Talk:Rich Men North of Richmond/Archive 1

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Oliver Anthony which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag
In his lyrics, Oliver Anthony is being highly critical of the Government, and you can say they’re all oh so reliable, but let's be brutally honest about this, the legacy media, those considered to be "reliable", simply will not report on a subject which is blatantly critical of the government unless it becomes obvious that they must. The upshot of this is that in order to create an article about someone who criticises the government in his output and at the same time becomes incredibly popular (and thus sufficiently notable for an article) there has to be the use of sources which are not deemed to be "reliable". If that doesn’t prove that sources deemed to be "reliable" are actually anything but reliable, I don’t know what will. Boscaswell  talk  09:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Sounds like your problem is with longstanding Wikipedia consensus. You're not going to be able to change that on this talk page. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  12:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * That’s true,, but it’s always worth making the point, where the ridiculousness and bias of existing "consensus" are blatantly obvious. The more people get it, the more likely it is that change will ultimately happen. Boscaswell   talk  22:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're living in a fantasy. This guy isn't 'criticizing the government' he is literally a right-wing astroturf campaign. You either know this and are lying or you are very ignorant but passionate in your vitriol. Please get educated and stop using wikipedia as your blog. 71.193.225.65 (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Release date: August 7 or August 8?
In this article and also the one on Anthony himself, we have the upload to YouTube date as August 7. That is per the Billboard article cited. But in a video Anthony himself put out that is linked here he states that radiowv will upload it to "tomorrow, Tuesday", and August 8 is a Tuesday. Counting back the days from the YouTube post of the song by radiowv, I get to August 8 as well. So.. .? Boscaswell   talk  05:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC) According to this upload date was August 8. Boscaswell  talk  10:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's my fault. I saw the mention of August 7 in the Billboard source, but on second reading I now see that's referring to the upload date of his introduction video, not the song. I've fixed it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2023
The song makes no reference to Q'anon whatsoever. The line in question "minors on am island somewhere" is literally about J Epstein. Everyone knows that, so to make it beyond that is clearly incorrect and being done on purpose to link this page with crazy people. Look at every reaction video on youtube...no mention of Q'Anon. 2600:1009:B109:AE23:20F5:FAED:88B1:FC6F (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. See . –– Formal Dude   (talk)  14:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2023 (2)
Remove 'right wing' from talking points line; this is erroneous as the concerns expressed are universal and have nothing to do with politics. It is a misleading, biased, and inaccurate assessment. Dnadnawiki (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. See . –– Formal Dude   (talk)  15:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Er, what’s going on?
We have all this description of the song, background, criticism, etc. but as far as I can see, no mention of its topping the iTunes chart all genres virtually ever since it’s release, and it also now topping the Apple Music and Spotify charts, and now projected to be number one in the next Billboard Hot 100. Huh? Try this. Boscaswell  talk  10:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I had added it, not realizing there's a WP:SINGLEVENDOR guideline. It was later removed, I think reasonably. The guideline says:
 * I don't think anything here falls into those "special circumstances", so we should probably just wait to see how it does on the Billboard chart. I assume it will rank pretty highly, at which point that should be added. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything here falls into those "special circumstances", so we should probably just wait to see how it does on the Billboard chart. I assume it will rank pretty highly, at which point that should be added. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * But we’re not talking about a single vendor, are we. As I explained, and as is referenced, it has topped other charts. Ergo, this information goes in. Otherwise, we have a lot of information about a song that we’re not even saying is suddenly phenomenally popular. No-one can deny that it is. Not even Rolling Stone. Much to their chagrin, no doubt, eh? ;) Boscaswell   talk  22:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, iTunes/Apple Music, and Spotify are all single-vendor charts. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2023
Change "the song is a significant in demonstrating" to "the song is significant in demonstrating" NornIron91 (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

right wing talking points?
The right wing talking points section seems biased. Since when is inflation considered right-wing only? Turkey, a country with a far-right wing government, has suffered from rampant inflation. Likewise, Venezuela, far-left has suffered massive inflation as well. 199.187.135.190 (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't say inflation is considered right-wing only, it just says that it's an example of a common right-wing talking point. This song is about the U.S. so the sources are going to be looking through an American lens. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  21:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How quickly we forget the Occupy movement… 96.255.2.135 (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. This entry is overflowing with political bias. Noisevault (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This entry is absurdly biased and the rebuttals for change are honestly pathetic. Inflation is now a right wing topic? So the left is not concerned about the loss of purchasing power that affects the poor disproportionately? Bullximboca (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to point to sources that describe this song as using leftist talking points, if you like, but for now the reliable sources are fairly unanimous about the song's political bent. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Inflation is a bi-partisan issue and none of the reliable sources listed describe "inflation" as a right wing talking point. The sources do refer to taxes as right-wing, which makes sense. I do not believe you can convincingly show that any of those authors claim "inflation" is a right-wing talking point. The text should be changed to avoid bias. JamesPem (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article wording at this time no longer labels inflation as a right-wing talking point, it just describes it as a theme of the song. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  04:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It does right now and I think the article needs to be clearer about the lyrics and find reliable sources stating that it’s spreading talking points. Aresef (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It says "Themes of the song include inflation ("dollar ain't shit")".
 * From NY Daily News: –– Formal Dude   (talk)  05:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The very title of the song and major theme is the political class "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." How can this entry ignore this message? Of course it is heavily biased and quoting the usual corporate legacy sources. 45.46.23.187 (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. There are multiple statements which are biased throughout the article. 2607:FB91:14BE:C0B9:64F6:4DC:1C69:6528 (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ve put hours into the Oliver Anthony article and have only just come back to look at the one on the Rich Men song. I can’t believe that there is this first sentence to a para. on what the song is about, that it "revolved around common right wing talking points". Words fail me. Well almost. So inflation and child trafficking aren’t so much bad things, they’re things which right wingers complain about. Honestly, that is the way it comes over, and leaving it in makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. So, go ahead, leave it in if you like. But take this as a friendly warning: in your efforts to diminish the populist appeal of the song, I can assure you that you will further lower Wikipedia's reputation amongst people with common sense. Just read some of the comments to the original YouTube upload and watch a couple of the reaction videos, and you will quickly gain an understanding of what people out there *really* think about what he’s saying, and gain an understanding of why his rise to fame has been meteoric. It’s absolutely nothing to do with QAnon. Have fun! Boscaswell  talk  05:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, following reliable sources is ridiculous. We should base this article off of reaction videos and YouTube comments. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  06:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You cherry pick your "reliable" sources. Referencing the song as "right wing" is politically biased and merely repeats biased commentary. If the article is going to discuss commentary or reaction it should be balanced and neutral. And to the point above, thousands of comments on the original YouTube post is entirely legitimate to cite, objectively and factually. 45.46.23.187 (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

the article as it reads now lists several subjects which the song touches on, *after* saying that it touches on common right wing talking points. So in effect the article is saying that all the subjects he sings about are common right wing talking points. Amazing, but true. Boscaswell  talk  05:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Amazing that you took "lyrics revolve around common right-wing talking points" and extrapolated it to "all the subjects he sings about are common right wing talking points". That's obviously not what the text is saying, and you would have to be quite naive to think it is. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  05:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I was going from the text of the article. It reads as follows:
 * The song's lyrics revolve around common right-wing talking points. Themes of the song include inflation ("dollar ain't shit"), high taxes ("taxed to no end"), child trafficking ("minors on an island") and welfare abuse ("and the obese milkin' welfare")
 * So yes, it’s basically saying that the song's themes are all common right-wing talking points. Boscaswell   talk  08:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article makes no claim that those are all right-wing talking points. Some of those may be right-wing talking points, some may not. The article does not specify.
 * Even if it did, NY Daily News lists "Cause your dollar ain’t shit and it’s taxed to no end" as an example of a common right-wing talking point, so it's verified. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  14:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

With the consensus as 5:2 that it shouldn’t be there, it’s going. Boscaswell  talk  21:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously not aware that it's WP:NOTAVOTE? Poorly conceived arguments that have no basis in policy being repeated does not a consensus make. Not to mention you are blatantly WP:INVOLVED and should not be deciding if there is a consensus or not. Please self-revert. If we really need to, we can open an RfC. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  22:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that was right to act as per TP consensus. XavierItzm (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Boscaswell, that's a pretty questionable interpretation of "consensus". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2023
“looking out for minors on an island somewhere”

Refers to the well stablished minor sex trafficking that happened in Jeffrey Epstein’s Island.

Why the editor discarded something so well documented as Quanon theory?

This is well documented by the media:

https://www.curbed.com/2023/05/jeffrey-epstein-little-st-james-resort.html#:~:text=a%20hefty%20discount.)-,Little%20St.,Thomas.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/horrors-of-jeffrey-epstein-private-island

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Saint_James,_U.S._Virgin_Islands Bullximboca (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The two are not mutually exclusive; Jeffrey Epstein features heavily in QAnon conspiracy theories. Three reliable sources describe the interpretation of the lyric as a QAnon nod. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: (Edit conflict) The second source notes Epstein's actions on the island but does not provide evidence that the lyric is inspired by that. For us to say that Oliver Anthony was talking about Epstein, there should be a reliable source linking the lyric and Epstein's island outside of simply being part of the QAnon conspiracy theory. ~ UN6892  tc 00:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Let me explain why. Haiti also had child trafficking. See Laura Silsby conviction. Geographically it is an island and yes there are direct connections to politicians there as well, so it would be just as easy to speculate that the song is talking about that situation. That being said there is a difference in that Epstein's plane was commonly known as "the Lolita Express," and there are flight logs with passengers names who visited his island. You should also take into account that Epstein's partner in crime Gislane Maxwell is currently doing time for her involvement in his crimes. How is this any kind of theory? These are facts. Maybe people should educate themselves on a subject before writing it as some goofball conspiracy theory, because in this case there happens to be plenty of sources that will validate. This was all over US News when Epstein was in jail and after he died. Every network and all the big papers did articles.
 * I'll include some for reference
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/30/jeffrey-epstein-estate-settles-virgin-islands-sex-trafficking-case-for-over-105-million.html
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48913377
 * https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-names-whos-who-873321/ 68.113.125.105 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

So I guess we’re going to leave out the, rather clear, reference to the crimes of Jeffery Epstein and his numerous connections and proven visitors? 166.199.148.131 (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Merging this into the section directly above, since it's already been discussed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Further sources that conflate the lyric with Epstein:
 * - https://www.post-gazette.com/ae/music/2023/08/14/breakout-country-singer-branded-right-wing-for-new-video/stories/202308140070
 * - https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/rich-men-north-richmond-viral-conservative-anthem-rcna99698
 * - https://nypost.com/2023/08/11/blue-collar-political-anthem-rich-men-north-of-richmond-takes-internet-by-storm/
 * A simple review of the each source used to justify the QAnon association (i.e. via a platform such as "allsides.com" or similar bias metering service) shows that there is clear bias in only weighting these sources. Which would be against Wikipedia's NPOV policies, wouldn't it? The current article clearing reads as biased as the base sources are biased. Kendprew (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That verse is a reference to the Epstein scandal. This much is undisputed by any source. Then some sources interpret that such reference to Epstein scandal is a QAnon nod. The current text reads: A reference to politicians "looking out for minors on an island somewhere" led to speculation that Anthony was referencing the QAnon conspiracy theory, which revolves around the belief that politicians and Hollywood elites engage in child sex trafficking and other child abuse. This is a bit awkward because: I have no objection to covering this in the article, but I think the text needs to be reworked: first describe the reference to the Epstein scandal, then add that some commentators consider this a QAnon nod. MarioGom (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not clear that it is widely understood that this is a reference to the Epstein scandal. Epstein is not even linked in the text, so it is missing much context.
 * It jumps directly to a "QAnon conspiracy theory". This is a problem in two ways:
 * The current text would suggest that the Epstein scandal is all a right-wing hoax (it is not).
 * It gives undue weight to the interpretation that Anthony is writing this as a nod to QAnon.
 * I think that's fair, hopefully this edit helps. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It does. Thanks! MarioGom (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2023 (3)
Remote this sentence: "The song's lyrics revolve around common right-wing talking points." 2600:1700:8222:8250:FCDA:583:5BFF:9111 (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. See . –– Formal Dude   (talk)  21:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus has been reached and the deletion edit made. See the relevant section above. Boscaswell   talk  22:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Qanon, right-wing
I find it more than disingenuous to make the claim that little st James Island and the well known goings on there via the previous owner J.Epstien who died while in custody is somehow a qanon "conspiracy theory." I guess the fact that he'd been previously convicted for the same type of crime is also a "theory." Should I assume that whomever decided to gaslight to such a degree would be fine with such crimes committed upon their own children? If so, then whomever wrote this drivel should never be responsible for any child ever. Right-wing: The blatant attempt to label the song in such a way shows that the article writer has a complete disconnect from the average working American. The first miners mentioned are coal miners. Perhaps the writer should familiarize themselves with their history and how poorly they've historically been treated. There is no right or left wings to the song. It's written by a working class, blue collar man talking about working class issues. Am I really supposed to believe that no left-wing people work for not enough to live on, or don't hold jobs where they are unappreciated, or that they don't care about their children being safe? Do they not care how their tax dollars are spent? Do they all believe that politicians really have their best interests at heart? I doubt that seriously, in fact I know it's not the case. What's obvious: The article writer has an agenda, not simply a biast. Division is the goal. It's glaringly obvious. The fact is that the majority is neither right or left, but somewhere in the middle. Let's not forget the patriot act happened under Bush a Republican, a bill most people on the right would repeal in a heartbeat given the chance. I said people, not politicians, please don't confuse the two. So what is the song really about... simply put average Americans are not represented in DC. Which in case you missed it or forgot basic American history means taxation WITHOUT representation, the very reason for the war against the British. The historical comparison can't be made though by "influencers," or "reviewers," because of what that might do....if people understood. The rich men can't have that. So, who wrote this article? I've got some ideas about the who, but I won't go so far as to name them here, but for those responsible for the right-wing qanon drivel ask yourself why you were tasked with this. Why are you going out of your way to try to beat down an average guy? Maybe you should rethink your choice of employment. I'm just glad I'm not your parent because I'd be so ashamed of you. 68.113.125.105 (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The original editor for this article had it pretty decently put but the media sheep flocked pretty damn quick to fuck it up. 174.240.17.124 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the whole idea that the only people who are working class are all on the right is a complete falsehood. That would mean only republicans work long hours for little pay only to have it taken for taxes, and that only those on the left either have very high paying jobs and don't pay taxes, or collect welfare of some kind. None of those things are true. It's idiocy to suggest it. Then to claim well known documented facts are qanon theories is bald faced lying. I could easily post countless news articles regarding the facts in the Epstein cases, as well as Gislane Maxwell his known associate. I could also post articles about the Haiti child trafficking and Laura Silsby being convicted...so I fail to see how any of this is being claimed to be conspiracy theory. I was under the impression that an encyclopedia had an ethical obligation to prioritize facts not push some screwed up narrative. There's a reason schools won't accept Wikipedia as a reliable source. 68.113.125.105 (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

hit a nerve? You good sir are a damn good editor. That response was comedy gold. In all seriousness, you should really try looking into comedy, I think you may have the talent for it.

"North of Richmond" - Washington, D.C.? (or What is the meaning of the title of this song?)
What is the meaning of the title? Washington, D.C. is about 100 miles "north of Richmond" (Virginia). Are the "Rich Men North of Richmond" basically a reference to the politicians, lobbyists, etc. in Washington, D.C.? One page speculates (without evidence that it could "refer to the politicians who run the United States ... or, more in general, to the wealthy North that economically dominates the South."  Other web sites infer the same meaning.

Msft watch (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The reference to coal miners (predominantly a northern activity) rules out the "wealthy North that economically dominates the South." 2603:7080:1800:D3D5:409C:418F:A9E1:A7A (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, it rhymes with “Rich men”. Secondly, the concentration of affluence (high incomes) around and north of DC has been noteworthy for a decade. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/map-the-astonishing-concentration-of-high-income-earners-around-washington-dc/282457/ It even has its own wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States. Saying “north of Richmond” captures the vast majority of wealthy counties not in the American West. Our political and business elites have presided over the first period of lowered life expectancy in the post-WW2 history of the US. See also, Case and Deaton’s “Deaths of Despair” https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691190785/deaths-of-despair-and-the-future-of-capitalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.2.135 (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I explained above, we need secondary sources that do this kind of analysis, and can't use individual editors' original research. If you're just hoping for a discussion about your personal opinions on the song's meaning, you might want to consider one of the many online forums available outside of Wikipedia, which is itself not a forum for this kind of discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I provided evidence, including wiki links. You might consider adding the wiki link to the highest income counties to the page, since the song is about rich Americans. 96.255.2.135 (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I am confused too (not American). Does "north of Richmond" imply Washington, or New York (Wall Street), or it is both (i.e. is this a confederate/yankee thing)? If not obvious to Americans, would be interesting if RSes, or the author, expanded on it. When I head it first I presumed it meant Wall Street (as Epstein was Wall Street), but others think it is political and referring to Washington/Qanon. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it is a double meaning meant to convey both references to DC/New York. Also in the miners/minors line. The oblique reference to Epstein's island, definitely has some QAnon vibes going for the song. Jjazz76 (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Statement not supported by reference to The Independent
Hello. With this edit, you added text that says "Louis Chilton, writing in The Independent stated that the song contains antisemitic undertones with its references to "Rich Men North of Richmond."", and you used the Independent article, here, as a reference. But I don't see anything about antisemitism being mentioned in that article. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I took it out given it is not in the ref; too serious to be left in an article unsourced. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The miners line
Can you guys please rewrite the part on the verse that goes "I wish politicians would look out for miners, and not just minors on an island somewhere"? That is very obviously a reference to poor, working class Americans not being helped in anyway by todays politicians focusing more on culture war nonsense that doesn't do anything for the average rural American. The Q-anon link is also questionable, including a segment suggesting this is linked to an obscure and radical conspiracy theory for simply mentioning that people talk about child trafficking is very disingenuous. Along side that the full verse isn't even presented, just a version that only has the child trafficking part. It is very clear that this part was written in a deceitful and heavily biased that is disappointing to see on such a large Website. Throwaway12908 (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of quality sources that raise concerns about the link between that lyric and Qanon so it is important to record them. If you have other quality sources raising the points that you make above, then you can seek to add that too. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You say "I wish politicians would look out for miners, and not just minors on an island somewhere"
 * refers to poor, working class Americans, that is true of the first half of the sentence (although he   specifically refers to miners rather than if he were to sing ""I wish politicians would look out for the working man"  but the main thing you are leaving out is that you make no mention of and don't seem to know that the second half of the sentence "not just minors on an island somewhere" refers to the island owned by Jeffrey Epstein, sexual abuser of under age minors and in Oliver Anthony's explanation video for the song, a talk video called  "it's a pleasure to meet you"  (on Oliver Anthony Music on youtube) he explains how the song "touches on human trafficking".   So when he's saying  "I wish politicians would look out for miners, and not just minors on an island somewhere" it's not exactly worded clearly but the "minors" reference seems to mean one of two things:
 * a) politicians spend too much time looking out for the welfare of minors on Epstein island
 * or
 * b) politicians spend too much time looking for minors on Epstein island to abuse  Central16 (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

billy Bragg response
Billy Bragg, a british socialist folk singer has published a song responding to this song, https://consequence.net/2023/08/billy-bragg-oliver-anthony-rich-men-earning-north-of-a-million/ see this article. i think this should be included but the article is locked DParkinson1 (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Bragg is a staunch left-wing singer; per my comments in the RfC above, this is a song with both left and right in it (but I can find no RS to support that, and yet it seems obvious)?? Aszx5000 (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Bragg has written a very interesting article and perspective on the song in today's The Guardian (Oliver Anthony’s divisive song claiming solidarity with workers only benefits the rich who exploit them), which criticises it for dividing the poor in their grievances against the better off, rather than uniting and advocating unions. Don't know if that is worth expanding on, or is it is too much?. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Many, many others in addition to Bragg have commented on the song one way or another. So far I have not included Conor Friedersdorf nor Drew Magary, for example, but if we are going to indiscriminately start adding anyone trolling on the subject, we should add all such opinions, yes?  The article's gonna get very long, mate. XavierItzm (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

That Oliver Anthony prayed before recording should be removed from this article
this wikipedia article, Rich Men North of Richmond, 8/22/2023 6:23 P.M. EST states (bolded added) :

Background and content ''The song was first uploaded to YouTube on August 8, 2023, by Radiowv, and the video received over 5 million views in its first three days. Prior to the song's success, Anthony was not a well-known musician, and he had previously self-recorded songs on his cell phone. "Rich Men North of Richmond" was Anthony's first professionally recorded song. In an interview with Billboard, Radiowv's Draven Riffe said: "We both prayed before we recorded Rich Men North of Richmond."''

That Oliver Anthony prayed before recording should be removed from this article. There is nothing wrong with praying before recording a song or playing a football game but it is not relevant information in any way to an encyclopedia. Central16 (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm also not clear on why it's relevant to include here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe because it is well sourced material from multiple sources? And also, are you going to go edit this article?  It reads (with sources): "During the hiatus, the band members would pray about the direction of the band going forward [...] Following the band's hiatus, they issued a statement informing that Gaines had been fired from the band, and he was removed from the roster on the band's website".  It seems to me that we, like the editors of that article, should go by the sources, even if we don't like what they say.XavierItzm (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @XavierItzm   In the article about the Christian Metal band Stryper it says: "During the hiatus, the band members would pray about the direction of the band going forward". The article is not pointing out the fact that they prayed was notable, every gospel group or Christian metal band prays, it's a given. The point of that quote is that the band was coming together to focus on the direction of the band going forward because of personal issues with a member.  If any person prayed for anything to any supernatural entity why is that alone something that should be recorded in an encyclopedia? The point of that account of the band Stryper is that the members were concerned about the future of the band. The quote does not say the band prayed as a statement alone, millions of people pray daily, it was this band's way of being concerned over their future direction.  To say "We both prayed before we recorded Rich Men North of Richmond" is not a report about some new condition, like a band member getting fired. It is a detail irrelevant to an encyclopedia article.  If somebody prayed for racehorse to win that is not relevant.  We don't need to know that as an encyclopedia.  On the other hand the fact that Anthony, who formerly said he was not religious is now reading bible verses before shows, that is relevant. He is now opening his performances with religious scripture.  That is relevant information.  If he reads the bible at home also, that is not notable enough to mention.  If his music had a lot of Christian themes it would be worth mentioning but thus far it does not.  Central16 (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (See related discussion at Talk:Oliver Anthony) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

 * lk95 did you predict lk99 Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Reception section
Beginning a talk page section on this segment that keeps being removed (here, here) as "irrelevant opinion" and "needlessly political":

The comparison to "Try That in a Small Town" has been made in two sources, plus more that could be added. The review in The A.V. Club is precisely the kind of content that typically goes in "Reception" sections, which is by definition meant for opinions, and for a song that is widely described as a "right-wing anthem" is also going to have to be political. The A.V. Club is GREL: "The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews." Pinging Joemama46, can't ping the IP. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It’s interesting, isn’t it, that we can have a left wing commentator describe the song as threatening, when it’s hard to see how it can be, but because she’s writing in an RS, left wing sources all being approved as RS's, it gets to appear in the article. But anything a right wing commentator writes, in a right wing outlet, would not be permitted on here, as all right wing sources are banned by the "consensus".  Boscaswell   talk  10:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Please do not use this article-specific discussion as a soapbox for your political beliefs and views on source policy. Some of those outlets may be included on WP:RSPSOURCES, and I would encourage you to reference that page and review the conversations that led to those sources not being considered reliable. You can also feel free to start a new discussion about an outlet or outlets, but that should not be done here.
 * To get back on topic, this article uses neutral language throughout and includes numerous positive responses from conservative government officials and media personalities. While the article currently only includes NBC News and The A.V. Club as sources for the connection to "Try That In a Small Town", existing sources from Rolling Stone, New York Daily News, and Billboard also note the connection. Calling any part of this article "needlessly political" is baffling given its context, and is absolutely right about this being appropriate for the critical reception section. More sources can and should be added for reception, but that doesn't mean this one has undue weight.  Sock   ( tock talk)  15:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To anyone outside of the Wikipedia community, this would seem like a misapplication of esoteric rules for the promotion of a political agenda. Surely, the Reception section is not intended to be comprehensive so the nearly exclusive discussion of a connection to "Try that in a Small Town" appears to be cherry-picking.  At best, the selection of references here is incomplete and at worst it is cherry-picking in support of a political agenda.  The song's lyrics are closer to something written by Bruce Springsteen song than Aldeen.  For example, Billboard notes that the song expresses working class frustrations (‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ Viral Hitmaker Oliver Anthony: 5 Things – Billboard). 2603:7080:1800:D3D5:1445:AEDF:EB5C:344C (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow. Thanks for proving his point 2600:1700:6E14:D900:108A:878:C051:9426 (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the wiki article on this blatantly exposes Wikipedia as a leftist organization designed to influence your opinions politically. Conservative perspectives are actively scrubbed and censored. 184.100.168.44 (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, they have been like this forever. To the point that even the 'CO-FOUNDER' Jimmy Wales likes to claim sole credit for creating the platform and will deny an other's credit because of personal disagreement. Jimmy himself has personal bias against anything 'right-wing', as stated in his personal article, and all the top editors that follow him and his words like God himself agree to every single one of those points (literally one of the top editing awards features a scroll 'signed' by Jimmy('Jimbo'), very cult-like). This place hasn't been the same since it's inception in the early 2000s. 174.231.24.82 (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wiki is woke. No doubt about it 65.27.70.250 (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't object to the inclusion as a whole, however only the second source you provided "likened" the song to Aldean's song; they only state that it took the spotlight (and chart positions) away from it. Instead change it to Emma Keates, a writer for The A.V. Club, likened the song to "Try That in a Small Town" by Jason Aldean, a country song popular among conservatives that was previously in the top spot on the iTunes. She wrote 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". - AquilaFasciata (talk &#124; contribs) 16:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

While presumed factual itself, the statement, "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".", seems to be, itself a political opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:500:8600:A2A0:43FD:5250:697:2BE (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Sheesh, here comes the peanut gallery. A reception section is literally just people's opinions. When a work is political, as this one clearly is, those opinions are likewise going to be political. We have three sentences in the reception section talking about those who see the song positively, one sentence that just makes a comparison, and one sentence talking about someone who sees it negatively, so spare us the cries of bias. It's not biased just because it doesn't reference your favorite cable news network. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  23:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Damn, way to play the strawman there. Never once did I mention any side of anything was correct, but pointing out the bias of the still contributing co-founder and editors in tandem is inherently wrong? The difference here is that I'm not trying to play any side up unlike all the editors who state everything they agree with in their bios and work hard to suppress any editing on articles of any nature that goes against the established talking points. The tribalism needs to stop, that's a I'm saying. Also universities and public spaces should not be siting this place as a true source as well, and that has happened before, quite problematic. 174.231.24.82 (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that Wikipedia's co-founder is not involved with this discussion, yes, it is inherently wrong and inherently disruptive to bring his beliefs up. I don't personally care about Jimmy Wales or the statements you're referencing, but even if I did, those statements have no relevance to this discussion and do not impact on my opinion in any way. 's explanation is succinct and clear as to how this is not undue weight, just like 's explanation was succinct and clear.
 * This is not the place to throw around aimless complaints about "all the editors who state everything they agree with in their bios", but to discuss whether a single negative review is somehow "undue weight". Political beliefs have no bearing on the objective coverage of a subject, and many "left-leaning" outlets that review music are notable regardless of your personal feelings on those outlets. If you or the other IP editors in this discussion would like to provide any specific sources or information you believe should be included in this article, please feel free to do so. Either way, please stop soapboxing your political beliefs and criticisms of Wikipedia as an institution. Sock   ( tock talk)  13:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * So where is the place to "complain" about Wikipedia being so biased and unfair? You guys are literally funded by Soros money, so, please, spare me the excuses. It's OK though, because people are waking up to how awful Wikipedia is now, and this song (and this talk page) are proof of that. 223.25.59.199 (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Understandable conflation of Social Security Disability Insurance with Welfare. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/in-rural-america-disability-benefit-rates-are-twice-as-high-as-in-urban-areas/2017/07/22/3e600722-575c-11e7-a204-ad706461fa4f_story.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/2020/sect04.html Over the 21 year period from 1999 to 2019 SSDI expanded from 1.2 million beneficiaries to 2 million, a 60% increase. Over the same time period the US population increased 17%. Note that this is pre-pandemic. It is obvious that for some people SSDI was transformed into “Welfare.” This is more clearly understood as widow(er) beneficiaries dropped 12% during this period, though that probably also reflected a decline in long term marriage rates. Also, economists have long recognized that these programs are frequently fungible, and lump them together under the banner of “transfer payments.” https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B087RC1Q027SBEA  And as to the health (and weight) effects on the beneficiaries, wiki already has you covered with []  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.2.135 (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what changes you're actually suggesting be made here, but note that any changes will need sources that actually mention the song. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m suggesting that the vernacular “welfare” is a catch-all for many social services programs and that contra the one source quoted, the lyrics are not out of touch “Reagan-era” talking points, thus the quotation is unhelpful in understanding why the lyrics resonate with a large subset of the populace, namely demoralization and feeling like one is struggling to make it while others who don’t work have life easier. Having sampled our great and varied nation, I believe there is a sometimes deliberate disconnect managed by gatekeepers like wikipedia in terms of deliberate symbol manipulation.  It’s a form of bubble maintenance and delegitimization of political opposition.  I’m suggesting that editors try making the wiki intelligible by all major groups without dogwhistles or symbol overloading/aliasing.  Showing the different meanings of these symbols and/or linking to other articles on e.g. transfer payments or the history of social spending (Welfare, SSDI, etc.) would be helpful in terms of getting readers to actually understand what the musician is saying to his intended audience rather than a pre-packaged set of prejudices.  I.e. editors should assume good faith and also act in good faith. 96.255.2.135 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What you are suggesting is original research, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. If there is a reliable source describing this song's lyrics differently, describing them more specifically as SSDI, etc., feel free to present them, but individual editors' personal analysis can't be used. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be acceptable to remove the quote as unhelpful. 96.255.2.135 (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, no, I am not suggesting original research. I am suggesting helpful interlinking to existing contextual Wikipedia pages. 96.255.2.135 (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

What's with this no-summary edit? The page protection was just bumped because of people warring over the content without joining the talk page discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I was just cleaning up the article and fixing the POV. X-Editor (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're edit warring without joining in the ongoing discussion, or even bothering to explain in the summary why you think it's "POV". Please consider self-reverting. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I just reverted, but they should feel free to join this discussion and the one below instead of inserting their preferred version without any explanation. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  01:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not using edit summaries. I'm fine with keeping the stuff about it being right-wing, but also wanted to insert a bit more. X-Editor (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're still edit warring. This is a contentious topic area, as I'm sure you're well aware, and as such there is a very low tolerance for edit warring. Please self-revert. You can make your case in the appropriate talk page sections, as everyone else has been doing. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  01:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the edits. This page is too chaotic at the moment anyways. Bye. X-Editor (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That was a very short goodbye. Keep it up and you'll be headed to a noticeboard. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  14:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Republican presidential primary debate
The song was discussed at the first Republican presidential primary debate on August 23, 2023. The first question posed to eight presidential candidates was about the No. 1 song on the Billboard Hot 100.

Source: Katie Atkinson (23 August 2023). "Republican Debate Begins With Question About Oliver Anthony’s Hot 100 No. 1: ‘Why Is This Song Striking Such a Nerve?'". Billboard. Retrieved 23 August 2023. SarahB53 (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The article says the debate was in 2024, should be 2023. 2601:183:4002:D700:64D5:7F2E:958D:C245 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

"Minors on an island somewhere" is a clear reference to Little Saint James
Minors were, in fact, on an island somewhere, and it's a common belief that politicians are censoring information on who visited the island Vaintara (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Rich Men North of Richmond. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, the song references Epstein island and all the people north of Richmond who went there: “«I wish politicians would look out for miners/And not just minors on an island somewhere.» A little Epstein Island reference there". XavierItzm (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm bothered that this is considered a conspiracy on here. It's well known that Epstine had rich and famous "clients" visit his island. Running this is what he was arrested for. And there are numerous former victims who have spoken out. They've even named names. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not just arrested. On a previous occasion, he pleaded guilty to similar charges: "On June 30, 2008, after Epstein pleaded guilty to a state charge of procuring for prostitution a girl below age 18, he was sentenced to eighteen months in prison." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein
 * So yes, it's funny that wikipedia considers a legal procedure that was written about, on wikipedia, to be a "qAnon conspiracy theory". 188.95.38.224 (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's baffling. Honestly, I think that Wiki needs to stop doing this left vs right stuff before people start wondering what horse they have in that race. Wasn't long ago that a
 * Guardian editor that did stuff like that was arrested on massive child p charges. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)