This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Winston Marshall article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Country MusicTemplate:WikiProject Country MusicCountry Music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
.Music of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Music of the United KingdomMusic of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
traditional folk music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roots musicWikipedia:WikiProject Roots musicTemplate:WikiProject Roots musicRoots music articles
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change an incorrect statement under "Controversies" for this page, namely, this statement is incorrect: "describes the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol as "peaceful and celebratory""
Andy Ngo did not call the Jan 6th storming of the Capitol "celebratory and peaceful". He was referring to a mid-November rally. One of the current cites for the incorrect statement even links to a source that literally states that - https://consequenceofsound.net/2021/03/mumford-and-sons-winston-marshall-andy-ngo/. From the article: "He also refers to the Proud Boys a “pro-Trump fraternity,” and describes a mid-November “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington as “peaceful and celebratory.”"
The Billboard article that the current incorrect Wiki statement relies on was incorrectly citing a LATimes article, the latter of which states: "The same section of “Unmasked” that ends with Ngo’s paean to the United States portrays a mid-November “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington as a “peaceful and celebratory” affair, with no mention of the Proud Boys amassed there."
It was the mid-November "Stop the Steal" rally in Washington that Ngo described as "peaceful and celebratory." The current statement Wikipedia has on this, that is was the Jan 6. storming, is blatant misinformation. Candoattitude17 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section on how, in March 2021, Winston Marshall caused controversy by lauding a book by Ngo
could be re-written for greater clarity, It could clarify that this was a tweet on Twitter, and that
Marshall faced many tweets in response. Rollo August (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
August 2021
I would like to invite @Arrowe6365 and NorthBySouthBaranof: to discuss edits, leaving the article at the previous stable version until agreement can be reached. I initially reverted Arrowe's edit for not providing a source for changes in relation to the parts that have proved controversial; they amended it, made other edits that NorthBy has since reverted. Let's broker on the other edits, since Arrowe hasn't tried to reinstate the first part.
In March 2021, Marshall faced criticism → In March 2021, Marshall faced some criticism; I don't think the source quantifies criticism, and certainly other users have tried to edit this to say "overwhelming" and similar. Do you have any evidence for this claim?
Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy, a book written by conservative American journalist and social media personality Andy Ngo → Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy, by Andy Ngoandhis involvement with the controversial figure [Jordan Peterson] → his involvement with [Jordan] Peterson; this has been discussed before regarding the Peterson line. A mention of the general perception of these people is needed to contextualize why Marshall being involved with them was controversial. Although, just describing Peterson as "the controversial figure" is news-speak-y, and that sentence should probably better incorporate the description with his name.
Marshall later apologised → Marshall quickly issued an apology; the source doesn't describe how quick he was, but the dates on the tweets in the source shows that it was three days later, mid-week. This may be "quickly" if it was a written letter, but in terms of social media, three days is a whole other news cycle; "later" also doesn't imply it was late (the edit would only be productive if "later" unfairly suggested he was too late, but it doesn't).
Addition of He has since reinforced his support for the book. - sourced to a plain YouTube url; I think the main issue here is the sourcing. We can fix ref formatting, and it's a simple statement that can be sourced to a primary about-self source. It isn't a copyright violation (a YouTube channel uploading a video from somewhere else), but a quick search of what UnHerd is doesn't fill me with confidence that it is a selective enough platform that being interviewed denotes the content is notable. This is a tricky corner of sourcing; using interviews to prove notability only works if the interview platform is known to select subjects with some exclusive criteria (or else the person could have just interviewed themselves and made a video about it, you know). UnHerd doesn't appear to do that, and while I think an RfC on using it as a source is needed for Wikipedia as a whole, I would suggest it cannot be used regarding Marshall as his father owns/funds it: probably safe to assume that no matter how unremarkable what he wants to say is, Marshall will always be given a platform by UnHerd. The other question is whether this information is relevant in the first place. Kingsif (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the "quantification" issue - let "criticism" stand alone without attempting to pass judgment on how much there was or wasn't.
Providing a neutral description of Andy Ngo is relevant to the section; I agree we should find a better word than "controversial" for Jordan Peterson.
I don't understand the objection to "later" but "subsequently" would also be acceptable and may not have the perceived negative connotation which Arrowe6365 apparently attaches to it.
I think we'd need more of a source and analysis than a bare reference to an interview. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying as Jewish.
I recently modified the article by removing a piece of
WP:OR that stated that the subject did not identify as being Jewish. What the source actually said was "Are you Jewish? “Ish,” he says in a fit of laughter.)" This is not IMHO enough to conclude that he does not identify as Jewish. This may be the case but the source does not say this. I tried to discuss this on the reverter's talk page but had my edit immediately removed without discussion. I modified the phrase by removing the original research asking not to be reverted without discussion. I was reverted yet again. I would like the editor to discuss here. Dom from Paris (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
To reiterate: it doesn’t need discussion. The only kind of person who thinks it is OR is someone who does not understand OR, or someone who does not understand the difference between restatement and interpretation, or someone who is both. The article originally said that he is not Jewish, and I can guess who added that (there is one particular user obsessed with adding unsourced statements about people’s Jewishness), but it was changed to “does not identify” when Marshall spoke about his grandmother and the Holocaust. You’re a quote hound, and it’s not a slur, just an editing mindset that isn’t helpful. Restatement of facts presented in sources is not OR, get that in your head. When someone is directly asked if they are Jewish, and they do not say yes, what are they saying. Consider context if you need help: they are being asked because they did a bad comedy routine about being Jewish, so anything to make themselves seem more Jewish saves face, but the man uses a Britishism that means “no”, and laughs, to save face instead. The amount of words needed to get a quotation in would be too many and convolute the sentence. Do you need more help, consider other sources in the article: in Marshall’s own words, his grandmother was imprisoned in the Holocaust and is his best argument to not be fascist. His ex wife says that the first time he went to a synagogue was accompanying her. He met his band mate at Church. He gave an interview to a Catholic magazine about praying in a Catholic Church and bases his religion on Kanye West. Using all of those sources in the area you somehow think is contentious would be SYNTH, but the guy obviously isn’t Jewish so his “ish” isn’t open to your interpretation that maybe he doesn’t mean what the word literally (a word I only use accurately, by the way) means, which is “no, but I’m being light about it”. Now stop leaving me rambling nonsense paragraphs on my talk for every edit I make, and leave this issue alone. Kingsif (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the religion stuff in the article as it currently stands is very tenuous. The West fact seems to hang on a single quote, probably made half in jest, and the Jewish fact is essentially information about a different person. I see no reason to keep any of it - Marshall is a musician not a theologian, the personal life section does not need to be comprehensive about every aspect of the man. Presumably [1] could be used to support a broad statement about Marshall being Christian, but it seems kinda silly to use this solely to identify him as "Westian". --LukeSurltc 12:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I’m sure you’ve seen, @LukeSurl:, all the religion stuff in the article as I last read it was a result of compromises. From “isn’t Jewish” to “does not identify”, from “is Catholic” to his statement about West - that one particularly saw some edit warring from either fans or haters, you never know, with the unsourced explanation that “he doesn’t even like to be called a Christian”. If you blanket remove it all, which may be the, hmm, safest choice given the article is still flagged for contention at least on my watchlist, I fear the fights over it may start again. I’d suggest RfC for not including religion, as it doesn’t seem to be significant except for his relationship with God being what made him confident to leave the band, perhaps better in the career section, but RfCs get so long now that local consensus is often more agreeable. I do see you’ve made a big edit, presumably removals based on your statement but without discussion? Well, good luck when the religion editors descend. Some editors do believe and insist it should be covered, relevant or not, and the best option when irrelevant is compromise and keeping it contained. Kingsif (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:OR that I later discovered was added by you. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Hahahaha. As I said, I find that there is little relevance but there were compromises made, not entirely by me. Also, don’t bullshit so horribly. You’ve made two edits, contentiously, to parts either unrelated to my edits or things that I had cleaned up/rephrased for style previously. You’re not some white knight of this article, and you’ve consistently tried to what, slander me, right from our first interaction. It would be laughable if it wasn’t disruptive, so I’ll ask for an IBAN on you next time you dump bullshit on my talk page, something I asked you not to do twice before you claimed I added an RS I never did. Kingsif (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
personal attacks and try to comment on content and not contributors. I did not slander you in anyway but simply said that you seem to be misusing the word "literally" in the context of an encyclopedia. I agree that it has now become an informal synonym of "practically" or "basically" or "more or less" but it leads to confusion when discussing content especially BLP. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
1. I have not been adding these things. 2. You claiming that, and that I deliberately used non-RS and inserted OR in the process, is the slander. The fact you continue to repeat it, is more slander, and something I must continue to respond to, to defend my reputation you want to shoot, when I would rather have nothing to do with you. Kingsif (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaning up an article is not a personal attack. If you feel insulted by this then maybe you are way too invested in this article. As I said I do not know you and have never interacted with you so I don't understand your accusation of hounding. You didn't like me criticising your use of the word "literally" which I understand and if you were hurt by this I apologise. I suggest we leave it at that as there is consensus. If you want to please open a thread at the BLP noticeboard to discuss this as per
Here’s an infuriating part; are you deliberately not reading half my comments, or are you deliberately ignoring them to act all nice? Because accusing me of OR at my talk page after interaction #1, and repeating the move after each subsequent reply, isn’t simply “cleaning up an article” as you want people to believe. If you’re putting this to rest, you can be honest, not try to make yourself look half decent in it. The more you lie, the more I have to defend myself, which is exhausting. Kingsif (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring this active discussion to the talk page, as it was archived only one hour after the last comment. --LukeSurltc 09:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there is active, productive, discussion, or something still to achieve, feel welcome to proceed... The issue was settled, the discussion descending to madness, and I figured a move to the archive page (which you've now left confusingly blank, even notice-less) was less passive-aggressive than using an archive template here. Kingsif (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is too early to archive as other editors may wish to contribute on this subject. Also please for the last time try and avoid personal attacks. Accusing other editors of lying and madness is not on at all. Comment on content and not contributors. I would suggest stepping back a little as you seem way too invested in this article and are taking normal WP editing practises very personally. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Domdeparis: The thing is, I'm not taking anything personally except every time you unfoundedly insinuate that I am so invested I can't be rational. That is not true, is also "not on", and is something for which there is no evidence. Your continued insistence on it is, frankly, harassment. And hey, if you wish to only see comments on content, why do you accuse me of absolute bullshit every single time I leave a comment, huh? I haven't made any personal attacks - indeed, the last comment in the thread I said was descending to madness was my own, thank you very much - nor did I take un-archiving personally, just explained why I thought it was a sensible move. The last note here is that claiming people are too invested when they're obviously not in order to discredit their say in discussion and/or just get them to shut up is also unacceptable, and really suggests you care too much and will do anything to make your voice prevail. I was ready to put the matter to rest, but gee golly are you so happy to see it come back even though you have nothing to add besides slinging more baseless accusations at me. For the very last time, leave me alone. If I can summon the will, I will report you for an IBAN the next time you respond to or appear to hound me, because it is absolutely out of hand that you deign to add yet another "stop attacking me" every time I so much as reply to someone else. Seriously, don't even acknowledge this message, just stay out of my business forever. You are the one who made this personal, don't forget, and I only came back to defend myself. Kingsif (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Listen carefully. You are the one accusing me of lying madness hounding etc both in comments and edit summaries. You have used uncivil language and have refused to try and reach a consensus. One more unfounded comment about me and my actions and I will consider it a personal attack and disruptive editing. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again restoring this section to the main talk page from Archive 1. For better or worse, this discussion is clearly active, relates to recent edits made to the article (the "Jew-ish" joke was added to the article in the last few hours), and is also the subject of an active ANI thread. An admin, or a BOLDer regular editor than I could try closing the off-topic threads with one of those collapsable boxes, but archiving the entire section is, IMO, clearly procedurally incorrect. --LukeSurltc 08:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Kingsif needs to stopped arbitrarily archiving this thread. If they feel it's done, that's fine they can just ignore it. If there's nothing more to discuss that's also fine, no one will reply and it will be archived in a few weeks without fuss. However it seems clear others feel it's worth seeing if anyone has further views on the issue and Kingsif is clearly involved so they need to stop. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 00:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)