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 Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
There seems to be an edit dispute, and I want to sort it out. Some guy who is not a user seems to not be crazy about the fact that this article is under the category "Propaganda songs", and would rather it be placed under the category "Political party songs". I'm personally indifferent, but I want to hear your opinions. Unknown0124 (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is regarding potential categories for this article. So as to prevent a revert war, it would be best to establish to which category or categories this belongs. "Political party" implies that this song belongs to, was made by, for, or has been adopted by a political party. This does not appear to be the case. "Propaganda," however, indicates that this song intends to deliver an idea or message of a deceptive and biased nature, which does appear to be the case as per the article and the source Forbes "At the end of the song, the words "Supporting certain prisoners denied their constitutional rights," appear on-screen," a statement which appears to not be accurate per reliable sources from the January 6 United States Capitol attack article. Maxx-♥talk and coffee ☕18:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. Propaganda is intended to promote a narrative, intended to be biased and intended to be deceptive. Regarding the quote you mentioned “At the end of the song, the words “Supporting certain prisoners denied their constitutional rights,” appear on-screen,” I looked through the Forbes source on this article, not the January 6 United States Capitol attack article (I looked there too), and found nothing regarding that. To me it’s neither a confirmation nor a denial of what you said, though the intention with this song is to raise money for people incarcerated in relation to J6, so it wouldn’t surprise me if that were in the video. Unknown0124 (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself does not mention it. That is problematic. My implication was not that the January 6 article mentioned it but rather that if the preceding statement were accurate, then the message on-screen would not be accurate. In any case, other articles mention the message, so we should change it. Maxx-♥talk and coffee ☕12:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely not a political party song, as it was not created by or in relation to the GOP in any official capacity. It absolutely fits the definition of a propaganda song, as it is pushing a political message. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An IP editor reverted the propaganda category to "political party songs", but when that was removed as ill-fitting, the previous category was not reinstated. Fixed now. ValarianB (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The song was produced by an unidentified recording artist.
For me, this is the most interesting part of the article. Surely, someone must have some guesses as to who helped produce the song? Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not there are guesses, we can't really put those in the article. We need a reliable source, and all the source says is that it was "produced by a major recording artist who was not identified". Di (they-them) (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said or implied that we would put unknown information that is unsourced in the article. In fact, my comment implies the opposite. It is a request for content and sources to support it, which is the house style. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this point of view. Unfortunately, this seems to have been the topic-of-the-week for many media outlets. I found some material by the Washington Times, but I do not want to cite it unless I have to. This, however, is for the message that appears on-screen. Maxx-♥talk and coffee ☕14:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
