Anthony chose to make this a publicly available playlist, and now that it's been covered by reliable sources, there's no policy based reason to exclude it. This content is encyclopedic and of value to readers. It properly attributes Washington Post's claim of how the playlist provides insights to his political views, and then neutrally describes the objective facts of the playlist's content. And I don't see how someone could possibly consider it recentism when this entire article is made up of recent news reports. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
2. As has been stated before, there's plenty of reason to have it be on his page if his page is to include politics (which it should as the song has become a backdrop for political discussion.) Multiple sites have written about his playlist. It feels as though it's just being excluded to ward off criticism while his centrism statement is left up as it's uncontroversial. Mighty Midas (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
3. Several reliable sources have reported on the playlist and describe it as important to understanding Anthony's politics and background, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. CJ-Moki (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
4. If high-quality independent reliable sources are discussing the playlist, and the subject continues to share it with the public, then it is unclear why this article should avoid it. Llll5032 (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

No

1. I would like to see some time pass before this contentious material is added to the biography. It's difficult to apply WP:NOTTHENEWS/WP:RECENT on someone who just became famous, but we should exercise caution per WP:BLP. For those who are struggling with the concept of RECENT, the songs that made this person notable will be remembered in 10 years. It's far from clear if opinion think pieces about a playlist pass the ten year test. If a YouTube playlist turns out to be an important part of the biography we'll have a better understanding of that with some time. For now, this article should just concentrate on why he's notable. He's notable for being a musician. Nemov (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
2. The argument "Given the politicization of the song that made him famous" is absurd. 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». It is the media that has politicized an artistic product, and it is the media character-assasinating a young musician. Sad to see some wikipedians willing to play along with the divisiveness. Really, if the Washington Post publishes that this guy uses his underwear more than one day without washing, are people going to pretend that BLP-vio is OK? XavierItzm (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

   Comparing this to an BLP violation is what's absurd. If the content is relevant and well documented, as is clearly the case here, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it–and that's straight from WP:BLP. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

3. The way in which this was phrased was extremely biased and misleading, one example is hardly "numerous" conspiracy videos. Any bias or politics aside, this is also a very trivial and unneccsary entry that really adds nothing to the article. Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

   Who ever said there was only "one"? The WashPo article says there were "multiple clips" putting forward the conspiracy theories. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

   Then say multiple. Multiple could mean as little as two, which is hardly "numerous". That is misleading and biased. Seacactus 13 (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

   "Multiple" could be an improvement. Has a RS made a count? Llll5032 (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

4. I don't think that inferring a person's politics from their youtube playlist is appropriate in their BLP, even if it is the WPO as the source. Too much in the realm of speculation for me. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

   It's hardly speculation.

   The playlist is his own official account; the 9/11 conspiracy content is spread across several videos, not just one; and the playlist's title ('Videos that make your noggin' get bigger') is an endorsement of its contents - frankly, it's a bigger reach to infer that these aren't his beliefs. What if these videos had had been presented as, say, a list of recommendations on his personal website/blog?

   At the very least, the public reaction to it should be mentioned - it's gained far more attention than most of the other biographical info in this article. Including his "centrist" beliefs. 73.168.37.85 (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

   I have lots of unusual media in my playlists, but you would not infer my politics from it. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

   Have you titled those playlists such as a tacit endorsement on the basis that that content expands your intelligence? Have you kept those playlists public on your professional social media accounts under that tacit endorsement? I certainly maintain content in playlists which could be questionable without context to the broader public, videos with which I vehemently disagree with, but the additional context of tacit endorsement of supposed educational value, combined with listing on a professional account, combined ekth continued listing even after such content became public and notariety was achieved on a public scale, is surely different than a private playlist on a personal account of an otherwise publically anonymous individual. 2603:8081:500:6D33:14EC:9AC8:AC52:2F10 (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

   This is an encyclopedia and not investigative/speculative reporting (or the vehicle for others investigative/speculative reporting). This article will likely be rewritten over the coming years as more perspective is gained on the song, and some of the initial knee-jerk reactions are replaced by considered balanced material. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

5. Information about the playlist should not be included in this BLP. I actually looked at the playlist (linked by someone below), and the so-called "multiple 9/11 conspiracy" videos appear to actually be two videos containing un-edited news clips from 2002-era mainstream media reporting (from ABC News and Fox News) without any extra commentary. The material should not be included because it's misleading, as it would invite the reader to assume Oliver Anthony is antisemitic when that can't be reasonably concluded by even the weakest standards of evidence. The name of the playlist "Videos that make your noggin' get bigger" is meaningless, even though some of those arguing for inclusion are trying to puff that up into some kind of important endorsement. The friggin thing includes such "mind-expanding" things as one hour loop of Funkytown played over a rotating lowres 3d graphic of a potato chip "James Brown getting interviewed high as kite". It looks like an eclectic mix of random junk, who knows what it means. I can only conclude from this that the Washington Post's reporting on this is of very poor quality, since it literally means they're claiming ABC News "[put] forward the conspiracy theory that Jews were responsible for 9/11." Wikipedia cannot and should not repeat content from "reliable sources" that is false or misleading. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
6. No, per the reasoning of GretLomborg and Aszx5000. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
7. No — that is problematic content for a BLP. The phrase - a revealing insight into Anthony's worldview might be a YouTube playlist. That is pure conjecture - also known as - an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. The WaPo admits they received no response from Anthony, so they don't have a clue as to why any of those videos are on his playlist. Having videos on a YouTube playlist does not equate to supporting and/or endorsing the content in the videos, and it sure as hell doesn't mean it is your worldview on the content in the videos, which is the inference being made here. When in doubt, leave it out. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
8. No, too much speculation and not enough fact to be included.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Is the playlist still public with the content that the Washington Post article describes? [2] Llll5032 (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not sure why that matters. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• I adjusted the wording of the RfC statement to make it clearer and more precise, Nemov reverted it and left a rather condescending message on my talk page. I think Nemov needs to remove "Musician Oliver Anthony recently became notable after his song Rich Men North of Richmond went viral" from the RfC statement as it is unnecessary background information that includes their opinion that the article is notable and why they think it's notable, and RfC statements are not supposed to include editor opinions. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Telling you not to modify my comments isn't condescending. I've considered your opinion about the statement, but it's fine as it's written. Thanks. Nemov (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Nemov: Your tone was clearly condescending. And it wasn't really a request, per WP:RFCNEUTRAL you need to remove your opinions from the RfC statement. You do not own the wording. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree, but again, thanks. Nemov (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

References