Talk:Oliver Anthony/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 13 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ––FormalDude (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Oliver Anthony → Rich Men North of Richmond – All the sources are primarily about the song rather than the musician, shouldn't this stub be moved? ––FormalDude (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed: I found this page after seeing a weird edit to Farmville, Virginia that inserted him as a notable resident and linked to his music. Said edit came from the same IP address that created this page, WP:NOTHUMAN and all that. I suspect that this is being created by the subject.

I also note that the account which turned this into a page (Joemama46), and the one that submitted it as a article initially (Adman511, who did so just 8 minutes after the page went up) both have very similar interests, both editing the Mountaineer Boys State page, and things to do with cannabis. Both were dormant for some time, before suddenly reactivating to work on this page.

Very suspicious. GreatBritant (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

He currently has three other songs that have hit the top ten. I don’t think a move to the song title is warranted. Thriley (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Well none of that is covered here, right now this article and its sources are just about the song, not the artist. Moving the title to reflect that doesn't stop someone from creating an article on the artist going forward. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we should wait a week to see how the news develops before moving. Thriley (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

There are suspicions that Oliver Anthony is an industry plant and/or using a pseudonym. However, these suspicions are mostly limited to Twitter at the moment: [1] [2] and other similar tweets over the past couple days. If these suspicions are brought to light by reliable sources in the next couple days, then that might heighten his notability even further. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am very real and apologize you aren't satisfied with my wiki contributions. The other account is my wife, she helps here and there on the articles I'm working on. I try to contribute towards causes I care about; and I can assure you I have no connection to the subject of this article. I see Oliver Anthony as a country rising star, and as a county fan I think his notability is well established in the news media. Joemama46 (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. If you look at the iTunes charts currently, he has other songs there (5 in top 10, 15 in top 50). There is also an EP on the iTunes album chart. We don't know what their positions on the Billboard charts will be (or if they do chart), nevertheless in just over a week's time, the situation could be different because we might need a discography section. Hzh (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Oliver Anthony has multiple hits on the iTunes Charts currently, topping established county artists. While a "Rich Men in Richmond" article is certainly in order, it should be created separately as that one song is not the only song that makes him notable at this point in time. Joemama46 (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Enough coverage to be notable. Would be actually good to know some details on him. Casprings (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Right now Oliver Anthony has the top 3 on iTunes all genres, half of the top 10, half of the top 14 and 15 of the top 50. Clearly he’s much more than the song itself, although that also deserves an article. These stats also mean that it’s absurd to suggest, even for a moment, that he’s not notable enough for an article, so I deleted that hatnote.

Boscaswell talk 02:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Much more to Anthony than this song per above, easily warrants his own article. Seacactus 13 (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The song is definitely more notable than Anthony is at this point. However Anthony is probably also notable, so the solution here is to write the article on the song, not to move his article to that title. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a separate article for the song, and it’s fairly obvious that this man is not just going to be famous, he is already. It’s time this discussion was closed. Boscaswell talk 09:02, 14 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.

You guys can’t write a straight story, can you? 2600:6C64:667F:DB94:E4B4:8A67:A218:BACD (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

He is 31 according to the Joe Rogan Experience podvast episode he was recently on 2603:3001:3762:4000:1134:B3DE:BF9E:AF4C (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Notability

There are suspicions on Twitter that Oliver Anthony is an industry plant or otherwise concealing his identity, given that literally nothing was known about him before last week. (Also note that "Rich Men North of Richmond" is credited to "Christopher Anthony Lunsford", which is alleged to be his real name.) While iTunes charts are not counted, the sales and streaming will without question translate into Hot 100 peaks, very likely Hot Country Songs as well. In my opinion the sourcing already meets WP:GNG standards when weighted against his out of nowhere appearance, and there is no doubt he'll meet criterion #2 of WP:BAND within the week. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I've heard it's projected to top the Hot 100 next week. EEllis2002 (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

as documented in various news articles across the internet, this "rising star" is very blatantly astroturfed as a response to other news items, specifically the Montgomery riverboat brawl that was in the news cycle for a couple of weeks. the actors behind this effort are all from alt-right media. the editor of this very wiki entry has only one other edit: to pages for anti-socialist youth orgs. the notability of this individual is questionable. (note: I am restoring this content for the 3rd time after abusive censorship / blatant vandalism by user @Nemov) a source for the tweets demonstrating the astroturfing campaign can be seen in this news article: https://www.distractify.com/p/who-is-oliver-anthony 69.113.236.26 (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

That article isn't a reliable source and much better reporting than that will be required that what you've presented. Nemov (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Is notability still a question? Profiled by NYT and many others in last 24 hours https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/21/arts/music/rich-men-north-of-richmond-oliver-anthony.html Sawitontwitter (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Article needs improving not deleting

This article needs improving not deleting. Having heard the song “Rich men north of Richmond” I went on this site to learn more about the artist. Other than he is from Farmville, Virginia know little else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.98 (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

there are no reputable sources of information because the individual who is the topic of this article was totally unknown a week ago. per other interviews, he's actually "from" North Carolina. https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/08/15/the-sudden-success-of-rich-men-north-of-richmond-a-country-song-championed-by-right-wing-pundits-explained/ 69.113.236.26 (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Genre

Country or Folk. Seems more the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.98 (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems more the latter to me, too. 2603:7080:1800:D3D5:409C:418F:A9E1:A7A (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Politics

Might as well start the discussion... there's an obvious feeding frenzy here since this song went viral so there's already been a ton of sensationalist coverage to appease all walks of life. I rolled back some talk of a YouTube playlist. This leans too much into WP:NOTTHENEWS/WP:RECENT territory. That doesn't mean it can't be added later, but per WP:BLP we should use some discretion about jamming every story about this guy into the biography. 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) 20:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Just for future reference. The playlist in question is this features two videos about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nddd53434t0&list=PL2gusRdbuxAeA9CtJROtDY3yY1Xk4s70J&index=7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOiCMMMeXE8&list=PL2gusRdbuxAeA9CtJROtDY3yY1Xk4s70J&index=46 featuring reporting of the dancing Israeli conspiracy.

A video about featuring "non standard" medical opinions on CoViD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5_BFnz-Gt4&list=PL2gusRdbuxAeA9CtJROtDY3yY1Xk4s70J&index=35 and many https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson videos.

This should not be part of the article. The only reason to add is an urge to balance his self described politics. I think removing his claims about his own politics. 2001:638:904:FFE8:C827:A45C:5AA8:4D6C (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Political content endorsed by the subject ('Videos that make your noggin' get bigger') on his own social media page absolutely should be mentioned in a section about the guy's politics.

It's not Wikipedia's job to withhold pertinent info on a subject because people might get the impression it looks "balanced." 73.168.37.85 (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue his self identified politics is not pertinent and i would like to see why his claims about his politics are pertinent. 2001:638:904:FFE8:C827:A45C:5AA8:4D6C (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Also the YouTube of an artist is not his social media. It is part of his professional persona and under his artist name 2001:638:904:FFE8:6973:70AE:6A1B:B6C (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Yet the political section still exists - and apparently is curated to favor some types of information over others.

While the political section is up, *all* of Anthony's political content should be mentioned.

Again, there is no compelling argument being made for why either WP:NOTTHENEWS or WP:RECENT would permit mentioning Anthony's centrist views but not his 9/11 views. Or, frankly, why it would allow anything at all on Wiki about Oliver Anthony - our entire knowledge pool about this guy consists of "recent news." It's hard not to see this as a flimsy attempt to suppress any content that might tarnish the subject's image. 73.168.37.85 (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This entire article and subject lean hard on "recent news" - the selective application of WP:NOTTHENEWS just to the denialist content frankly comes across as special pleading to scrub the article of any info that makes Anthony look "bad." What application of WP:NOTTHENEWS or WP:RECENT permits this article to cover his centrist beliefs but not the 9/11 ones?

Elsewhere in this article, all kinds of trivial junk is permitted. Ffs, the "Future output" section is covering stuff that hasn't even happened yet. 73.168.37.85 (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

If anything the 9/11 conspiracies are more well sourced than most of the trivial information on here, with articles from Forbes, Mashable, The Daily Dot etc. If he's going t have a politics section it should showcase his politics Mighty Midas (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Right - there is currently no rationale put forth for the blacklisting of certain political information about Oliver Anthony that wouldn't equally apply to the rest of the info on this page.

It's time this dispute came to the attention of the mods on this site. I'll be submitting an RfC when I get time (unless someone else beats me to it.).73.168.37.85 (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

You are free do disagree with my argument, but please assume good faith. This is a biography about a musician. I don't object to removing his politics from the article if that's what you want. I'm not sure it's relevant except to people obsessed with politics. It seems like the type of thing that would be included in a "personal life" section, but by itself seems a little odd at the moment. Nemov (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not advocating for removing the politics section; I'm advocating for an application of the guidelines that doesn't single out this person's less-marketable attributes as a violation while allowing content of similar importance and validity - once more: what makes Oliver Anthony's 9/11 views "excessive/indiscriminate info" and "too recent" that wouldn't also apply to his centrism, or frankly, most of the content on this entire page? Literally everything the public knows about Anthony is "recent." As long as his political views are mentioned at all here, *all* of his views are fair game for inclusion.

I think including his political views, either as a stand-alone section or as part of another category, is valid and makes sense given this is his claim to notability - the same as adding academic info to a scientist's page or stats and team history to an athlete's. Though I'm not sure what simply moving his political views to a "personal life" section would accomplish if it doesn't fix the underlying problem of editors curating the subject's page to block any negative biographical content. 73.168.37.85 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that NOTNEWS/RECENT is a poor reason to remove content about Anthony's YouTube playlist. I've added it back using a better source. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I would like see you expand on how you think this should be included on grounds that this isn't WP:NOTNEWS/WP:RECENT since you have now decided to add something that is basically an opinion piece written two days ago into a WP:BLP article. Nemov (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure. First off, I disagree that it's an opinion, at least the source is not portraying it as one.

As for RECENT, it's not a strong argument for removal as it can be said for just about everything in the article.

Let's break down WP:NOTNEWS:

1. Original reporting – Obviously not the case.

2. News reports – The entire article is made up of news reports.

3. Who's who – Not applicable to a BLP.

4. Celebrity gossip and diary – This is more than just trivia. Given the politicization of his songs, his political views are highly relevant. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The "everything in the article" strawman can be ignored. There's no issue with this biography existing, but feel free to contribute to the deletion discussion if you think this biography shouldn't exist. That's just a distraction to include trivial sensationalist opinion pieces. I'm a little perplexed at your claim that this isn't an opinion. Nemov (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The Washington Post comment about the guy's youtube habits is pure character assasination and as such has no place on WP:BLP grounds. Seriously now, if Bezos' rag finds out the guy once beat up a kid in grade school, is that going to be added to this article as "a critical insight into the singer's with regard to how he perceives human interactions?". This is a BLP, people. Living people. XavierItzm (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The Washington Post is generally reliable. The governing policies are WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE, which ensure that articles are written in a disinterested tone based on independent reliable sources. Llll5032 (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

You restored material in contravention of WP:LIVE: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The policy goes on to add: "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material."
Well, someone's YouTube's habits have no place on BLP. What are you going to also include whether he showers every day or not, if the W Post prints it?
Please do not re-add unless you can secure consensus. XavierItzm (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Oliver Anthony Music

Is it necessary for this title to be emboldened in the article? Boscaswell talk 01:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

No, probably not. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

New subsection 'Future output' Rename it?

It’s obvious that there needed to be a subsection for anything beyond Rich Men, as (1) there is info about production, which straddles its release, (and I would really like to minimise the first part of the Career section, (A) to be choronological, after all, we are recording a story, and (B) to have it quickly launch into Rich Men, there not being much before that point) and now there is, (2) the feeding frenzy by the music industry to sign him up. And there’s certain to be more, of course. But the question is, what to call it. I went for 'Future output', but a better name might be 'Post-breakthrough'? That’s probably better, but I haven’t changed it yet. What say you? Boscaswell talk 05:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Given name is poorly sourced

CLOSED

There is now sufficient sourcing to include the full name in the article. Nemov (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

There is a single source for his given name, https://tasteofcountry.com. How does this count as a reliable source? Yet it's enough to plaster his name across the internet for the doxxing to commence, while this article is locked from regular users deleting the information

Wiki biographies of living persons policy states: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public."

The inclusion of his full name at the outset of this article massively violates this principle, despite wiki power users controlling this article.61.69.231.169 (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an unreasonable request. I've changed it now since this should only be included if there are reliable sources. Nemov (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

His given name is self-disclosed: Facebook post GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

His name is published by Variety: “his legal name is Christopher Anthony Lunsford”.^[1] XavierItzm (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The date him disclosing his name in the Facebook post linked above was 12 hours ago. The variety magazine article was written after that. This wikipedia article displayed his name for several days before that, as the first three words of the article, as is visible in the edit log. Suppose it's all moot now, but that was an improper sequence of events, conducted by editors with extensive histories of editing wikipedia and high level permissions. One could surmise that the reason he stated his full given name, including his middle name, was prompted by the private information disseminated through this article to millions of readers around the world.61.69.231.169 (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

References

^ Chris Willman (17 August 2023). "a high school dropout who has lived and worked in North Carolina and Virginia, working in industrial manufacturing for the last nine years". Variety. Retrieved 17 August 2023. his legal name is Christopher Anthony Lunsford (as previously indicated by official songwriting credits)

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.

No mention of guitarist

back-up guitarist featured at live premier of the song Rich Men North of Richmond appeared with him at Moyak as well. Is he a member of the band? 2600:8805:510C:3B00:2918:6D32:3D2D:439E (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Info to add: excerpt from Oliver Anthony's Facebook statement 8/17/2023 incl: "From 2014 until just a few days ago, I've worked outside sales in the industrial manufacturing world"

Facebook post ·Oliver Anthony Music , Facebook, August 17, 2023

Extended content

So that being said, I have never taken the time to tell you who I actually am. Here's a formal introduction:

My legal name is Christopher Anthony Lunsford. My grandfather was Oliver Anthony, and "Oliver Anthony Music" is a dedication not only to him, but 1930's Appalachia where he was born and raised. Dirt floors, seven kids, hard times. At this point, I'll gladly go by Oliver because everyone knows me as such. But my friends and family still call me Chris. You can decide for yourself, either is fine.

In 2010, I dropped out of high school at age 17. I have a GED from Spruce Pine, NC. I worked multiple plant jobs in Western NC, my last being at the paper mill in McDowell county. I worked 3rd shift, 6 days a week for $14.50 an hour in a living hell. In 2013, I had a bad fall at work and fractured my skull. It forced me to move back home to Virginia. Due to complications from the injury, it took me 6 months or so before I could work again.

From 2014 until just a few days ago, I've worked outside sales in the industrial manufacturing world. My job has taken me all over Virginia and into the Carolinas, getting to know tens of thousands of other blue collar workers on job sites and in factories. Ive spent all day, everyday, for the last 10 years hearing the same story. People are SO damn tired of being neglected, divided and manipulated.

In 2019, I paid $97,500 for the property and still owe about $60,000 on it. I am living in a 27' camper with a tarp on the roof that I got off of craigslist for $750.

Central16 (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there there something specific you would like added to the article? This has been covered by reliable sources, it's unclear what info you want to add. Nemov (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
It needs a section in it like other musicians have, with biographical information in it.

The article has a section called "Career" . In the words of Oliver Anthony " From 2014 until just a few days ago, I've worked outside sales in the industrial manufacturing world. My job has taken me all over Virginia and into the Carolinas, getting to know tens of thousands of other blue collar workers on job sites and in factories. I've spent all day, everyday, for the last 10 years hearing the same story." That was his last career which ended a few days ago and is the career he had when he wrote Rich Men of North Richmond. He is an amateur musician, there is nothing wrong with that. He said that himself and he is described that way in many articles. He may get a contact at embark on a career as a musician but as of yet he has not. If someone does a few performances, some may be paid performances and some may not be. If some are documented as paid performance a few such performances are not a "career". Central16 (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Central16 It will most likely be reorganised in the manner you’ve described when more is known about his early life. At the moment, we don’t even know his date of birth. A week ago there were other editors clamouring for the article to be deleted (it was only about 80-100 words long, with no sections at all). That most likely won’t happen, but we still don’t know very much at all about his early life, and he’s not giving interviews. All the best. Boscaswell talk 02:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
This wiki article is egregiously misleading at the moment and I will explain why in a moment

Oliver Anthony has stated on his facebook on August 17th or 18th:

Extended content

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0vzFyyeXHiZwGXzWeoTiXFguWDKPTDjxqV8oX98REPsb3NbN2MeKRbAM4rXWK9tayl&id=100085643337139

"In 2010, I dropped out of high school at age 17. I have a GED from Spruce Pine, NC. I worked multiple plant jobs in Western NC, my last being at the paper mill in McDowell county. ... In 2013, I had a bad fall at work and fractured my skull. ...From 2014 until just a few days ago, I've worked outside sales in the industrial manufacturing world. "

In summary : From 2014 to mid August of 2023, Oliver Anthony was a sales representative for Industrial Manufacturing up until a several days ago and has been living in Virginia. His jobs pervious to this started in 2010 starting when he was 17 years old and for 3 years up to 2013 he worked in manufacturing plants in North Carolina. The Wikipedia 2nd paragraph in the Life and Career section currently leaves out what his most recent career has been over the past nearly a decade, a sales rep. Are we too embarrassed to mention this? wiki:

As of August 2023, he lived in a camper on an off-the-grid property, where he said he intends to raise livestock. A 2010 high school dropout at age 17 who later secured a General Educational Development diploma, he previously worked for nine years in factories in North Carolina and Virginia. He said he was working third shifts six days a week at a paper mill in North Carolina when in 2013 he had a work accident that fractured his skull, leaving him unable to work for half a year.

^ This states: "he previously worked for nine years in factories in North Carolina and Virginia. He said he was working third shifts six days a week at a paper mill in North Carolina [5]" That is very misleading. It talks about him working for 9 years in factories and in the next sentence talks about working third shift six days a week. But in fact he did not work for 9 years in factories working six days a week. In fact as he says on his Facebook page, he worked these shifts in the factory at age 17-20, from 2010-2013. He did not work these overnight 12 hours shifts for 9 years. He had outside sales job for 9 years! Yes he went inside factories to sell them products but it is very misleading to to refer to that as "worked for nine years in factories". That would be like saying a person worked in auto shops because they were a sales rep who sold these shops nuts and bolts every week.

If you will notice that bolded statement in this wiki article with a refence [5]. That links to the article in Variety https://variety.com/2023/music/news/oliver-anthony-responds-industry-offers-rich-men-north-richmond-1235699012/ This Variety article says:

"In Thursday’s much more explanatory post, Anthony described himself as a high school dropout who has lived and worked in North Carolina and Virginia, working in industrial manufacturing for the last nine years and “getting to know tens of thousands of other blue collar workers on job sites and in factories. Ive spent all day, everyday, for the last 10 years hearing the same story. People are SO damn tired of being neglected, divided and manipulated.” It's not the best of reporting either because at the bottom of this same article Oliver Anthony's entire Facebook post is shown, the one I've been talking which is not vague about his 9 years working in the field of Industrial manufacturing . These recent 9 years he was not working in these factories as a laborer as he did for 3 years about a decade ago but what he was doing for the past 9 years, as he says himself:

"From 2014 until just a few days ago, I've worked outside sales in the industrial manufacturing world. My job has taken me all over Virginia and into the Carolinas"

This is why I like looking at Wikipedia articles because we usually clarify these things and are more accurate but we're not there yet. Central16 (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I made a preliminary edit that may help correct the problems. Do any third-party RS describe his sales work? Llll5032 (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Central16, yes, I had noticed the job discrepancies as well and had sort of thought I needed to look into that, just hadn't gotten around to it! The root cause of the discrepancies is the fact it all comes from different articles, so it takes someone like you laying it all on the table to focus on the errors. But YES, there are sources that more clearly describe the sales rep job. Llll5032's edit is a good placeholder but more detail is needed. I'll get to it soon unless you or somebody else does the job before. XavierItzm (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Central16 you seem to be making out that there's been a deliberate effort to falsify his life story somehow. I’m sure that that’s not true. Boscaswell talk 08:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the "egregiously misleading" was uncalled for. People have added sources as they appear and something got disjointed, but a simple and very effective edit by Llll5032 took care of 80% of the error and now we just have to do the 80% of the work necessary to fully address the remaining 20% of the problem. Having said that, I think Central16's long exposition of the discrepancies is useful, even if his tone isn't. XavierItzm (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Oliver Anthony said himself very clearly "From 2014 until just a few days ago, I've worked outside sales in the industrial manufacturing world" but this continues to be hidden in this wiki article. His whole facebook post which includes that quote is at the bottom of the Variety article which is wiki reference [5] and at Oliver Anthony Music on Facebook and other sources. His nine year most recent career, as an outside sales person, very basic information is being purposely left out. Please ask yourself "why?" Central16 (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Usually we wait for independent sources to use their own words (see WP:PRIMARY), but is this edit an improvement? Llll5032 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

(The Richmond Times-Dispatch is the primary daily newspaper in Richmond, Virginia, and the primary newspaper of record for the state of Virginia." and was founded in 1850. )

Richmond Times-Dispatch Aug 18, 2023

'Rich Men North of Richmond' singer doesn't want $8 million record deal, reveals real name

Up until very recently, he worked in outside sales in industrial manufacturing, traveling around Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, “getting to know tens of thousands of other blue collar workers on job sites and in factories. I’ve spent all day, everyday, for the last 10 years hearing the same story. People are SO damn tired of being neglected, divided and manipulated,” he posted.

https://richmond.com/life-entertainment/local/music/rich-men-north-of-richmond-oliver-anthony-christopher-lunsford-country-song-farmville-blue-collar-anthem/article_84270630-3db4-11ee-89f3-73935218eff9.html#tracking-source=mp-homepage

TODAY (website of the NBC T.V. show):

Who is Oliver Anthony? His song 'Rich Men North of Richmond' is topping global charts

Aug. 18, 2023, 5:39 PM EDT / Updated Aug. 19, 2023, 1:43 PM EDT / Source: TODAY

By Gina Vivinetto

More recently, he's worked in "outside sales in the industrial manufacturing world."

https://www.today.com/popculture/music/oliver-anthony-rich-men-north-of-richmond-song-meaning-rcna100667

Oliver Anthony reveals he's turned down $8 MILLION offers after surging to Apple Music's global number one - saying he wrote 'Rich Men North of Richmond' while suffering depression

By STEPHEN M. LEPORE FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 01:45 EDT, 18 August 2023 | UPDATED: 01:51 EDT, 18 August 2023

In 2014, he started working in 'outside sales' in industrial manufacturing, which he says has taken him 'all over Virginia and into the Carolinas.'

'Ive spent all day, everyday, for the last 10 years hearing the same story. People are SO damn tired of being neglected, divided and manipulated.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12419721/Oliver-Anthony-reveals-hes-turned-8-MILLION-offers-surging-Apple-Musics-global-number-one-saying-wrote-Rich-Men-North-Richmond-suffering-depression.html Central16 (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Central16. How is this edit? Llll5032 (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

this new version:

As of August 2023, he lived in a camper on an off-the-grid property, where he said he intends to raise livestock. A 2010 high school dropout at age 17 who later secured a General Educational Development diploma, he worked in industrial jobs in North Carolina and Virginia. At a paper mill in North Carolina in 2013, he had a work accident that fractured his skull, leaving him unable to work for half a year. He worked in outside sales in manufacturing, visiting factories and job sites, from 2014 through 2023, he wrote in a Facebook post.

It's a significant improvement since it says he worked as an outside salesman but the revision is not organized that well. He currently lives off grid in a camper on a 90 acre property he owns. It is not accurate to say "As of August 2023, he lived in a camper on an off-the-grid property," because that implies prior to 2023 he was not living off grid in a camper and also implies he is not currently living there (both wrong I believe it says he "lived" there, past tense) but you would have to have a source verifying that. That he intends to raise livestock is a point of interest maybe for a magazine but it is irrelevant for an encyclopedia entry. Everyone knows what a GED is I think that could be stated as abbreviation. It sin not important. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0vzFyyeXHiZwGXzWeoTiXFguWDKPTDjxqV8oX98REPsb3NbN2MeKRbAM4rXWK9tayl&id=100085643337139

These are the known facts:

Oliver Anthony lives off grid in a camper on 90 acres of land he owns in his home state of Virginia. From 2014 until mid-August of 2023 he has worked in outside sales for industrial manufacturing and most recently for

Fastenal Company - Industrial Supply & Solutions. His linkedin:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-lunsford-648284a4?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Prior to this, after dropping out of high school in 2010 at the age of 17, he worked in manufacturing plants in North Carolina until 2013 when he had a serious fall which forced him to return to Virginia where he now lives and had transitioned from laborer into salesman.

He is also an amateur musician. It is irrelevant to even mention that from 2010-2013 he worked for 3 years, after getting out of high school, in manufacturing plants. In Rich Men of North Richmond he doesn't even say he had worked in a factory and songs are not expected to legitimized by real experience anyway. He could have written a song in the persona of a bus driver, if he had actual experience as a bus driver does not matter. If he was a professional musician it would be optional to even state his prior jobs but he's not. He's a sales rep who recently left his job and he also plays music. These are the facts, clearly stated. What is there now mixes relevant information with irrelevant information. His career is important (up until several days ago and outside salesman)information but the fact that he got his GED and intends to raise livestock is irrelevant information. That he lives off-grid is near to irrelevant but I suppose passable. Central16 (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

[Note: the below comment :"*I'm sorry, is there a question here?" etc. is a reply to a deleted topic] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Central16 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is there a question here? This isn't a reliable source and it's just a bunch of speculation. What do you suggest we do with this information? Under what rational should it be included in the article? Nemov (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I have created a "Personal Details" section for the sourced material about this personal life. Unless there is other relevant and sourced material, than there is little else to be done? Aszx5000 (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Title

He performs under the stage name Oliver Anthony Music and is credited as such on Billboard. I think it’s appropriate to change the title of this article from Oliver Anthony to Oliver Anthony Music as that’s his official stage name. Zvig47 (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that "Oliver Anthony Music" is his WP:COMMONNAME? Aszx5000 (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Common name = Oliver Anthony. XavierItzm (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This inaccurate, he released his songs (so far) under Oliver Anthony Music", but performs as Oliver Anthony. "Oliver Anthony Music" is presumably used to distinguished from other Oliver Anthonys. Hzh (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Pretty clear case of WP:COMMMONNAME, it would inappropriate to make this change. Nemov (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

)

... that "Rich Men North of Richmond" by Oliver Anthony was the first single to chart at #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 with no previous chart history for its artist? Source: Billboard -- "Oliver Anthony Music’s breakout viral hit “Rich Men North of Richmond” debuts at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 ... he’s the first artist ever to launch atop the list with no prior chart history in any form."
- Reviewed: Brontosaurus, Godalming
- Comment: This is a double article. The timing is complicated by an AfD during its development. There were many contributors and I've attempted to credit the major ones but more credits might be added if appropriate.

5x expanded by Lk95 (talk), Boscaswell (talk), GorillaWarfare (talk), Hzh (talk), and XavierItzm (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 21:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Oliver Anthony; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: - Andrew Davidson has done one QPQ, but another one is required. Per WP:QPQ, the number of QPQs required is dependent on how many articles are being nominated, rather than the number of nominations: "Where a nomination offers more than one new or expanded article, an article-for-article quid pro quo (QPQ) is required for each nominated article."
Overall: Nice work on these articles. After one additional QPQ is completed, I can approve this nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks for the review. I'm quite busy this weekend but will endeavour to provide the extra QPQ in a a couple of days if I can't squeeze it in sooner. More anon. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I've now added another QPQ. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for doing that QPQ. Epicgenius (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Not being familiar with the procedure, I am not certain what one might or might not do about this nomination. I saw the nomination for ITN and it was self-evident what one might do; but to me it is not clear here. Anyway, best of fortune with the nomination! XavierItzm (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The DYK process is documented at WP:DYK. It starts with a nomination which I have done. The next step is to wait on a review – see Brontosaurus for a fresh example. Typically, the reviewer will identify issues requiring attention and we should then act on those. This may take days or even weeks so I counsel patience. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

why is a promise to God and anonymous fan comment in this article?

wiki 8/22/2023 (Music career paragraph 2):

He said he "started getting messages from people saying how much the music was helping them with their struggles in their lives," and that that gave him a purpose. "It made me feel like I wasn't just wasting my time." Anthony had been struggling with mental health issues and alcohol abuse for five years, and according to Twitter user Jason Howerton who had interviewed him, in July 2023 Anthony broke down and promised God that he would get sober if he helped him follow his dream. Around 30 days later, West Virginia music channel radiowv asked him to record a song for its YouTube music channel, and the result was "Rich Men North of Richmond".

Unnamed people supposedly have said his music was "helping them with their struggles in their lives" Every artist has fans who say things like that, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Also, he said he promised to God he would get sober. A promise to God or anyone else to get sober does not belong in an encyclopedia in my opinion. This paragraph is more like copy for a magazine, not important details Central16 (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I can’t for the life of me imagine that these pieces of information are not noteworthy. Particularly that he promised to God that he’d get sober if he helped him with his career, and then about 30 days later radiowv came knocking, Rich Men was recorded (then uploaded, and the rest is history.) Literally millions of people will see that as being of great importance, and for me it’s one of the most important pieces of information in the article. I can, though, imagine that people who have a problem with the concept of God might have a problem with it. All the best. Boscaswell talk 20:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It also strikes me as bizarre to include, at least in that location. His struggle with substances could be reasonably included in the personal life section, though.

Boscaswell: I can, though, imagine that people who have a problem with the concept of God might have a problem with it is unnecessary and uncivil. People should be able to constructively discuss what should or shouldn't be included with an encyclopedia article without being subjected to speculation that they "have a problem with the concept of God". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare the comment about people who have a problem with God was a generalisation. It’s true, is it not, that people who have a problem with God are triggered by any statement which gives recognition to the concept of there being a higher level being or beings, particularly where there is laid out in that statement a reason to be grateful to God, or the inference that God was instrumental in an achievement.
As to the piece in the article which I’ve described in my previous comment here, there is a clear sequence of events which is of itself extraordinary, and as I have said, there are many, many millions out there who would see it as being of great importance. All the best. Boscaswell talk 23:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea if people who have a problem with God would be "triggered" by it or not. Either way, it is not a useful (or civil) addition to the conversation. The sequence of events involving recording a song without ever having done so professionally, then going viral, then charting at #1 is unquestionably extraordinary, as covered in multitudes of sources. But it's not clear to me that we should extend that sequence back all the way to him praying about it, etc. It seems to have been meaningful to him, but again, his religion/sobriety/etc is better suited to "personal life". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare I’m confused, a little. Is the following sequence of events problematic? "… in July 2023 Anthony broke down and promised God that he would get sober if he helped him follow his dream. Around 30 days later, West Virginia music channel radiowv asked him to record a song for its YouTube music channel, and the result was "Rich Men North of Richmond"." Can you perhaps accept that this whole thing is actually a remarkable sequence of events? Whyever would you want to remove the first part of that sequence of events? It is an epiphany, which is of itself highly notable. Why is there a need to eliminate that? You are saying that it would be extending that sequence "all the way back", but we’re taking about a timeframe of around 30 days, not several months or years. Can you please just accept the inclusion?
The OP here is suggesting that it’s melodramatic or something like that and therefore shouldn’t be in Wikipedia. But something being of that ilk is of no consequence if it is notable; we shouldn’t have to trawl through Wikipedia and find anything which is melodramatic and remove even when it is notable and extraordinary, as is the case here. Boscaswell talk 00:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for the OP, but for me, the issue is that I don't understand why it is remarkable as you claim. I assume there are quite a few performers who pray or otherwise petition their deity of choice for help in their careers. It was mentioned in a tweet by an advertising consultant, then quoted in one source (American Songwriter); that doesn't seem to support your claim that it's an "epiphany" or "highly notable". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare (1) Anthony had struggled with alcohol, and his career in music was going nowhere but he then promised God that he would get sober if he helped him with his music career. . . —> (2) just 30 days later, along came radiowv, Rich Men was recorded. . . —> (3) Rich Men was uploaded. . . —> (4) a week later he’s turning down multimillion dollar record deals —> (5) just 13 days later Anthony sits atop the Billboard Hot 100. It’s obviously epiphanic (the sequence has had articles written about it in religious outlets) and is very obviously highly notable. We must agree to disagree, since you’re never going to accept what I’m saying. But please be assured that there will be huge numbers reading that very sequence (well, 1 to 3 above are laid out as the sequence) who will appreciate reading it. Isn’t that OK? All the best. Oh, please return the courtesy of pinging or otherwise attracting my attention with any reply, thanks. Boscaswell talk 00:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Boscaswell: If your prediction is correct, then perhaps more news outlets or other RS will investigate and print it, at which point it can be included here as a sequence of events that is receiving substantial coverage in RS. However, at this point, it is premature, and certainly not "very obviously highly notable" per the RS I'm seeing. We don't include every detail about a topic simply because one editor believes there are people who might appreciate reading it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

A better source may be needed for the statement, because it from the Twitter user rather than from Oliver Anthony himself or from an independent RS in its own words. Llll5032 (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ve added a selection (!) of additional refs. One, Taste of Country, refers to it being in a video, which has since been deleted. Another is FoxNews, which is considered an RS for non-political stories. There are innumerable websites with a religious emphasis to them which are running with this. I haven’t used any of them, but the mere fact that there are so many confirms the notability of it, even aside from the ones I’ve added to the article. Boscaswell talk 03:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Boscaswell talk: A Deleted Video is Not a Source!! Central16 (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

That’s true, of course, but if an RS says it saw a video with that information in it, then that *is* something. Boscaswell talk 04:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The little vignette discussed above seems well supported by three WP:RS, incl. the one that makes reference to a video which apparently is no longer available: we usually don't go by videos, but by what print sources say about the videos: ergo, the history as included in the article appears to be extremely well supported.

Now, moving on, what someone may want to work on and unify with the above is on what Billboard defined as unique about Anthony's performances: the guy reads the Bible to his public before starting his performances.^[1] Since the WP:RS also consider this, in their words, to be "unique", this probably needs to be integrated and augmented with the events discussed above. XavierItzm (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Boscaswell If any person says they prayed for something happen and it happens, that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. If the thing that happens is what they prayed for, that does not prove that to whatever entity they prayed to made it happen. And what if he had actually prayed to Satan, lied and said it was God and it was Satan who made it a hit? How could we know which entity did it? Or did Jason Howerton and Dan Bongino have anything to do with it? And how could we know it wasn't Anthony's songwriting, voice, look, back story and political content alone working synergistically that made it happen? Central16 (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Have a gander at 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) 04:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I have a reply to this quote about the Christian metal band Stryper "During the hiatus, the band members would pray about the direction of the band going forward" , see

Talk:Rich Men North of Richmond Central16 (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

That Oliver Anthony reads bible scripture before shows IS relevant information. That he prayed for his music career to be successful is not relevant information for an encyclopedia. Multi-millions of people pray for various things everyday. Central16 (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

References

^ Jessica Nicholson (22 August 2023). "Oliver Anthony Brings 'Rich Men' Hit to Weekend North Carolina Show". Billboard. Retrieved 22 August 2023. began his afternoon set in a unique fashion; not with crashing cymbals or jangly guitar rhythms, but with prayer. The crowd stayed quiet as Anthony followed by reading a biblical scripture

"Conservative".

I don't think that describing Rich Men North of Richmond as a "conservative anthem" is accurate to its intentions or its lyrics. It has received a bundle of praise from notoble conservative figures,yes,but praise doesn't define a song's ideology.

As matter of fact, the original youtube video has lots of comments that show love for the song that come from people of the progressive political isle. I personally found more comments talking of unionism, Class, worker solidarity and even socialism and communism than comments of a conservative nature. Strange, for a supposedly "conservative" anthem.

I believe that anti-establishment should be the only characterization of the song in that sentence. That's what defines it. 2A02:2149:8659:A400:88DF:3E38:88D2:828B (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't base articles off of YouTube comments. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Whilst what the OP here has said is true, to an extent (though I’d take issue with the contention that some YT comments have even espoused socialism and communism), it’s also true that all the usual left wing sources have slammed either the song or Oliver Anthony himself, or both, to varying degrees. Note also the reaction in the Rich Men song article quoted from news.com.au which expresses surprise at what it calls "a working class call to arms" being criticised as an "offensive right wing anthem". Boscaswell talk 22:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I just removed the anthem bit. It didn't match the Billboard quote anyway which called the song an "everyman anthem." Nemov (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

There are cites for "conservative/blue collar/everyman anthem" over at the primary article about the song, if you want them, but if restored, it should be included with general attribution (e.g. "it has been described as") rather than in wikivoice. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware, but the reception section of the song article is a fine place to discuss opinions about the song in depth. The current paragraph does a good job of summarizing things for now. Nemov (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure you were aware. I have no strong opinion on whether it should go in this article or not (aside from the attribution point). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Some description is required if other descriptions are included, because several WP:BESTSOURCES described it that way, and per WP:DUEWEIGHT, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". I agree that attribution can be given. Llll5032 (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the song. This is a biography about a musician and opinions about politics are fine in the article about the song, but it's far from required here. Nemov (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If some descriptions of the song are included in this article, then the most common descriptions based on reliable sources need to be included. That is WP:DUEWEIGHT. Llll5032 (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You're not addressing my argument by posting links to WP:DUEWEIGHT. Your argument is logical for the song article itself, but not for a WP:BLP where these opinions about the song are complete unnecessary. If you have an issue with the Billboard description for some reason, just delete it. Jamming more opinion into this article isn't needed. Nemov (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If we want to refer to BLP policies specifically, then WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE say similar things. WP:BLPSTYLE says we avoid "both understatement and overstatement" when we "document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects". Per WP:BLPBALANCE, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". Multiple secondary RS have discussed at length the politics of the song and the artist, and the artist himself has discussed the politics, so the neutral course is to document without understatement or overstatement.[3][4][5] Llll5032 (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

His complaint about being underpaid and working too many hours might make you wonder if he was leading to a left wing talking point but that is not the direction he goes in. It's more of basic "Take this Job and Shove It" mode. The title strongly implies Washington D.C., with probable implication to the current administration. He does not says rich people in general, it would be a stretch to says this was left leaning.

Rich Men North of Richmond is a working class anti-government right leaning country-folk anthem. A lot of his views you could call blue collar Republican (as opposed to white collar Republican) although he has been an outside sales rep for the past 9 years so technically he's white collar. It was for 3 years prior to that 2010-2013 when he worked in manufacturing plants.

He talks about the government having too much control and over-taxing people and people getting food benefits who don't deserve them. He alludes to politicians seeking underage minors on Epstein Island when they should be trying to help miners. He laments about people living in the streets with no food but at the same time fat people receiving underserved food benefits and using them to buy junk food. He said he was politically in the middle. Not in this song in my opinion. He has several at high rank on itunes. Several of his song lyrics are now on lyrics websites such a azlyrics and other sites for analysis.

He has a short song Cobwebs And Cocaine, there are 3 of his versions on youtube. It's not one of the hits and he speaks no details about cocaine other than the title and chorus. That's not right wing or left wing per se but I suppose liberal.

Extended content

In "Doggonit" he sings:

Needles in the street, folks hardly surviving

On sidewalks next to highways full of cars self-driving

The poor keeping hurting, the rich keep thriving.....

Now peoples crying about burning coal, but not the poor souls whose a digging it

I reckon there's been a many good man in the grave trying to keep our houses lit

From down in the oil fields, and the pipelines, and the linemen, and the coal mines

So we can sit at home and plug in our new fangled bullshit

And Republicans and Democrats, I swear they're all just full of crap

I've never seen a good city slicking, bureaucrat

Technically he has antipathy for both "city-slicking" Republicans and Democrats but at the same time a lot of his talking points appeal to Republicans. He complains that people cry about burning coal.

In "Rich Man's Gold" he sings:

Granddaddy grew up on dirt floors

The whole county was dirt poor

Momma died when he was four

You gonna wish you won't born to just pay bills and die

You won't born to just pay bills and die

All you need is a dog, a shack with a creek in the back

And a... a good woman to hold

Don't need that rich man's gold

I would not call this left. It's apolitical to an extent. It's valuing a simple life and disdain for

a rich lifestyle (we'll see what happens when all that itunes revue comes in)

In "Virginia" he has an aside:

I've got a lighter, I've got a bowl

I know a spot where the law don't go

Now we can smoke something

My daddy never grow back in his day

Like cocaine and cobwebs, this could be filed under liberal

but I hesitate to say that alone puts him in the center politically. He does not don other aspects of drug culture. This low key implication that he smokes cannabis I have not seen in other songs. It doesn't seem to be a main focus of his. He seems otherwise conservative and reverent for a simple rural lifestyle but when those itune millions are roll in, he will probably be a rich man Central16 (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have a question or comment about an addition that involves a reliable source please feel free to add it, this wall of text regarding your thoughts on song lyrics is original research and this isn't the place for it. Nemov (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm hatting the following as WP:NOTAFORUM and especially because a Wikipedia-blacklisted source as per WP:RSP is being presented as support. I invite you to read our policies, WP:Verification, WP:NPOV. XavierItzm (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Anthony is taking some heat now from conservatives circles for a statement he made in the Fox news interview at his show, he said: "We are the melting pot of the world, and that’s what makes us strong, is our diversity, and we need to learn to harness that and appreciate it, and not use it as a political tool to keep everyone separate from each other you know"

https://knowyourmeme.com/news/rich-men-of-north-richmond-singer-oliver-anthony-says-diversity-is-good-conservative-fanbase-turns-on-him Central16 (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Should vendor-specific charts be included?

The article covers vendor-specific charts such as iTunes, Spotify, and Apple Music, but these are deprecated per WP:BADCHARTS. WP:SINGLEVENDOR says that charts which rank material from a single vendor or network are generally unsuitable for inclusion in articles. Do we need to remove these single-vendor chart mentions? ––FormalDude (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You would leave a huge hole in the article narrative. It would be like: well, here is a guy who on August 6, 2023, was a total unknown. And hey, guess what? On August 21 he was #1 in the US and #2 worldwide!. How did that happen? Who knows! We can't cite the events of August 7 to August 20 because of a misunderstood policy! On August 21 this singer just materialized out of thin air at #1, who knows how.
The policy is written to keep fans from referencing the charts directly. It is a good policy. In this case, however, it is the WP:RS that keep on citing these charts. See for example this Rolling Stone article from yesterday: "For over a week, “Rich Men North of Richmond” has topped Apple Music’s U.S. and Global Charts and has bounced around the top three on Spotify’s U.S. chart"^[1]
Think about if I say something: my opinion in mainspace is unreliable and in fact forbidden from being included in any mainspace article, as it should be. However, if the WP:RS start quoting me, an editor may (or may not) choose to include my quotes in mainspace (with attribution, of course). That's what this rule is all about. XavierItzm (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with that. The song went viral on Youtube and got to No. 1 on iTunes and that caught the attention of the media, and articles about it started appearing. I remember being puzzled by the appearance on the chart of some of Anthony's songs in the top 10 before I saw people writing about it, and I was already aware of the song quite a few days before the Oliver Anthony article was created on the 13th of August. It is possible that it was promoted by a few right-wing personalities on the social media before it went up the chart, or it went viral naturally, and that needs proper sourcing to understand which came first. What's important is that its appearance on top on the iTunes chart is a significant part of why it caught mainstream media attention, so WP:SINGLEVENDOR is irrelevant, because this is not about satisfying the charting criterion, but more about media awareness about the person and the song. Hzh (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/how-oliver-anthony-got-number-one-billboard-chart-digital-downloads-1234810757/

Related to Bascom Lamar Lunsford?

Is Oliver Anthony related to Bascom Lamar Lunsford? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Aszx5000 (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Time-Traveling Wiki-editors

Under the "Firsts" section, the second paragraph states the following:

"Industry observers noted these milestones were reached despite virtually no radio play; nonetheless, when stations such as WGH-FM in Virginia and KBAY in California started playing Anthony, he debuted at No. 45 on the Country Airplay list on September 2, 2023."

Not to sound rude or to nitpick, but...as I write this, it is currently August 27th, 2023. Why is his debut on the Country Airplay list mentioned in the article in the past tense while it is still currently a future event? This may require revision from someone who isn't just a casual observer. Thoughts? 176.10.146.192 (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Billboard charts are always dated later. For example, this week Hot 100 chart was released on Tuesday 22 August (actually Billboard articles on the charts appeared on 21 August), but is dated Saturday 26 August. Maybe better to use words like "chart date". Hzh (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Oilver Anthony Clarifies his Political Views, August 25, 2023

TMZ https://www.tmz.com/2023/08/25/oliver-anthony-response-conservative-political-pawn-rich-men/ "It's a pleasure to meet you - part 2" (youtube: Oliver Anthony Music) = [https://www.youtube.com/@oliveranthonymusic Oliver Anthony Music

excerpt:

Extended content

"..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

Central16 (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

This article should only include content that's been covered by WP:RS and not this self-published stuff. Also, you don't have to keep posting these long wall of text posts over and over. It's not really helpful. Nemov (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
There is no better source for a person's political views than their own words, self published or not. Please quote by WP:RS that contradicts this. Now that he has clarified his political views the media is simply going to quote him and probably with much less than I have quoted. And in fact what I have quoted is pure Oliver Anthony. They are likely to chop up sentences within their own commentary. Nevertheless I have added a media source, TMZ https://www.tmz.com/2023/08/25/oliver-anthony-response-conservative-political-pawn-rich-men/ FOX https://www.foxnews.com/media/oliver-anthony-laughs-songs-debate-moment-hits-conservatives-saying-aggravating Central16 (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Third-party reliable sources are generally needed for any interpretation (per WP:PSTS) and to confirm proportion (per WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:INDY). So citing independent reliable sources is also more useful on the talk page if you want edits made in the article. Common reliable sources are listed at WP:RSP, and discussions about RS are searchable at WP:RSN. Llll5032 (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible Net Worth Edit

‹ The template below (Edit extended-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Oliver Anthony has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In 2023, the independent release of the song 'Rich Men North of Richmond' by artist Anthony Oliver gained noteworthy attention. Priced at $0.99 per copy, with a 30% commission taken by distribution platforms like Apple Music, the song quickly gained traction, becoming a chart-topper and capturing the number one spot in the United States. While specific sales figures have not been officially confirmed, the song's popularity suggests substantial sales, potentially reaching millions of copies sold in the United States alone, along with additional sales in other regions. This impressive achievement is believed to have significantly contributed to Anthony Oliver's estimated net worth of approximately $200,000,000.

An important aspect of Anthony Oliver's success story is his deliberate choice to remain independent from record companies. This strategic decision allowed him to retain a larger portion of his earnings, further enhancing his financial accomplishments. Despite the commission taken by distribution platforms, Anthony Oliver's earnings from the song's impressive sales figures are expected to be substantial. WillPayne23 (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any independent quality sources that discuss what you have said above - without that, we cannot add our own speculation? Aszx5000 (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Are there *any* BLP articles about musicians, even the mega-famous and incredibly wealthy ones, which mention their net worth? I think not. So why are we considering this for Oliver Anthony? Boscaswell talk 04:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

So what else is in that Free Press interview?

They interviewed Anthony straight after his Farmville Press Club gig, but most of the interview is paywalled. It’s linked from the Personal life section and US$8 gets you the whole thing. Before reaching the paywall it reveals that he lives with his wife and two children in the camper, as XavierItzm has edited in. I’d seen reports of rumours around that from the music industry in the NY Post but that source is not seen as being an RS and in any case it was rumours only. Boscaswell talk 21:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

There’s a FoxNews article [6] which appears to be based on that interview, but it doesn’t tell us anything more at all. So I don’t think that there’s anything more in that Free Press article than we can already see. Boscaswell talk 04:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Joe Rogan podcast, August 30

I’ve listened to the whole of this, which I can’t recommend, as it just meanders about various stuff without telling us anything much. But in it, he mentions his ex-wife, he doesn’t mention any children, and several times he says he’s 31. We currently have his age at 29-31. D.o.b. is still unknown, I think. Right at the end, there an implication that Jamie Johnson is giving him a lot of help. Boscaswell talk 04:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia policies regarding non-written sources. If allowed, I think the tidbit about the guy being a divorcé is relevant and encyclopædic. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

He didn’t say that he was divorced, he only used the term "ex-wife". But even if it was possible to use it, I’d have to find the time spot in it that he says it, which I didn’t note, and the podcast is over 2 hours long and frankly I don’t feel like listening to it all all over again lol. Boscaswell talk 09:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Like the indelible mark of Cain, when you divorce, you become a divorcé for life, even if later you remarry or widow. Plus, the only ways to have an ex-wife is to divorce a wife. XavierItzm (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Well yes I guess that that’s true! In over 2 hours, he didn’t mention a wife once, which would be highly exceptional for anyone who is married. Boscaswell talk 21:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Boscaswell facts regarding his previous marriage and his wife Tiffany have been creditably published in a major US newspaper,^[1] but, alas! it is publication which Wikipedia editors have blacklisted, so it cannot be used in mainspace. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those who spend their time looking for banned sources comes by and even deletes this comment, though I don't think policy allows deletion of the proscribed sources on TPs. In any event, I think the article can be improved if the exact same information is found on a non-banned newspaper —and so, you see, this edit is all about improving the article, and cannot fairly be deleted under WP:NOTAFORUM. XavierItzm (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Note the banned newspaper also includes important biographical information regarding the article subject's previous non-musical career. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure trivial details about his personal life are necessarily important to mention in a musician's biography unless it's received a lot of coverage. Nemov (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Not only are artist spouse names typically included on Wikipedia articles, but also the names of the organizations in which they were previously engaged. So for instance, not only do we learn Elvis Presley was an usher at Loew's State Theater, but that "other jobs followed at Precision Tool, another stint at Loew's, and MARL Metal Products". Heck, Wikipedia gives you the exact home address of each place John Lennon lived at, together with photos! So, if this material ends up appearing in newspapers that have not been banned, I don't see why it would be improper to add.XavierItzm (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggest brushing up on WP:OTHERSTUFF. This person's life hasn't been examined like John Lennon or Elvis. Also, please stop calling the New York Post a banned newspaper. There's a process for sorting through reliable sources, if you have an issue with the community's consensus on their reporting take it there.Nemov (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I must say, it is funny that people are objecting to content that has not been added yet, and in fact, may never be, unless it shows up on WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

References

^ Michael Kaplan; Dana Kennedy (1 September 2023). "How Oliver Anthony went from aluminum sales to viral success — and is still a doting dad: family". New York Post. Retrieved 1 September 2023.

We don't need a list of Anthony's concerts here

The list of Anthony's concerts has already been removed at least twice [7] and [8], and I've just removed it again. @XavierItzm: has restored it citing the Beatles' live performances article as if Anthony and the Beatles are even remotely on the same level of importance. The Beatles are one of, if not the most written about act in the history of recorded music—Anthony is not. Also, the list of the Beatles' performances are on a separate article dedicated to that topic, not on their main one. A list of Anthony's concerts, without explaining why they're important, does not belong on his main article. Just because a news article covered the fact he played a concert does not mean we need to include it here. If he is touring and the tour has a name, then an article should be started for the tour and the dates listed there. Otherwise this falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE (even with a few dates listed) without any apparent indication as to why this article needs a list of a few concerts he's played or why they're important. They should not be restored without consensus. Ping @Boscaswell and Nemov: as two editors who've contributed to the article and this talk page (I note Nemov has stated just above opposition to trivial details and the fact that Anthony hasn't been written about on the same level as some of the most well-known acts in recorded music). Ss112 22:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTPAPER; therefore, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content". And indeed, when the list of performances gets too long for your taste, merely do a WP:SPLITOUT. Easy. XavierItzm (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not addressing how or why a list of concerts that a musician has performed, regardless of how many there are, are important enough to list on their main article in the first place. Musicians perform concerts. Big deal. Unless something notable happened at them, they're not covered, let alone listed out on the musician's main article. Why should Anthony's article be the exception to this? Ss112 03:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, just to note that I didn't express any concern about the article's size. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also not about article size. My concern is the importance of listing concert dates/venues halfway down a BLP and why the average reader would care that Anthony performed at these places. WP:NOTPAPER also says "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done", as well as "this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies". A list that simply states "Live performances: x venue on y date" lacks context. So what that he performed at these places? Ss112 04:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the list of concert doesn't belong in the article. Nemov (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I would agree that a list of concerts is unnecessary. If a concert is of significance, then it can be mentioned in the text, e.g. his first ever concert after coming to prominence. If he has his first tour, then again yes, or a major tour. Otherwise no. Hzh (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Birthday range

I've rolled back @Hameltion's addition of a birthday range from the article[9]. I don't see this as an improvement since it's a range. It could be mentioned later in the article, but until there's a reliably sourced DOB this shouldn't be added. Others may disagree of course. Nemov (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov: I think even an estimate is better for readers than nothing, and it is common practice. I was a bit confused by your reversions since the birth range already appeared in the infobox; I was just adding it to the lede and short description and adding a source that pins his age more specifically (age as of date rather than as of year). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

[1] Chris Willman (17 August 2023). "a high school dropout who has lived and worked in North Carolina and Virginia, working in industrial manufacturing for the last nine years". Variety. Retrieved 17 August 2023. his legal name is Christopher Anthony Lunsford (as previously indicated by official songwriting credits)

[2] Jessica Nicholson (22 August 2023). "Oliver Anthony Brings 'Rich Men' Hit to Weekend North Carolina Show". Billboard. Retrieved 22 August 2023. began his afternoon set in a unique fashion; not with crashing cymbals or jangly guitar rhythms, but with prayer. The crowd stayed quiet as Anthony followed by reading a biblical scripture

[3] ttps://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/how-oliver-anthony-got-number-one-billboard-chart-digital-downloads-1234810757/

[4] Michael Kaplan; Dana Kennedy (1 September 2023). "How Oliver Anthony went from aluminum sales to viral success — and is still a doting dad: family". New York Post. Retrieved 1 September 2023.

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]