While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
I tagged this with NPOV because some of this article feels like it is taking the side of people who either criticize the term or agree with the allegations of people being plants. The main example I noticed is the line "[The term has been] criticized in the media and by artists for being disproportionately used against female artists and a form of misogyny, for placing scrutiny on individual musicians rather than the music industry as a whole, and for its vagueness." This is blatantly taking the side of those people. Another one I noticed is the line "regardless of skill or merit". People are bound to argue about "skill", unless that's to be re-explained. LoTrWiki (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia editing. I did notice that the article is full of quotes and responses from the artists, which make it look very biased. I believe major changes should be made, as this is a real phenomenon and symptom of a capitalistic society and should be described a bit better.
It must be kept in mind that, like most things on the TikTok platform, this term fell victim to concept creep. I think it is therefore up to Wikipedia editors to retain factual information on it and not fall for the bias in articles sourced. I'd like to suggest a few changes, but would love some feedback on whether they would be appropriate, as I am new.
As for the main section:
"It has been called a conspiracy theory by critics and criticized in the media and by artists for being disproportionately used against female artists and a form of misogyny, for placing scrutiny on individual musicians rather than the music industry as a whole, and for its vagueness"
This section is proof that sourcing your opinions on celebrity gossip magazines affects the bias in your output. I think it is worth rewriting and including a criticism summary like this in the main section of the article, but not in this form.
As for the Usage section:
"For Gigwise, Adam England wrote, "If you're young, talented and — all too often — female, you'll probably have the usual 'industry plant' allegations levelled at you."[9]"
The potential misogyny of this term is disputable, as there is no data for how often this term is used towards female or male artists, but there seem to be an equal amount of male and female examples of "industry plants". An opinion being stated multiple times doesn't turn into a fact. Doesn't belong in the Usage section.
"Josh Terry of Vice wrote that the term had "no adequate definition" and that there was "no consensus at all on what an 'industry plant' actually is".[12]"
Josh Terry of Vice cannot distinguish teenagers on social media platforms using a term incorrectly (see: concept creep) from actual criticism of nepotism in the music industry. Again, shouldn't be in the Usage section, to me it reads like an attempt at blending "Usage" and "Criticism".
As for the History section:
"He appeared on the cover of XXL for their annual Freshman Class list of up-and-coming artists in 2015, where he wore a shirt reading "industry plant" in response to the accusations."
This should be in a personal page.
As for the Criticism section:
"Pitchfork writer Alphonse Pierre stated that the term was "a pretty good and lasting way to shit on an artist you don’t like without having to actually explain anything".[51]"
This isn't necessary at all, it's immature and vague. Quotes from opinionated articles such as the one cited should be much more precise and definitely not be implemented here in such volume. There are far too many repetitions of the same point, and too many quotations that do not end up scaling into one argument. Deironizacja (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
