Talk:The Dead South

A fact from The Dead South appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 January 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Canadian bluegrass band The Dead South often refer to themselves as "Mumford and Sons' Evil Twins"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Dead South.

Wikipedia

Source(s)[edit]

Leaderpost.com

Article imagery[edit]

So, an editor seems a tad keen on removing the image, sans discussion. I'd like to hear their argumetn, in clear terms, as to why they are edit-warring about it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am keen. You cannot use album covers on the articles of their musician, because they violate WP:NFCC in various ways (i.e. NFCC #8, as it is decoration and the album cover itself is not discussed anywhere, just the album, and even then it's irrelevant here, and NFCC #1 means that it is considered possible to get a free image of the band.) ViperSnake151 Talk 14:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Band Statement on Danny Kenyon[edit]

I think the band's statement is this one, but I'm not sure if it's the same as the initial one. Current link is just to the band's homepage.SQB (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen this after replacing the link in the article with the internet archive version. The text of the archive version (dated the day after it was added to the article) and in the link above are the same on first reading so either are suitable and I have no preference which is used. Thryduulf (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s long past time to drop this. These alleged incidents occurred over 10 and 17 years ago. No police reports were filed, they were never investigated. They were accusations made on social media and spread word of mouth by, in my option, two vindictive persons who had next-morning regrets. This was during the #metoo movement. That the band made statements is no admission of guilt, but rather to defuse the situation. 24.188.190.219 (talk) Frank — Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the original query - no, it isn't. The allegations were widely recorded by reliable sources and are part of the history of the band; your personal opinion on them has no bearing on whether they should be covered in this article. TSP (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If no agreement can be reached on this topic, it might be beneficial to initiate a discussion at either the BLP noticeboard or with an RfC. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We could, but I don't really think there are substantial policy-based grounds for disagreement. The allegations, and Kenyon's departure, were widely covered by major news publications; searching for the band name, this is almost the only news story other than standard "band plays concert" articles. I can't see any legitimate policy-based argument that we shouldn't include it. It was proposed by one IP editor with no other edits; based, as far as I can see, on their personal opinion that the allegations are false. TSP (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TSP, correct. The allegations are the reason Kenyon briefly left. Therefore it should be included. Until I seen on my watchlist that you started a discussion on a fifth member, I didn't know that section was removed. It should be restored. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. C.C.: the allegations are currently covered in the article - at one point they were covered twice, so there was an edit to remove duplication, but they are currently in the article. TSP (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering the justification for having this in the lead. I can see having it in the article, as it did break into the mainstream news (which we all know is always 100% reliable) but in the lead paragraph, as if it's a defining idea for a group of four people that has many other elements to its collective biography? Speaking as an editor, I have a difficult time with the concept of "sexual misconduct." I think there is a Wikipedia policy against weasel words. That's a pretty darned weasley expression. Were any allegations even proven? Yes this sentence is sourceable but we are right up against the spirit of BLP, if not the letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.59.0 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're just going to ignore what it says in the article? Yes? Got it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide those "reliable sources". Please provide the police reports. Instagram and social media do not constitute "reliable sources ". 24.188.190.219 (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5th member?[edit]

The current lead image depicts five people. There is no mention in the article of the band ever having played with a fifth musician. Anyone know who it is? (The mandolin player second from right seems to be the extra - Kenyon, Pringle, Hilts, [unknown], Crawford.) TSP (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TSP, it says who the mandolin player is. That is Scott Pringle. He is mentioned in lead section, the members section, and infobox. He's been with the band since they formed. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. C.C.: No, Pringle is second from left in this picture, playing guitar. The article only lists four members of the band, but this picture shows five.

The extra member can also be seen in this live video, mostly playing guitar. I'm assuming he's a touring member, but I can't find any record of who he is. Not that important, just a bit weird that we talk all the way through the article about this 4-piece band, then illustrate it with a picture of a 5-piece band. TSP (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]