Talk:Morgan Wallen

Single vs Promotional Single

7 Summers has yet to be released to any radio format so surely it must be listed as a promotional single for now then? Yeehaw45 (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• And this can be ignored as the song has now been sent to radio. Yeehaw45 (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Information about activities during COVID

I recently reverted an edit removing the paragraph on Wallen's Tuscaloosa partying during COVID. The justification for removal was "That information is irrelevant". As far as I can tell, this paragraph was reliably sourced, and considering that the events were covered prominently in reliable sources (enough that Googling his name brings up several articles related to the incident on the first page) I believe that this paragraph is WP:DUE and satisfies WP:V. SreySros (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Intoxicated in lead

@Acousmana, Yeehaw45, and VersaceSpace:, please discuss the dispute over the lead here rather than in edit summaries.

The dispute seems to hinge on whether to include while intoxicated. Looking at the refs in the body for the incident:

• TMZ does not say he was intoxicated.
• ET does not say he was intoxicated.
• Billboard does not say he was intoxicated.
• Variety does not say he was intoxicated.
• RollingStone does not say he was intoxicated.
• NPR does not say he was intoxicated.
  Based on RSs, it should not be in the lead. Schazjmd (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It appears that I am at fault here. While I have seen indication (perhaps assumption) from other sources that he was out drinking - TMZ notes he “ appears to stumble toward his house” - I won’t argue for it to be in the lead unless/until I find a source stating otherwise. Yeehaw45 (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Although I would like to add that should anyone find a source specifically stating he was intoxicated then it should be listed. Removing that fact (if proven) would make no sense. Yeehaw45 (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. When we have six reputable sources describing the incident without stating he was intoxicated, a single ref (should it be found) that does say he was intoxicated could be appropriately mentioned in the body but it still wouldn't belong in the lead per WP:WEIGHT. Schazjmd (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm in the same place as Yeehaw45 with this. I assumed that the claim was sourced when, in fact, it wasn't at all. It should be removed in all places in this article. versacespace (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, VersaceSpace, I've reverted the edit. Schazjmd (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

no place for the statement "while drunk," or anything similar, in the lead. Would appear to be a result of fan or PR editing, it's WP:WEASEL. Acousmana (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Alleged intoxication

For the second time I have removed a reference to the subject of this article being "inebriated" or "intoxicated" at the time he was videoed saying a racial slur. Let there be no mistake; Wikipedia is clear on this subject. Unless there is a statement of fact of intoxication published by a reputable source, it cannot be included in this article. People making assumptions does not meet Wikipedia policy. It clearly has the potential for a libel suit. This subject, like every other person, has rights that cannot be violated. Do not return that reference to this article unless it meets the standard I have stated above which is a direct reflection of Wikipedia policy. Please see WP:WHYCITE which clearly states "In particular, sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged – if reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article." God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to say this is now a moot point, since the subject posted an apology indicating he was intoxicated at the time! If only all subjects of articles would make our jobs so easy! God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

Wallen did not say "nigger" he said "nigga" 170.253.193.22 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources specifically say this was a hard "er". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

What sources? To defend your position you must be specific. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this will do. I've gone ahead and added it, as the TMZ source wasn't actually clear which "n word" was used. Volteer1 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Well done! I knew you were right, but at Wikipedia it is not enough for us to think something is accurate. We must defend our statements with sources. Great job. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't me who you were initially replying to, but thanks for the congratulations anyway :) Volteer1 (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add my concern regarding the post above from User 170.253.193.22, who made a statement of fact that is not true and provided no source for the statement. I certainly don’t want to beat up on that editor, but would like to use the situation as an opportunity to encourage all editors to keep their statements of fact to only what they know for certain, and that is best achieved by providing a proper source. In this situation, User 170.253.193.22 could not have known for certain that what he or she stated as fact was true because the statement was inaccurate. Of course, statements of fact are different from opinions, and opinions are encouraged on Talk pages. However, if we are going to make statements of fact, we should be absolutely certain those statements are accurate. I think it helps as we debate issues in good faith. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing article

As is typical for me, I cannot pop over to an article and make a couple of edits without getting frustrated with the state of the entire article and deciding to edit the whole thing. This article is no different. The amount of media online about this subject is staggering. However, the article has the kind of problems that come from well-meaning editors who are hobbyists. I thank the Lord for them since they make up the majority of people who give us Wikipedia articles, but they usually leave a trail of errors that must be corrected. I am working on this article and have gotten down to "2020-present: Dangerous" but am exhausted and must complete my work here when time permits. I have made many changes that might frustrate fans of this person, but I want to assure them that my interest in this subject, whom I'd never heard of until his SNL faux pas, is only as a professional editor with more than 35 years experience. My sole goal is to bring this article into proper Wikipedia standard. I look forward to completing the project soon. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@MarydaleEd: - This is very much appreciated. Yeehaw45 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

To specify or not to specify

Regarding changing the offensive word Wallen said to instead referencing a “racial slur," the edit history of this article will show there has been a lot of back-and-forth with that word. One very kind editor came to my Talk page and questioned my edit in returning it to “racial slur.“ To save editors the trouble of going over to my Talk page, I have pasted herein the contents of that conversation that will explain Wikipedia policy on the matter:

== which policy? ==

Hi, I was curious about your edit to Morgan Wallen. I don't object to your rewrite, but in your edit summary, you stated "removed offensive language. It is against Wikipedia policy to use racially offensive language, even if it was used by a subject in an article." What policy are you referring to? The only one that I'm aware of that seems related is WP:NOTCENSORED. Schazjmd (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I was just reading it and lost it. Let me get back to you...! God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't find it and I have been editing Big Loud for hours, and am exhausted and don't care enough at this point to argue, so change it if you want. I will not revert! If I run across the guideline I was reading, I will add it here. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd, I finally stumbled upon the Wikipedia guideline I referenced above, the policy I knew existed but could not find when you correctly asked me to support my position with documentation. While it is true (and gratefully so) that "Wikipedia is not censored," almost every time that phrase is mentioned in regard to potentially offensive material, there is also included additional language that must also be considered. In WP:OM, the language is

"Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is not censored. However, offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[nb 1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available."

I believe the pertinent phrase here is "…and no equally suitable alternative is available." Also, in MOS:VULGAR, we find

"However, language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative."

Replacing the word Wallen said with language that specifies he used a racial slur does not diminish the article's meaning or make the article less accurate or relevant. Given the entirety of valuable things that Wallen lost in response to his racial slur, including the organizations that closed their doors to him, the reader can easily infer what word was used, and if the reader is still somehow in doubt, the reader can find the specific word anywhere on the Internet, especially in the video itself, which is available on the Internet ad nauseam. Perhaps it is important to mention now that Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive exegesis of its articles' subjects. Wikipedia exists to provide a summary of its subjects using encyclopedia style. I’m glad I had the opportunity to clear this up. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for getting back to me, MarydaleEd, I appreciate you taking the time to look into this. Cheers! Schazjmd (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome. Actually, I thank you for your patience, and for being an excellent editor. You approached your questioning of me in a very professional and respectful manner, and our ability to debate this in kindness and respect has a lot to do with the way you handled yourself. Well done! God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I hope this provides some clarity. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I came to this page because I just read today's New York Times article about Morgan Wallen, and I wanted to find out exactly what the word was. The NYT often uses cutsey euphemisms, and it often makes it difficult to figure out what the facts are, even about important issues. People have been fired for using the word "nigger," often in absurd examples of censorship, for example, a professor quoting James Baldwin.

Deleting the word "nigger", even in the summary, is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. I've been through this debate many times, and the standard justification is, "you can say the same thing without the offensive word." I asked a lawyer, "Suppose a cop said to your client, 'Get the fuck out of the car, nigger.' That sentence would have a strong effect on the jury. Are you saying that it would have the same effect on the jury if you asked the cop on the witness stand, 'Did you say, "Get the f-word out of the car, n-word"'?" He said it would. I disagree. I wouldn't want him defending me.

James Baldwin said, "I am not your nigger." Do you think that you have a better command of the English language than Baldwin, and you can help Baldwin express what he really wanted to say, or should have said, or would have said today, by changing it to, "I am not your negro?"

I often hear the standard argument, here quoted as "However, language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative." Now you're saying, "I think it keeps the article just as accurate or relevant."

Well, no. The point is that it is offensive and will shock the jury. Baldwin is rejecting the role of a "nigger". He's not rejecting the role of a "negro".

And no, the reader can't "easily infer" the specific word. I'm pretty sure what the word is, but that's not good enough for adult discussion about important issues. (Court decisions use unexpurgated words https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/438/726/) In general, there are many times when it's important to have an accurate record of the exact words, and you can't play guessing games. ("What does 'c-word' mean?")

And no, we can't easily find the accurate facts on line. I just did a Google search and couldn't find it. That's why I came to WP. (In the sciences anyway, the rule is, WP:NOTJOURNAL "While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.")

Finally you say, "Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive exegesis of its articles' subjects. Wikipedia exists to provide a summary of its subjects using encyclopedia style." Yes, but Morgan Wallen's use of the word "nigger" significantly affected the discussion about him in WP:RSs. It's the elephant in the room.

The reason this is so important to me is that it's part of the debate over wokeness. Professors are being fired for quoting James Baldwin. And -- here's a Google search that works: "teacher fired black studies" (without the quotes). When you weaken freedom of speech, you're handing your enemies (and mine) a weapon which they are now enthusiastically using against us, at school boards around the country.

And no, I don't think I could have expressed my idea as clearly and effectively here if I didn't use the word "nigger." --Nbauman (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I opened a later discussion (below) at Which variation of the N-**** to use. I sought input as to which of "nigga" and "nigger" should be used, and not necessarily whether "a racial slur" would suffice. One edit commented in this thread that for those who wish to know, there's video available all over the Internet. All video I found had *bleeped* out the word, so only the written Vulture account was of any help there, which refers to "N-word (hard -er)". Some editors have changed it to "nigga", but the few sources I see point to "nigger" if we're to include the word at all.

Should it be euphemized? I don't think so. The term "racial slur" isn't nearly specific enough. I don't publically presume to know other editors' motives, but privately, I suspect the editors wanting "nigga" want to blunt the impact of the word and suggest that he used a chummy form of the word with his chums. I can see a slight argument for replacing it with euphemism, but if we're to report explicitly, I think it should be as close to the actual utterance as possible, and I think the Vulture write-up describing "hard -er" is so far the only clue I've seen on that count. My two cents. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

References

"Stand Alone(EP Mogan Wallen)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Stand Alone(EP Mogan Wallen). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 2#Stand Alone(EP Mogan Wallen) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 06:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Political Qualification

Qualifying Morgan Wallen as a far-right white supremacist with just the argument that once in his life he pronounced a racial slur while drunk with his friends seems a little rushed to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:89D:8320:803A:AF4B:8F0:3DEC (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Nadia, no one cares what you think, especially after you blocked a based Keemstar-pilled dude named Jason on TikTok. Please lay off the weed and Nazi Porsche 911 71.94.157.155 (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

He is the Nick Fuentes of country singers and people will be chanting, "GAS MY SHOES!" at his concert while Kyle Rittenhouse and Greta Thunberg both are invited 71.94.157.155 (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Which variation of the N-**** to use

Oops, already discussed at Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

Some edits in the page history have changed the word "nigger" to "nigga", which according to the respective Wikipedia articles have slightly different nuances. Presumably the intent is to portray a less offensive variant of the word, in that it is often co-opted by some black communities for use among themselves (not that Wallen is a member of any of them). Two of the sources I've looked at are a YouTube video, which unfortunately bleeps out the word, and the Vulture account, which refers to "N-word (hard -er)". So can the Wikipedia community agree which rendition of the word should be used in this section of the article? _signed, Willondon 21:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed previously (see above, February). Hard -er has the reliable sourcing.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Oops, so it has. _signed, Willondon 22:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

References

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

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 6 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Colin Denny (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Colin Denny (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Controversy Tab

I'm not understanding why it's mentioning that he wasn't adhering to Covid protocol? Just because he wasn't wearing a mask? At last year's Superbowl between the Rams and Bengals, several celebrities and fans also were maskless. On each one of those pages, it mentions nothing about Covid protocol. LeBron James, Chris Tucker, Jennifer Lopez, Ben Affleck, Charlize Theron, Matt Damon and more were caught on camera without face coverings. Search any of their pages. They went maskless to the Superbowl in California, when it was required to wear a mask. So I don't get why nothing on their Wikipedia pages mentions this "controversy" yet Morgan Wallen's page mentions this. Seems pretty hypocritical to me. 2600:6C40:7F3F:B400:E4BB:18FA:2584:4F1F (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The Group

It’s A Group Of Morgan Wallen, Bailey Zimmerman, HARDY, And ERNEST JimmyChill123 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Racial slur

In my slight involvement with Morgan's article, I've always been someone who defended sticking to the source provided that Vulture claimed he used a "hard -er", rather than an "-a" ("nigga", solely for purposes of clarity). I saw a recent reversion of this material in my watchlist and believed it to be nothing new, but I did notice that an IP did try to provide evidence, though improperly in their edit summary. Is it possible we could represent both sides in the article, saying one publication/person claimed something different? The source in question: [1] dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I reverted myself on that one. After "capitalization", I didn't notice the source given in the rest of the edit summary. As I posted on the editor's talk:

"In the Morgan Wallen article, the topic of "hard -er" comes up often. The current consensus is that it is hard "-er", based on the source used, an article from Vulture magazine. The other sources given are text, too, but don't specifically mention anything about -er or -a. The Vulture source does specifically say "hard -er". When I came across this question, I looked around for copies of the video, but unfortunately, they all *bleeped* out the actual word, so I couldn't use it as a reference. If you can provide a link to some audio or video that doesn't censor the word, it would be useful to the debate. So far, the text report of "hard -er" is what we're going by."

This is the problem with censoring words. The prevalent audio has it bleeped out, making it hard to trace back to what happened. I'm satisfied that the Saving Country Music source has treated the question in more depth. Still would be nice to find an uncensored copy of the audio. Cheers. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2023

Change the "er" on the N word to "a". Morgan actually used the N word in its trendy form that society currently accepts to be ok. Srdavid75 (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The current source quotes him as saying "take care of this p*ssy-a** n***er [sic]", so that is the spelling used in the article. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2023

if you want to keep the racial epitaph part of the biography that's fine but if the page is going to quote the word he said please quote the correct word and phrase he was saying. please review the TMZ Video for reference. 156.98.237.125 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 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) 16:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Jason Isbell

Jason Isbell wrote the song Cover Me Up, he was not just "The Original Singer." 75.117.203.225 (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

Is this able to be changed? The photo quality has noticeably been placed through some sort of AI upscaling program (considering the quality of the face vs. the rest of the image). Jd4survivor (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hard -er

Probably needs an additional source that confirms the use of "nigger", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources "There is consensus that New York magazine, including its subsidiary website Vulture, is generally reliable. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements." --FMSky (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be commonly used in WP:RS in a semi-censored fashion: CNN, GQ, and explicitly: The Root. As some of the prior conversations note, I was not able to find an uncensored version of the actual video, and our personal read on it would be WP:OR. There are some blogs that state the opposite: SavingCountry, but it's a blog, and there's The Sun, but that's about as depreciated a tabloid as they come. That blog notes a podcast with Jimmie Allen that supports the less offensive version, but not sure how reliable that is.Sam Kuru (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the CNN and GQ one should be fine, i've put it in --FMSky (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)