Talk:Matty Healy

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Healy at Lollapalooza Chile in 2017

• ... that Ian La Frenais based the Flushed Away rat Roddy St. James on Matty Healy? Source: https://uproxx.com/indie/the-1975-matty-healy-flushed-away-rat/
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: QPQ forthcoming.

Moved to mainspace by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 12:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Matty Healy; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems: - current AfD

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - see comment
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: @Launchballer: Article could be good for DYK, but needs a little work. I could do with "Roddy St. James" being enclosed in commas. Also, is there any way that you could include that this hook fact was according to Healy? Per D5, I will have to put this on hold as there is a current AfD. Concerns have been raised in the AfD about the article's neutrality: could you tell me if these concerns have been fixed? QPQ is also needed. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Most of the neutrality concerns were made by aggrieved Redditors unhappy that I've accurately reported what reliable sources have said; once you discount the WP:SPA votes, there is currently a 7-0 consensus to keep. As for the hook, I feel that attributing it to Healy neuters it somewhat, so instead I suggest the following:

ALT1: ... that Matty Healy is banned from Dubai?--Launchballer 07:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Launchballer: it's a compromise, but I'd be happy to approve that as a quirky hook once the AfD boils over. Just be sure to do the QPQ. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking at that Reddit post sure is... interesting. I'm happy that none of the articles I've written have attracted the attention of a angry mob dedicated fanbase. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Gadallah Gubara.--Launchballer 09:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Schminnte: Shall we continue?--Launchballer 16:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Launchballer: thanks for the ping. I'm satisfied now, good to go! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

contentious edits

there seems to be significant disagreement over this person's actions and motivation.

please, rather than debate by editing, discuss these changes on the talk page before reverting.

thanks again kids, Saintstephen000 (talk) Saintstephen000 (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Earliest history of the article

Hi Launchballer, thanks for the history merge requests. I'm unsure about the second one. Can you provide two permalinks, one from Matthew Healy and one from Matty Healy, which look so similar that they prove a copy-and-paste move? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't me, guv! Ask Uanfala.--Launchballer 18:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked for cut-and-paste moves. I requested a history merge because the other page had the earlier history of an article on the same topic. – Uanfala (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Launchballer and Uanfala. In this case, I think there is no need for a history merge. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, this is a standard use case for histmerges: someone creates an article at page A, then later the article gets redirected, but then afterwards someone else creates another article on the same topic on page B. We don't want the history to be fragmented between the two pages, even if there hasn't been any text copied between them. – Uanfala (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no fragmented history if there has been no copying. There are two histories of two pages then, both accurate as they are. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This is the history of the same article, regardless of whether the later versions have reused anything from the earlier ones or they've been written from scratch. See, if someone wants to recreate a formerly redirected article, we would rightly insist that they do so over the old redirect, even if their version is completely new. We don't want the history of an topic's coverage on Wikipedia to be splintered across different pages. If you patroll the histmerge queue, then you'll probably come across similar requests from time to time.

Anyway, I'm not going to insist here. I've moved that redirect (and its talk page) to Matthew Healy (singer), so that at least it remains connected to this article. I've done what I've been able to, so I'm leaving it at that. I'm taking this page off my watchlist, so please ping in case there's anything. – Uanfala (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Bias

I don’t have enough edits in order to edit a semi-protected page but this page appears to have extreme bias against this individual and appears to be written by someone with a clear agenda. I think this needs to be cleaned up. Theeadbaresleeve (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I usually don't agree with these kind of posts but Christ, I have to agree. This reads like an attack ad. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any bias here. Healy performed in ways that some consider "bad". Reliable sources reported on the performances, and the fact that a notable number of people found them "bad". Simply mentioning bad things is not an indication of bias or an agenda. It depends on the weight and context given to them. Here, it seems a prominent part of the persona Healy himself has developed, and on which others have reported in detail. These are not merely bad things that are incidental to the person, and which one might legitimately say are unnecessary and unfair inclusions. I knew nothing of Healy before coming to this article, but from reading it, I suspect that Healy would not consider this so much an attack ad as free publicity. My two cents. _signed, Willondon (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that the obvious controversies need to be covered, but the article has what feels like a disproportionate amount of focus put on the controversies - plus, imv, the laundry list of accusations levelled against him by unnamed social media users in the lede feels quite overkill. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I still see a valid distinction. Many bios have skeletons from the closet that really have nothing to do with the reason the person has a biography in Wikipedia, and it is here that judgement is required to determine if it is really an important part of the bio, or is wielding undue weight. Here, the information is intimately interwoven with the public persona Healy has developed, and is an integral complement to the reasons for the bio in the first place. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hard agree with the first two users above, it definitely needs a clear-up. 82.13.161.32 (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Whoever wrote this has an axe to grind. The total focus on controversies with sources pointing mostly to tabloid sources with zero reference to his much more well documented activism is a big indicator. Heymonicakim (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• It is difficult to respond to "this is biased". All sources have biases. If the sources in this article are not being accurately summarized, please detail the specific errors. If sources exist that are not being used, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. Heymonicakim (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Again, please detail the specific errors or issues with this article. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Confirmation bias is the issue here. The writer cherry picked sources and articles to only include controversies or half truths about controversies. Case in point - the use of a PopBuzz article (a tabloid and not a reputable source) to claim that Healy mimed the n-word when the actual video shows that that isn't the case. Heymonicakim (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's make sure this discussion goes forward with the understanding that the material at issue is sourced. The statements in the lede are not directly sourced. The support for them is in the article body and its sources. (From MOS:LEADCITE, there may be decision that needs to be made balancing redundancy against the value of direct citations in the lede.) So not unsourced, though it leaves room for discussion about the reliability of sources like PopBuzz. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find where "endangering fans' lives" is sourced in the article body. Theeadbaresleeve (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

(Responded to below, as well) It's sourced in the body, but it doesn't support inclusion in an overall view of things, such as the lede is meant to provide. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, hopefully once the article is no longer locked we can get the lede edited well. Theeadbaresleeve (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose changes to the lead here. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Heymonicakim If you want to argue that PopBuzz is not a reliable source because it makes things up out of whole cloth, please do so at WP:RSN. 331dot (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023

change: He is noted for his erratic behaviour on-stage, his social media activity, and for a number of other controversial comments, which have resulted in him being accused variously of misogyny, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, antisemitism, and endangering fans' lives.

new: He is noted as a songwriter and performer who questions seemingly normal elements of modern society - from online dating to cancel culture. He has been praised for his activism around LGBTQ+ rights, climate change, and racial inequality while also speaking out against misogyny in the music industry.

--

change: "In July 2017, he was accused of racism after the 1975's guitarist Adam Hann uploaded an Instagram Live story in which Healy mimed the n-word as part of Aminé's Caroline."

new: "In July 2017, he was accused of racism after The 1975's guitarist Adam Hann uploaded an Instagram Live in which people thought Healy had mimed the n-word while dancing to Aminé's Caroline despite Healy's mouth not being visible in the video."

--

change: "In May 2020, Healy was accused online of using the death of George Floyd to promote the 1975's album Notes on a Conditional Form,[51] after tweeting that "[i]f you truly believe that ‘ALL LIVES MATTER’ you need to stop facilitating the end of black ones", and posting a link to Love It If We Made It.[52] He responded by deleting the posts, apologising by stating 'the song is literally about this disgusting situation and speaks more eloquently than I can on Twitter', reposting them separately, and then deleting his account;[53] discussing the incident in October 2022, Healy stated that the post was motivated by four days of fans asking for his opinion, and that the money he earned for streaming made the song unworth promoting anyway."

new: In May 2020, Healy was accused online of using the death of George Floyd to promote the 1975's album A Brief Inquiry into Online Relationships, after tweeting that "[i]f you truly believe that ‘ALL LIVES MATTER’ you need to stop facilitating the end of black ones", and posting a link to Love It If We Made It, which had come out two years earlier on the album.[52] In the song's lyrics, Healy protests the violence and persecution Black people in America face writing, "Selling melanin and then suffocate the black men / Start with misdemeanors and we'll make a business out of them." Previouly, Healy had stated that he refused to do meet and greets in the US a long as gun violence continued to be an issue, citing both fears for his own life and a frustration with the gun violence perpetrated by police towards Black people in America. Heymonicakim (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

References

This would probably be better done as separate requests. My overall criticism is that there are no sources given for any of the changes. The one source, YouTube, is considered unreliable -- and rember, establishing notability is an important part of sourcing. A YouTube video may verify that he said it, but not that a reliable source thought it worth commenting on. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no source for "He is noted for his erratic behaviour on-stage, his social media activity, and for a number of other controversial comments, which have resulted in him being accused variously of misogyny, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, antisemitism, and endangering fans' lives." either. That should be removed as it shows a wild amount of bias. This reads like a tabloid hit piece not an encyclopedia article. Heymonicakim (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not sourced in lede, but in the article body, especially the sections for Stage and Activism. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Then accept my edits, which are sourced to actual reputable publications and not tabloids, and can also be used to back up this lede edit. Heymonicakim (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find where "endangering fans' lives" is sourced in the article body. Theeadbaresleeve (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed that bit from the lede. It appears in the Activism section: "and for which he was accused of endangering the fan's safety.", sourced to The Independent. It doesn't have a valid place in the lede's summary, coming from a specific occasion that doesn't reflect his overall career, and is attributed to "it was pointed out that Healy may have endangered the fan’s life". _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you not then agree that the praise he has received for his work advocating for human rights and the environment, should be included in the lede? Heymonicakim (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Oops, all locked up. So I will recommend later that that portion be taken out of the lede. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I do agree. I've suggested elsewhere here that the needed improvement could be summarizing those things in the lede, too. I don't see the article as biased and unbalanced, but the lede definitely does not summarize the totally of information on his career. And I would agree it gives an inaccurate impression as it stands. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done. The proposed wording is a whitewash, a violation of WP:Neutral point of view. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  This entire article is a violation of the Neutral point of video policy. The proposed wording is equally as backed up. There needs to be a new lede that is more balanced regardless. Heymonicakim (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

When the media print a bunch of negative articles about Healy, then his Wikipedia biography should reflect that in order to be neutral. "Neutral" on Wikipedia is not the same as "nice". We will be neutral when we accurately summarize the media about Healy, taking into consideration the good and bad, in proportion. I see a lot of controversy in the most mainstream reports about Healy, so I imagine the most neutral representation of him will have a lot about the controversy. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Based on what I have read about him, his activism is just prolific as his controversies throughout his career. I believe both can be reflected in the lede, that would be true balance in my opinion. Theeadbaresleeve (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly true. There have been a few controversies recently, so of course your Google News is going to be full of only that. However, overwhelmingly his coverage previous to 2023 has been positively highlighting his activism over the last decade. I'm not suggesting covering up his controversies, but there should be a balance. Also, how do you balance when an article cited is presenting a Twitter theory as a truth? Example: the wikipedia article claims Healy mimed saying the n-word based on a PopBuzz article that cites a Twitter user's opinion. Meanwhile, the actual video shows otherwise, and no reputable publications have reported on it. I call into question the choice of sources used throughout this article and the lack of any sort of neutrality as it currently stands. Heymonicakim (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

??

This article is so stupid, why continuously attack him and make him out to be an utter arsehole but not proceed to comment on all the good things he's done. The way this is worded is so wrong especially the health topic and needs to be edited asap Darciemae (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Real 86.14.24.28 (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023 (2)

Change: Healy's media appearances regularly cause controversy. In March 2016, he was accused of misogyny after describing the notion of dating Taylor Swift as a "de-masculinating, emasculating thing"; he was on that occasion defended by the interviewer,[22] and in November 2016, he told The Guardian such concerns were out of not wanting two allegedly giant egos clashing and him coming off second best.[7] In December 2018, Healy apologised after stating that "the reason misogyny doesn't happen in rock and roll anymore is because it's a vocabulary that existed for so long that it got weeded out".[23]

New: Healy's media appearances regularly cause both controversy and praise. In March 2016, he was accused of misogyny after describing the notion of dating Taylor Swift as a "de-masculinating, emasculating thing"; he was on that occasion defended by the interviewer,[22] and in November 2016, he told The Guardian such concerns were out of not wanting two allegedly giant egos clashing and him coming off second best.[7] In December 2018, Healy apologised after stating that "the reason misogyny doesn't happen in rock and roll anymore is because it's a vocabulary that existed for so long that it got weeded out".[23] In 2019, Healy spoke out against misogyny in the music industry during his acceptance speech at the Brit Awards. After giving thanks for the award, he quoted The Guardian‘s Laura Snapes, "She said that in music, male misogynists acts are examined for nuance and defended as traits of difficult artists. Whilst women and those that call them out are treated as hysterics who don’t understand art.” When asked about the choice, Healy said, "I think it’s important that we hear a woman’s voice over a man’s voice."

He also spoke out against anti-abortion laws in Alabama during a festival in 2019. Healy told the crowd, "The reason I’m so angry is because I don’t believe [the ban] is about the preservation of life; I believe it’s about the controlling of women." He continued the speech with, "There’s people, men in the active government, actively comparing the harrowing difficult life choices of female American citizens to the Holocaust — to the Holocaust. That is a disgrace. If you think the Holocaust is analogous to those things, people will call you a monster, but I will tell you, you are fundamentally uneducated." Heymonicakim (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done. The proposed wording is a whitewash, a violation of WP:Neutral point of view. The lead section should summarize the article, but the proposed change fails to do so.

|answered= how is the current wording not also a violation?

Protected edit request on 25 April 2023

remove: He is noted for his erratic behaviour on-stage, his social media activity, and for a number of other controversial comments, which have resulted in him being accused variously of misogyny, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, antisemitism, and endangering fans' lives.

new: He is noted as a songwriter and performer who questions seemingly normal elements of modern society - from online dating to cancel culture. He has been praised for his activism around LGBTQ+ rights, climate change, and racial inequality while also speaking out against misogyny in the music industry. Heymonicakim (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

References

I don't think those sources warrant deleting the summary of other well-sourced content; but they definitely would support an addition to the lede something like "Other commentary recognizes contriubtions in support of LGBTQ+ rights, abortion rights..." etc. Perhaps the improvement needed is that the sourced material in Activism and Social media needs to be summarized in the lede, too. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done. The proposed wording is a whitewash, a violation of WP:Neutral point of view. The lead section should summarize the article, but the proposed change fails to do so. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit request to complete AfD nomination

Matty Healy has been listed at Articles for deletion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:afdx|2nd|help=off}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. Karst (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Crafting a new lede

In the interest of moving editing forward, since there are a lot of connected parts to our quandary, I suggest we start with an agreement on recrafting the last paragraph in the lede, by drawing on other sourced content in the body that is not represented now (i.e. not new sources and content). In my view, that would be a simple but effective way of restoring some balance, and one amenable to achieving consensus. I'll start:

• the phrase "and endangering fans' lives" should be removed for reasons elsewhere in the discussion
• an additional sentence should be added to reflect the more positive interpretations of his public face

That could go a long way to resolving some issues. My two cents. _signed, Willondon (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As someone who raised these concerns above, this seems fair to me. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Binksternet, are you on board with removing "and endangering fans' lives" from the lead for now? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's the weakest part, the least supported. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't get a say, but that would seem reasonable if I'd not protected the page. Mum's the word. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That part is  Done then, as a temporary measure during full protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 April 2023 (2)

1. Please remove the sentence "In July 2017, he was accused of racism after the 1975's guitarist Adam Hann uploaded an Instagram Live story in which Healy mimed the n-word as part of Aminé's Caroline.". With the benefit of hindsight, PopBuzz is not a good enough source for that sort of claim.
2. Please also replace "which he left with only three GCSEs," with "which he left with only three GCSEs; he told a November 2016 that this was"; such a quote needs in-text attribution.
3. Please replace with .
4. Please add "When The 1975 won Best British Group at the 2019 Brit Awards in February 2019, Healy used his acceptance speech to criticise misogyny in the music industry." to the start of the second paragraph of the Activism section. Their climate change activism is the work of the band rather than Healy, and thus out of scope of this article.--Launchballer 22:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Tentatively support #1. PopBuzz is weak, and "was accused of racism" is far too loaded and ambiguous. As a BLP this needs both good sources and enough context to not be loaded. Regarding accusations of racism, his comments regarding Ice Spice seem to have significantly better support from sources. So if this was added to demonstrate a pattern, then the sources need to demonstrate this, not editors looking to add gossip.

#2 seems like an incomplete proposal, but I support rephrasing this for clear attribution

#3 is non-controversial.

I don't oppose #4 but it seems too lightweight to bother. It isn't enough to say it happened, we need to indicate why it is encyclopedically significant.

Grayfell (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, #2 should say "Please also replace "which he left with only three GCSEs," with "which he left with only three GCSEs; he told a November 2016 Guardian article that this was"." The first source after that statement is the Guardian article in question, so it should make sense.--Launchballer 01:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done all, but for #2 I have moved the inline reference to just after "guardian article" because it seemed strange not to link it there. If that is a problem I will revert — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

And just to be picky, you don't "tell an article". You could "say in an article"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm more bothered by the fact that the phrase "that this was on account of him not applying himself due to considering "school […] just a tedious imposition, getting in the way of me being a pop star". He spent three months at a music college before dropping out, after which he worked at a Chinese restaurant" is now technically unsourced, as I did not get it from the Digital Spy reference.--Launchballer 14:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll mark this as answered as the page is not longer fully protected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

References

I think this article qualifies as a "<<db-g10>>" so I'm requesting the deletion of this page due to clear bias

After reading this, I can't help but feel that it does have a negative bias towards Matty Healy. While the information provided may be (in certain parts) factual, this page seems to focus primarily on Healy's controversies, even attributing him labels like misogyny, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, antisemitism, and even of "fan endangerment" (lol????). However, many of these accusations have been sensationalized and exaggerated in the media, and it's not clear whether they're entirely accurate. In fact, some of the sources used on this page seem to be tabloids (low-quality and unreliable sources) that are known for their sensationalized reporting and their tendency to exaggerate or twist the truth to sell a story. It's not fair to paint someone as a hateful or bigoted person based on these kinds of polarizing views. Moreover, I consider that it's important to approach any information or claims made on social media platforms like Twitter or TikTok with a critical eye and to verify the accuracy of the information before accepting it as true (which is clearly not done here). On the other hand, it is abundantly clear that this page HAS selectively cut, edited, and/or modified quotes and content from various sources to fit the narrative that it is, for some reason, trying to push. Which is both a highly unprofessional and ridiculous approach that is not only misleading, but also calls into question the credibility of the entire page.

I also think it is necessary to differentiate between actual problematic behavior and harmless interactions. For example, banter with fans, peers, and friends should obviously NOT be presented as problematic or controversial.

Furthermore, this page almost completely disregards The 1975's significant achievements as a musicians and artists, which are essential components in understanding and appreciating their journey. Instead, this page seems to selectively choose small things that are blown out of proportion or made up, potentially to cater to cancel culture, which is both disappointing and misleading. (Someone please explain to me how it makes sense that there are only TWO paragraphs dedicated to their career while the rest is all about their supposed "controversies") While it is important to mention controversies, it is also necessary to provide context and present the information accurately, without exaggeration or sensationalism. I think it's worth noting that if we are going to talk about his controversies, we should also mention what resulted from them, such as his apologies and efforts towards learning and growth. As a matter of fact, I find it quite interesting that every single one of his controversies, even the smallest/dumbest ones, are fully explored on this page, while barely any of his activism is given the same attention, and the few positive aspects that are mentioned are simply glossed over. (Even Donald Trump's Wikipedia page is more positive like... make it make sense!)

Lastly, I'll like to add that this article's focus on negative criticisms violates many of Wikipedia's policies. (You don't see any other artists' Wikipedia pages being like "this person did this AND this is what their haters thought about it!" about every single thing.) Therefore, I suggest that either the whole article is edited, or the page is removed altogether. This article should not be made public for consumption due to its potential to mislead the reader, as it does not serve its purpose of presenting accurate and objective information.

(tl;dr: This article is completely ridiculous, awful, and incredibly biased. The writing is atrocious and all over the place. Most information is edited/cut/modified to fit an agenda. Many sources are not credible and/or were deliberately chosen to support the author's opinion.)

Violated core content policies that can be found in this article:

- Neutral point of view (NPOV)

- Verifiablity (V)

Due to the following violated content policies that according to Wikipedia a biography of a living person should have, this article can be considered an "attack page" which is why I think it should be deleted immediately:

- Writing style: tone (WP:BLPSTYLE)

- Writing style: balance (WP: BLPBALANCE)

- Gossip and feedback loops (WP: BLPGOSSIP)

- Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced

- Etc. Ilovesadgirlmusic (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is reserved for uncontroversial cases; this isn't one. A regular deletion discussion is currently being held. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The one being held is about notability, though. Should I still just add this comment on there? Ilovesadgirlmusic (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

If someone is only known for negative things, their article is going to have a negative tone. If the sources provided are not being summarized accurately, please detail the specific errors. If there are sources missing that provide more positive coverage, please offer them. ICC arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova is pretty negative, but no one proposes deleting it. 331dot (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Matty Healy isn't only known for negative things. He has been the frontman of a very successful band that has been huge for 10 years, and his actual controversies only started a couple of months ago. I find it ridiculous that the author has barely even mentioned their achievements but even included non-controversies as "controversies" and painted everything in a bad light. For example, the thing about the fan named Dervla. Also, there ARE positive sources in there, but the author has changed the tone of them and turned this article into an attack page.

Additionally, this a BLP! There are different guidelines when it comes to BLPs, which means that article being negative has nothing to do with this page being quite literally an attack page. Ilovesadgirlmusic (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say no. There is a specific note on the discussion page: "comments that lack any indication of understanding Wikipedia's concept of notability may be removed". From that I take it that the discussion should be based only on issues of notability, and that other issues don't belong in that discussion. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Two people mentioned this article being biased on there already, so I think I will. Thank you though. Ilovesadgirlmusic (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Personal life

This section gives undue weight to some events in the subject's life. It would be better to summarize more. We need not go into such lurid, tabloidesque detail. Yes, we must follow the coverage, but we can adjust the depth we go to on Wikipedia. I leave to others how best to do this. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like MSGJ removed one of the most problematic sections, for which I thanked him. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 April 2023

Please change to , and to . I was not aware at the time of writing this article that WP:ALLMUSIC was listed as yellow on WP:RSP; while neither are controversial statements in themselves, given how controversial this article has become, I would like to see this article be watertight.--Launchballer 17:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Launchballer, you can now edit the page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Apologies

@Launchballer: You quoted the article saying he refused to apologize, with an edit summary saying we don't need the apologies. We cannot say he refused to apologize, even if we are quoting someone else, if he did in fact apologize. We should leave pout the part about the refusal or source the apology. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That part of the edit summary was about a different part of the edit. I am unable to find a source to say he apologised, but I did find one that quoted a refusal to apologise, which I have added.--Launchballer 10:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2023

This page is so biased and an attempt at defamation of character. Seems to overlook his musical talent as well as performance and instead focuses on his social media usage. Andrheabar (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Hello Andrheabar, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you could point out the issues you observe with the article exactly, and then provide alternatives with specificity and reliable sources, you will have a superior chance of getting volunteer editors to resolve them than by simply declaring an issue is present. Feel free to re-open this request, or make a new one, should you decide to do so. Alternatively, you can (responsibly) work towards meeting the extended confirmed criteria, which will allow you to edit this page directly. —Sirdog (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

(ec) The edit request process is only for proposing specific edits, in a "change X to Y" format. If you just want to discuss the article, it need not be an edit request. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources state about the topic. If you have such sources with additional information, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

From the suggestion earlier at Crafting a new lede there is still the option available to summarize the existing sourced elements in the body into a positive counter-balance to any negative bias perceived. _signed, Willondon (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

By itself, this suggestions seems like WP:GEVAL, and isn't really actionable yet. We're not looking for balance according to editors, we're looking for balance according to reliable, independent sources. So with that in mind, what content from the body, precisely, should be added? Do sources present this as balance, or do they simply mention it in some other context? Grayfell (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I've edited the article since I posted that. I was hoping "we" as in "somebody else" would take that on; and I explictly advised summary based only on the sources present at the time the debate started. I'm fully on board with the principle at WP:GEVAL. It was my impression that the good and the bad were already represented in the body, and that in fact, the cheerleaders and haters among the sources were, with considerable overlap, relying on the same events and reports, and interpreting them differently.

So it seemed like a quick, consensus-amenable way to restore some balance to the lede. It could be tricky to determine what sources were already in the article at the time. Perhaps if "we" have time tomorrow, "we" could have another look at that. I still think lede seems unbalanced, and could be remedied by drawing only from the body and not additional outside sources. My original intent was to move the editing forward, which indeed it has. We can do this thing. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem I have is that most of his activism comes under social media or stage (certainly all of what's in the article now), and so I would argue it is adequately covered by the phrase "his erratic behaviour on-stage, his social media activity" (which used to be far longer anyway!).--Launchballer 10:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

(2) Bias

This page seems to be pointing out all the negatives within his career which fair enough okay? But theres no positives such as how far he has came along, awards, albums, safe space. Ect. It just feels attacky and painting an all and all bad image i feel there needs to be a positive aspect too. I love miles kane (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I love miles kane If coverage in independent reliable sources about a person is negative, any Wikipedia article about them will be negative, too. If there are independent reliable sources with more positive coverage of Mr. Healy, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I am 100% sure that this article in the Evening Standard has copied from this article. Launchballer 22:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, let's stay away from that article and not cite it. See Circular_reporting#Circular_reporting_on_Wikipedia which is an ongoing problem. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Not even close paraphrasing, but copying and pasting wholesale. Absolutely outrageous behaviour from a newspaper that I considered generally reliable, although I note RSP is a little more critical and perhaps I need to adjust my use of the source accordingly. Take it as a compliment on your writing, Launchballer. I wonder whether we should let the publication know that Emma Loffhagen is committing plagiarism and the editors involved in publishing the piece did not pick this up. — Bilorv (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

She even admits to having read the article! I'll send them an email tomorrow. I've written it now (having partially based it on Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter#If you are a significant contributor to the text), but I want to reread it with fresh eyes in the morning. It's commented out below, any chance you could double check it before I send it?--Launchballer 21:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect link

There may be an incorrect link in the article. Under the section 'Personal life' and subsection 'Social media' there is a link to Isis (the Egyptian goddess), but I think it is meant to be ISIS (the terrorist organization). If other editors confirm this is the case, then it should be changed. 213.175.126.121 (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

213.175.126.121 (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

References