Talk:Tom MacDonald (rapper)

Explanation of Rewrite and Removal of Sources

I rewrote a lot of the article to be more compliant with the BLP sourcing standard. As my removals were pretty sweeping, I figure I should explain myself here. While a lot of the article was sourced from a wide variety of publications, the majority of cited sources were from really low quality, often tabloid-style internet outlets, namely: RawMusicTV.com, Daily Soap Dish, Discuss Global, Pop Horror, The Hollywood Times, Lemon Wire, and Cultr. Groove Detector was repeatedly cited as authoritative, but appears to simply be a personal blog dressed up in a journalistic veneer. Similarly, Medium is a host for self-published content. While Twitter posts and Youtube videos by the subject them self are not inherently BLP-violating, some of the ones used here seemed to me to violate WP:BLPSELFPUB’s stipulation that they not be unduly self-serving.

There were several sources used in the article whose reliability I was fairly unsure about, namely: Preen.ph, Tuko, Honi Soit and The Spectrum (both student newspapers), and The Dallas Observer. While I would normally have just removed them on a BLP, here I left some of them for the time being (there would otherwise be little article), only removing things if they were used for SYNTH or PUFF, or if they seemed to be written from a fan’s perspective. I debated rewording some stuff in the Personal Life section on Macdonald’s drug use and mental health, which was partially cited to an interview with Sam Ash, but otherwise of unclear origin. Although it seems like Macdonald has been public about these things, I decided to err on the side of caution and remove it.

I had some concern that Macdonald might not be notable, considering the overall lack of useable sources. If I’m not mistaken, his presence on Billboard’s Hip Hop Chart does pass the minimum notability guideline for musicians per WP:MUSICBIO.

Regarding the Discography, after consulting the WP:WPMAG essay I removed the Singles list as it was disproportionately long. Finally, I pruned the external links of social media pages per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. I did end up leaving the Youtube link, for it has some relevance if his notability is both as a youtuber and musician.

As is, to me the article still reads a bit like puff at times; my focus was more on removing statements that were unreliably sourced, rather than rewording things for tone or grammar. My apologies if the edits I made went too far or were otherwise inappropriate. Darth Coracle (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The reasons given for the "pruning" and editing of the "Tom MacDonald (rapper)" page is not credible at any level. The page does not read like an advert and is instead clear that whoever makes that claim, intend to find pretexts to reduce the artist credibility and status. I am a litigation lawyer based in London with artist management and representation experience (besides an brief music career earlier in life) therefore my claim is sound but I do not represent Mr MacDonald. For this reason I will simply state that wikipedia is saturated with citations from less than official or established sources when it comes to independent artists. After all, the only media interested in independent artists is independent media. State that this media is not credible just because is not printed, it is like discrediting an underground metal band featured in Kerrang! just because The Times has never featured the same band in its printed edition. Absurd claim, like those made by the self-appointed editor of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.117.103 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate and understand your removals. While I haven't gone back to restore all of it, in my latest edit, I have re-integrated some of the content and sources you had removed, albeit alongside additional and better sources. Initially, I created the page with as much information as I could with as many sources as I could (credible or not) in order to let the eventual forces of Wikipeda to whip it into shape. Thank you for your work. Tradereddy (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Unverifiable Sources and Vague phrasing

I changed around some weasel words in the article, article is more like a ad piece, article is a mess. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:23C0:6C70:A5AE:D9DB:7BC4:BFCE (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Certainly an advertisement piece for their own soapbox. Any honest critique could see the intent - free advertising. 2603:3015:35A1:0:D59E:9F38:66FF:1E7B (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Undecipherable illiteracy

"He received criticism from the Dallas Observer for factual inaccuracies, misleading verses, and weak analysis,[7] while other praised his lyrics for its meaning and criticism for pandemic deniers and hoarders." What on earth does the second half of this ungrammatical sentence mean?77Mike77 (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It is most likely a typographical error in publishing. It can be posted with a [sic] if it needs to be quoted. 2601:589:8000:6470:A8D1:611C:BCB3:4609 (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Article revision or deletion

I'm not knowledgeable enough about Rap, as a whole, let alone about Tom Macdonald, in specific, so I don't really feel comfortable editing this page, but I visited this article after being linked to one of his videos and, frankly, the article seems more like a hit piece than a neutral article about a living person (as per Wikipedia's rules).

For instance, rappers aren't journalists, scientists, or historians, so the "accuracy" of their lyrics aren't relevant. There are thousands of Christian Rock bands, or artists who talk about God, and you don't add information on how God is not proven on those artists' pages either.

One example from the current edit, as a remark to the song "Coronavirus", someone decided it was important to include that the lyrics are "factual inaccuracies, misleading verses, and weak analysis" - a Wikipedia artist page is not the place to make these claims, and definitely not under the "Career" section, since being factually accurate is not an expected characteristic of an artists' work. Their work is naturally subjective, not objective. He could be doing it just to spite people, for all we know.

If anything, a "Controversy" section should be created, with each controversy properly sourced to where it was publicly (and relevantly) raised - a Wikipedia editor personally feeling it's controversial is not enough to add it into a Wikipedia article.

Furthermore, it's my understanding that some of the sources currently used on the article fail the Verifiability rule on Wikipedia, as well. If Tom Macdonald is not notable enough to be talked about on independent, relevant, trustworthy, sources, then I propose the whole article to be removed until he does.

Raven-14 (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. I can't log in to my wikipedia account for some reason, but I'm 100% in agreement with this. The "citation" for him being a rapper is a gay centric magazine making fun of him for a song he released, because of the timing and subject matter. Agree with the idea or not, agree with the subject of the article or not, this is clear bias and it has no place on wikipedia. Imagine this was the kind of citation being used for Lil Nas X, and you'll see the problem immediately.

2601:281:C701:BE60:90A6:5778:C146:EAE1 (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think being inexperiences with a topic disqualifies one from noting issues with a page-- objectivity makes issues clearer, particularly in terms of the notability of a subject and the neutrality of the article. That said, 39 of the 81 references are literally McDonald's songs themselves, which is the real red flag. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The reference clutter is in part due to the nature of MacDonald's release process. His music is released almost entirely as singles on YouTube and music platforms, where artists usually release a hand full of singles alongside an album.Tradereddy (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I have gone through the article and added a few more sources alongside new information. As with objectivity, MacDonald does stir up controversy in his work, and much of the media created revolves around a controversy regarding for this-or-that issue. I see the article not as an attack on MacDonald, but rather a tertiary chronicling of the attacks that against him. Regardless, you are free to move, change, and delete aspects of the article as it stands now.Tradereddy (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is an absolute mess

Unreliable sources, terrible prose, basic grammar mistakes, bizarre lack of negative information, etc etc etc.

Someone please fix this 79.140.120.81 (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

A genuine question regarding the first line of the aricle

"Thomas MacDonald is an Canadian". My question is: why "an" and not "a"? 109.65.37.25 (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Tom Macdonald Headshot.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

"Unbalanced" flag

Never heard of MacDonald until I clicked through to this article from another place today. It reads as highly biased against the individual. Before marking as unbalanced I did a few minutes' searching on the web and found there is a mixture of positive and negative opinions of him and his art, yet the authors have cherry-picked only strongly negative views and subjective opinions, including the entirety of the "public image" section. It is far from neutral. 82.21.19.72 (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Please cite some of the positive press, or better yet, add it to the article yourself, as long as it's from reliable sources. Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say; if they're more negative on him, then it's fine if our article reflects that (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). Elli (talk | contribs) 15:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@82.21.19.72 I agree 100%. 2600:1009:B116:14AB:DC27:29F9:F5F9:FCBF (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia, section 2

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CAMOEM (article contribs). Peer reviewers: ThatJamesH.

— Assignment last updated by DarthVetter (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hungary?

It seems more than a little odd that, out of all the non-Anglophone countries that have their own music charts, this dude would happen to be disproportionately successful in Hungary of all places.

I don’t mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but given the way the current Hungarian government has been relentlessly promoting right-wing viewpoints around the world, it wouldn’t surprise me if Viktor Orban or someone on his staff has been mass-downloading his songs (or arranging for them to be mass-streamed) as a way of boosting MacDonald’s popularity in Hungary and elsewhere. Either that or MacDonald himself is involved; maybe he performed concerts there because they invited him to.

There definitely has to be a story behind this phenomenon, and I’m sure there’s a source explaining why MacDonald is so popular in Hungary. It would be worth checking Hungarian-language media as well (much of which is state-sponsored thanks to Orban’s policies); I’m sure MacDonald has been written about extensively in that market given his chart success there. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:AD8C (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure no one in the English-speaking world "needs" Hungary to tell them to dislike their current liberal government policies. Intelligent people can come to that conclusion on their own.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:30DE:3552:240:F00D (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Public Image section - biased content?

I may be out of line here, but the "Public Image" section seems to be very unbalanced. It seems less like an unbiased section of an article, and more like a smear piece by someone who doesn't like his music. Wouldn't it be reasonable to add some of the positive coverage he's received, for balance? Again, I could be wrong here, and I'm new to the whole Wikipedia Editing Scene; so please correct me if I'm wrong.

While I'm here, it feels more like a "Critical Response" section, than covering his public image. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to cover his public persona and such, rather than what other people have said about his music? Again, I may be wrong. Daniel P Botes (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your comment!

Even if you don’t want to (or can’t) edit this page in ever-so shrinking metric that is spare time, we need reliable sources (pssst… you can check this list of commonly agreed-upon reliable sources on Wikipedia). You can edit the page with these sources in mind or leave the sources in the talk page here as resources for future editors to add, but always stay wary about expressing opinions about someone proportionally with their media coverage around said opinion (after filtering for reliable sources, of course :)). Alright, have fun wikipediaing! Alwaysgonnaedit (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)