Loading

  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

Talk:Taylor Swift
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

I think intro is promo/written from fan point of view

A subject of widespread public interest with a vast fanbase, she has influenced the music industry, popular culture, and politics through her songwriting, artistry, entrepreneurship, and advocacy.

Lot of celebrities has widespread public interest and vast fanbase - whats special here? And many artists has influenced pop culture.

It should be something like Swift's career began in country music, but she has since transitioned into pop and alternative genres. She is also known for her narrative songwriting, which often centers on her personal life

Gsgdd (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor here also omits her career trajectory as an opening act for several other artists' concert tours in the early of her career, a common format inclusion on a musician's Wikipedia. It is clear that this page is managed by fans. WP:NOTFANWEBSITE
see: page.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Swift&diff=prev&oldid=1228060222 ShakiraFandom (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. they are hardcore fans. see the last editor User:Ippantekina - they only make edits to taylor swift pages Gsgdd (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gsgdd: see this discussion. Ippantekina (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Id wait for others to chime in. @Ippantekina i need their feedback on concerns i raised about fan point of view Gsgdd (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ShakiraFandom: please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ippantekina (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is Swifties. Cwater1 (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it would be helpful to implement some of the OP's proposed changes, though I have no particular suggestion on how the lead should appear. That aside, I agree with the inclusion of this tag, as I believe there are other issues there. Some examples:
  • Putting "songwriting" and "artistry" next to each other seems excessive. Do we need both terms?
  • What makes one a "professional" songwriter? It's not a sport where there's a commonly accepted difference between amateur and pro.
  • Are "chart-topping" and "number-one" necessary (or appropriate) descriptions? Isn't it similar to saying "award-winning"?
  • With WP:RECENTISM in mind, are her directorial projects more noteworthy than the titles of films in which she's acted? She was in one the worst and commercially unsuccessful films of all time. How is that less noteworthy than a concert film?
  • The lead says Swift is the second most streamed artist on Spotify. The body says she is the most streamed. Which is it? Why is Spotify in the lead at all?
  • How are the American Music Awards, Billboard Music Awards, and MTV Video Music Awards due here, especially the lattermost? I believe the Brit Awards would be more appropriate to insert than any of these three.
KyleJoan 06:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for agreeing with me. I also concur with your points. We should begin cleaning up the article. There are many Swifties here who are often aggressive in reverting changes, as they view it from a fan’s perspective. I haven't read body - who knows how much fan point of view is there. Since this is a featured article, it’s all the more reason to elevate it to higher standards. I’m tagging @FrB.TG as well. Gsgdd (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gsgdd: While waiting for others' responses towards a consensus, please refrain from reverting edits repeatedly (WP:3RR) and assume good faith, since your comment regarding how "aggressive" Swifties are is practically bad faith.
@KyleJoan: I agree that the lead is marred with recentism and there needs to be adjustments, but I disagree with your disregard for Spotify (which is arguably the most-discussed metric for song streams/artists' relevance in the streaming age), number-one songs (charts matter, no?), and awards like the AMAs or VMAs (why not?) Ippantekina (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ippantekina, please do not revert the tag without discussion. We need to reach a consensus, particularly from uninvolved editors. The tag will help ensure broader review from the wider wiki community, not just from the original authors. Previously, you have reverted my other good faith edits as well. I felt such reverts were aggressive, and calling it out is not bad faith Gsgdd (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read up on WP:BRD and how WP:CONSENSUS is built, Gsgdd. Repeated edit-warring and violation of WP:3RR will only get you blocked. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with Spotify as a metric is its numbers fluctuate too often. A featured article is expected to be stable to some extent, and yet, even with all the editing that goes on here, there's still not an agreement between the lead and body about whether Swift is the most streamed or second-most streamed. That's a major policy issue
The description "number-one" is too ambiguous. Where does a song need to reach number one for it to be appropriate? A specific country? A specific genre chart?
A fan-voted award is almost never more important in the way sources document it compared to industry-voted ones. I guarantee you that there is more source coverage of Swift's appearances at the VMAs than that of her VMA wins. KyleJoan 10:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about something like "one of the most-streamed artists on Spotify"? I still think Spotify is an important metric for a 21st-century musician, despite its (understandably) volatile nature. We can change "number-one songs" to "commercially successful hits" but then that could be POV. I'm thinking of reorganising the lead of this article in the style of other singer-songwriter FAs like Bob Dylan or Paul McCartney if that's a good idea. Ippantekina (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those changes would be improvements–I'd prefer "song" or "single" over "hit" for neutrality. I don't believe there's any POV issue with "commercially successful" since that description is easily demonstrable as due. A major reconstruction appears to be necessary. Too many parts read as excessive, a glaring one being the different album musical styles, which sound like inappropriate attempts to illustrate Swift's versatility when the body includes nothing that suggests some of these claims (e.g., Lover being "eclectic"). Why not keep it simple and write that Swift originally established herself as a country artist, pivoted to pop starting with Red, fully became a pop artist with 1989, and delved into the indie genres with Folklore and Evermore? KyleJoan 13:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of the intro paragraph like this:
"Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. She has explored musical styles across country, pop, rock, and folk. Her personal songwriting with details from real-life relationships and experiences has made her a major figure in popular culture and earned her a devoted fanbase."
Ippantekina (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same theme - devoted fanbase, major figure etc.... still fan point of view. I understand you are keen to show off devoted fanbase wiki. But think more neutral. Every artist has devoted fanbase. Swifties are not superior to other fanbase Gsgdd (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a drive-by comment after seeing the DRN post, some thoughts on the article: The first paragraph... isn't a complete paragraph. It's a weird construction that doesn't organically grow out of the opening sentence and appears to be phrased the way it is to embed somewhat easter-eggy links to sub articles. I think part of the feel of it coming off as weirdly fannish is that there's no elaboration on this, and it makes much more sense discussed with her wider commercial success later on in the article. The Beatles is structured similarly, so there are articles that try and give a quick capsule overview before diving more into the subject in the subsequent lead paragraphs, but I think manages to explain the importance of the subject better and has much more concrete examples of influence and importance actually demonstrated. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As another drive-by comment: per Wikipedia:Record charts, single-retailer charts are generally unsuitable. Spotify absolutely qualifies as this, and it should probably be removed. Toa Nidhiki05 20:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like this?

Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. She is one of the world's best-selling artists, with 200 million records sold worldwide, as well as the highest-grossing female touring act and the first billionaire with music as the main source of income. Known for her detailed narrative songwriting, Swift's music career has made her a subject of widespread public interest and an influential figure in popular culture. Outside of music, she has directed and acted in films.

Swift signed with Big Machine Records in 2005 and released her self-titled debut album the following year, rising to prominence as a country pop singer. With her second album, titled Fearless (2008), and its singles "Love Story" and "You Belong with Me", Swift achieved crossover success on country and pop radio formats and mainstream fame. She experimented with different genres on Speak Now (2010) and Red (2012) and reached the top of the Billboard Hot 100 chart with the latter's lead single, "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together". The synth-pop album 1989 (2014), which contained the songs "Shake It Off", "Blank Space", and "Bad Blood", marked Swift's departure from country music and recalibration of her image and sound to pop. Continued media scrutiny inspired her next album, Reputation (2017), and the song "Look What You Made Me Do".

After signing with Republic Records in 2018, Swift released Lover (2019), Midnights (2022), and The Tortured Poets Department (2024); explored indie folk styles on the 2020 albums Folklore and Evermore; and re-recorded four albums, subtitled (Taylor's Version), after a masters ownership dispute with her prior label. These albums spawned the commercially successful songs "Cruel Summer", "Cardigan", "Willow", "All Too Well", "Anti-Hero", "Is It Over Now?", and "Fortnight". Her Eras Tour (2023–2024) and its accompanying concert film are the highest-grossing tour and concert film of all time.

Swift's accolades include 14 Grammy Awards and a Primetime Emmy Award; she has won the Grammy Award for Album of the Year, the MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year, and the IFPI Global Recording Artist of the Year a record four times each. Seven of her albums have opened with over one million sales in a week. Time magazine's Person of the Year in 2023, Swift has appeared on lists such as Rolling Stone's "100 Greatest Songwriters of All Time", Billboard's "Greatest of All Time Artists", and Forbes' "World's 100 Most Powerful Women".

KyleJoan 01:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC) copyedited on 01:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue against `Swift's music career has made her a subject of widespread public interest and an influential figure in popular culture.` in first paragraph. Popularity is subjective and changing. If you look at Forbes Celebrity 100 - she never been no. 1. I would argue some political leaders more popular than Swift or have more public interest.
Outside of music, she has directed and acted in films. this is not her strong suit - id skip this Gsgdd (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swift's popularity 2006–present is heavily documented in sources. Any historical perspective would include it as one of her defining qualities. Any aversion to suggesting she's very famous and influential would create a separate NPOV issue. Swift's standing in comparison to other public figures is irrelevant, as that would make it inappropriate to mention one's fame or influence because somebody else might be more famous or influential. KyleJoan 01:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See i still think `widespread public interest` is not something to mention in opening paragraph. Imagine, people adding it to every celebrity and popular people. It can be mentioned in the body or later in intro. I prefer to keep opening para - something unique and most interesting thing about the artist. Is being famous the most interest thing about Swift? That's all i have to say about it. Do as you please Gsgdd (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swifties exist as an article. Swift's fan base is definitely over-the-top. I'm not sure why do you keep insisting on removing an obvious fact that she is arguably the most popular artist right now lol. Ippantekina (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even the Beatles don't have Beatlemania in the first paragraph of the lead. Toa Nidhiki05 05:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toa Nidhiki05: 1) "Beatlemania" is not in the first paragraph of the lead but it does exist in the lead, so are you arguing against its inclusion or notability?, and 2) "They are regarded as the most influential band of all time and were integral to the development of 1960s counterculture and the recognition of popular music as an art form," with a link to Cultural impact of the Beatles. Ippantekina (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's undue for the lead here, yes. Toa Nidhiki05 17:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Noting that I arrived here after seeing the thread Gsgdd created at WP:NPOVN at 3:08 2 July 2024)
KyleJoan, I like your lead quite a lot and would support it being applied in the article. I think it's a big improvement on the current version that trails off without completing the sentence while conveying almost nothing about Swift's notability. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Lots of celebrities have attracted widespread public interest and a vast fanbase - what's special here? And many artists have influenced pop culture."
Most artists don't have full-fledged lengthy articles dedicated to their fanbase, influence, political impact, and public interest like Swift does. That fact alone is an argument as to why they should be linked. ItsMarkWbu (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like i said before - im ok it being included in other than opening paragraph. Her `fanbase` is not what defines Taylor swift. Opening paragraph should be about taylor swift. Not about her fans. It should highlight her major achievements Gsgdd (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I'd not mention the films that she directed or acted it. Not the thing that makes Swift notable anyways. Some of my other suggestions:

"Known for her detailed narrative songwriting, Swift's music career has made her a subject of widespread public interest and an influential figure in popular culture" → "Known for her narrative songwriting inspired by her personal life and experiences, Swift's music career has made her one of the most influential popular culture figures of the 21st century and earned her a devoted fanbase."
We might as well not need to mention that many songs, maybe leave out the current hits ("Fortnight", "Willow" etc.) to leave room for discussing her musical evolutions/experimentations. Ippantekina (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you implement your own version without a consensus when you never even proposed it? It introduced new issues, such as the undue weight placed on the reception toward Folklore and Evermore. KyleJoan 08:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also "autobiographical songwriting with details from personal life and experiences" this is no good. autobiographical already means its from personal experiences. please revert it Gsgdd (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gsgdd. I'm going to open an RfC to have users cast !votes based on different versions of the lead section. Can you write your own version of (or point to which version of) the second, third, and fourth paragraphs you would like to see with your proposed lead paragraph? KyleJoan 09:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KyleJoan Hay, For into paragraph this is my proposal.
Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. She is one of the world’s best-selling artists, with 200 million records sold worldwide. Additionally, she is the highest-grossing female touring act and the first billionaire with music as the main source of income. Known for her narrative songwriting, which often centers on her personal life, Swift is an influential figure in popular culture.
For second, third and fourth - i'm okay with your earlier proposed version. Gsgdd (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for writing it up. To everyone voting - goal is to choose version that align with neural point of view and not fan point of view. Review previous talk for details Gsgdd (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since attempt to fix article intro is being sabotaged by User:FrB.TG - i'm placing this POV lead tag. User:Ippantekina who mostly edits taylor swift page is a FAN - and i believe has conflict of interest. Both these users have engaged in disruptive edits and reverts in the past - please see talk/page history for details Gsgdd (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refrain from making personal attacks and accusations or calling others disruptive when you have engaged in an edit-war with multiple editors over the last few days. All I did was restore the slight tweak made by Ippantekina to their own proposed lead before voting had begun. It's not my fault if that little change caused the removal of RfC. FrB.TG (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not reverted more than 3 edits in 24hrs - and issue is only with you two who have engaged in disruptive edits/reverts. It can be proven should you choose to take it up to admin. If not stay out of it and do not revert any more of edits on this matter from users Gsgdd (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gsgdd: Are you assuming being a fan of a music artist would constitute a conflict of interest? Lol what kind of accusation is this. Ippantekina (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you edit 99% of time on Taylor swift pages - it begs the question if you have some kind of affiliation or relationship with Taylor swift - which is conflict of interest. Or maybe you are just a hardcore fan - who cant see neutral point of view. Gsgdd (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lmaooooo read WP:AGF please. Also please read WP:POINT which describes your behaviors at this point. Ippantekina (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drive by comment here from DRN; and I've noticed that the fan POV has been an issue with this article for a very long time. I wouldn't say that there was a specific editor, moreso that as she got more in popularity, the amount of fan POV edits about her have skyrocketed. For example, why are there two completely different articles about the impact of her entire 15+ year career verses the impact of a single (albeit major milestone) tour? Why is cultural impact and public image completely different articles with no possibility for a merge? What exactly is so relevant about her politics (which she was infamously silent on for a while) that demands a seperate article that cannot be merged into a general "Impact of Taylor Swift"? Is all of the article content so notable for inclusion that they cannot be in a more concise page? I believe that as Taylor becomes more popular and beloved by the general public, we will receive an excess of Swift-related information; I think Gsgdd is right and I believe most of his points. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different conversation. Do you have constructive opinions for rewriting the lead -- the main point here? Ippantekina (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DRN mentioned fan POV as a major source of issue for the quality of the writing in this article, with fans continuing to make unsupported WP:PEACOCK statements about Ms. Swift. Considering your replies to other editors on this page, and your history as a Swift-only editor, I can't say that the DRN claim is inaccurate. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which claims do you feel are inaccurate? I don't need a complete list, but identifying some would help. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. Known for her autobiographical songwriting, she is one of the world's best-selling artists, with 200 million records sold worldwide, the first billionaire with music as the main source of income and the highest-grossing female touring artist. Through her music career, Swift has become an influential figure in popular culture and the subject of widespread public interest. She has a vast fanbase, known as Swifties.

Born in Pennsylvania, Swift moved to Nashville in 2004 and signed a contract with Big Machine Records the following year to pursue a career in country music. She achieved prominence as a country pop singer with her self-titled debut album (2006) and Fearless (2008), whose singles "Teardrops on My Guitar", "Love Story", and "You Belong with Me" were successful crossover hits on both country and pop radio formats. Speak Now (2010) and Red (2012) experimented with different genres, and the synth-pop album 1989 (2014) recalibrated Swift's artistic identity from country to pop. Her growing fame was accompanied by increasing media scrutiny, which inspired Reputation (2017). Many singles were commercially successful, such as "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together", "I Knew You Were Trouble", "Shake It Off", "Blank Space", "Bad Blood", and "Look What You Made Me Do".

After signing with Republic Records in 2018, Swift released Lover (2019) and explored indie folk on the 2020 albums Folklore and Evermore, which featured more introspective and nuanced lyricism. She returned to pop on Midnights (2022) and The Tortured Poets Department (2024), which successively broke chart records worldwide. Following a dispute with Big Machine in 2019 over the ownership of her past album's master recordings, she has re-recorded four studio albums subtitled (Taylor's Version), released in 2021–2023. Her chart success continued with the singles "Cruel Summer", "Cardigan", "Willow", "All Too Well (10 Minute Version)", "Anti-Hero", "Is It Over Now?", and "Fortnight". Her Eras Tour (2023–2024) and its accompanying concert film are the highest-grossing tour and concert film of all time.

Seven of Swift's albums have opened with over one million sales in a week. The 2023 Time Person of the Year, Swift has appeared on lists such as Rolling Stone's "100 Greatest Songwriters of All Time", Billboard's "Greatest of All Time Artists", and Forbes' "World's 100 Most Powerful Women". Her accolades include 14 Grammy Awards, a Primetime Emmy Award, 40 American Music Awards, 39 Billboard Music Awards, and 23 MTV Video Music Awards; she has won the Grammy Award for Album of the Year, the MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year, and the IFPI Global Recording Artist of the Year a record four times each.

Ippantekina, I really like your proposed lead. I have made a few tweaks here and there. For example, "Known for her autobiographical songwriting, Swift's music career has made her one of the.." - the way this is phrased it sounds like "Swift's music career" is "known for her autobiographical songwriting". I like this version better since it specifies the genres of Midnights and TTPD instead of just "she released these albums". I don't like the idea of writing about her film career in the lead paragraph, which you have avoided here. So all in all, this proposed lead should be implemented IMO. FrB.TG (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Your endorsement here means this proposal has consensus to be implemented? Does that mean that my proposal, with two users' support, had consensus to be implemented as well? KyleJoan 12:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was merely stating why I think this lead is better and should be implemented. That doesn't mean consensus has been reached to implement it. FrB.TG (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just me, but "this proposed lead can be implemented IMO" sounds closer to "you can go implement it" than "FWIW, I support it". Thanks for clarifying. KyleJoan 12:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed some bits to avoid undue weightage (the critical reaction to Folklore/Evermore). Btw are we still deciding this on number of votes? Ippantekina (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was never being decided on number of "votes" (thats not how wikipedia works). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm asking because there was previously a vote-based RfC, which has been removed. Ippantekina (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't vote based, it was WP:CONSENSUS based. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the talk page history. Ippantekina (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interim summary

Since the discussion is "unlikely to reach consensus any time soon", does the lead section at this time contain a major POV (neutrality) issue?

Tagging every user that has participated here or edited the lead section since the dispute began: Gsgdd, ShakiraFandom, Ippantekina, Cwater1, Krimuk2.0, David Fuchs, Toa Nidhiki05, Hydrangeans, ItsMarkWbu, FrB.TG, PHShanghai, Jessintime, Horse Eye's Back, Angiricc05, NegativeMP1, Phạm Huy Thông, SchroCat, Ronherry, Nosferattus, The9Man, Jlwoodwa.

KyleJoan 03:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to revert my BOLD edit if it seems like it was a bad idea. I just wanted to fix the first paragraph before Wildest Dreams (Taylor Swift song) was "Today's featured article". Nosferattus (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the lead section has a WP:PEACOCK puff issue, but not so much to the point where it would be considered extremely biased- I think the proper move is to just evaluate which achievements are lead-worthy and which aren't.
For example, if you're asking me, "the first billionaire with music as the main source of income, and the highest-grossing female touring act. {...} influential figure in popular culture and the subject of widespread public interest." is comically obvious puff that isn't even remotely close to the ledes other articles with far more longer and influential careers than Swift's, e.g. Michael Jackson PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "the first billionaire with music as the main source of income, and the highest-grossing female touring act." "comically obvious puff" when those are well-sourced hard facts? These are major accomplishments for any artist. There's no debate on this. And Jackson's article has "he is regarded as one of the most significant cultural figures of the 20th century. Over a four-decade career, his contributions to music, dance, and fashion, along with his publicized personal life, made him a global figure in popular culture. Jackson influenced artists across many music genres.", which is a far bigger claim than "influential figure in popular culture and the subject of widespread public interest". And the claim that she is an influential figure is not even remotely far-fetched considering we have a full-on lengthy 500-source separate article just on her cultural impact. FrB.TG (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it confusing that some editors say that this article's lead is POV and cited examples including articles for Michael Jackson and the Beatles, while those two examples both discuss the artists' cultural impact (the Beatles' article even discusses Beatlemania in the lead, mind you). POV is not the issue here, though the lead can definitely be improved with tweaking and trimming recentism. Ippantekina (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made the comparison to the Beatles article below. I don't believe either of those articles has a POV issue. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead is fine. Cwater1 (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I ever say those things were false? No, I said that they were obvious puff because you and Ippantekina keep advocating to leave those achievements in the very first sentence of the article. None of my suggested edits even remove this information of the lead, but you have made 0 argument as to why it deserves to be in the very first sentence, rather than being paired with the second paragraph concerning the Eras tour (which isn't that the reason that she reached her billonaire and highest grossing tour status anyways?)
Besides. Michael had an almost 5 decade career, while Taylor's just reached 17 years. Michael's achievements were already well documented long before the advent of Wikipedia.... saying that their ledes should be comparably puffed is a WP:RECENTISM issue PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made the Jackson comparison because you brought it up and essentially said that Swift's article is making bigger claims than the "ledes [of] other articles with far more longer and influential careers than Swift's, e.g. Michael Jackson", which is not true. I've already said why her overall accomplishments need to be in the lead paragraph. Highlighting her status as a top-selling artist, billionaire from music, and highest-grossing female touring act offers a concise overview of her professional milestones as opposed to directly jumping to her career history. This information is essential for establishing Swift's importance at the outset, ensuring readers grasp her influence and relevance immediately.
If we go with your version of the lead, it is similar to the one, which caused the POV complaints to begin with, i.e. we're only claiming that she is influential but not why. So how would you rectify the issue of not justifying the claim of her being an influential artist? So far every version of the lead has caused the POV uproar no matter where you place what, which to be honest is absurd when these are all quantifiable facts. FrB.TG (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To conclude my part in the discussion, I concur with some of the commenters that the lead looks "written from a fan's perspective", more so in our approach than the material itself, but both require attention nonetheless. The fact that "artistic reinventions" has remained in the lead paragraph for days shows how questionable the lead's adherence to the due weight policy is. The genres accompanying the albums are mostly there to inappropriately illustrate this artistry. The description "chart-topping" is unnecessarily peacock-y. Her directing works are listed over her acting works, which sounds more recentist than historical (an NPOV issue; the essay references the policy in the lead's final paragraph). The VMAs are mentioned twice. Some awards are made to appear lead-worthy only because Swift has won a lot of them.
Scrolling to a random part of the body and finding myself on the "performance" subsection, I immediately found an issue in its lead sentence. None of the five refs appropriately supports the neutral claim that Swift "is often praised for her showmanship and stage presence". Two are reviews of the concert film, one of which (Time) says "gay men ... adore her balls-out showmanship". One is a review of a specific show. One (Pollstar) doesn't at all allude to anything close to that claim. All five sources are from 2023 (recentism again). This claim is contentious, poorly sourced, and improperly synthesized. Imagine which other claims contain these issues.
Yes, the article obtained FA status in 2016, but arguing "but the gold star" rather than ensuring it remains of gold-star quality does not make the issues that are clearly there less real. KyleJoan 00:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KyleJoan:, if you check the milestones, the article was peer reviewed 3 years ago in 2021 and the commenters there took particular notice of how several sections like politics, endorsements, and awards/achievements have expanded drastically since the original FA in 2014. I think 10 years is enough time for a needed FAR.. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why it's undue to write about her "artistic reinvention" when there's a very well-sourced subsection in the main body. Keep in mind that major publications like BBC and Time have commented on her versatility because of her constant switch in genres. That we specify the genres of her albums is not even remotely POV; you're merely interpreting it that it's intentionally phrased that way to highlight her versatility. It's no different than saying an actor starred in a crime drama, then comedy, then action film. And I don't understand the issue with "chart-topping" (it's a synonym of "number-one"). If it causes the issue of not being specific, so does "commercially successful" (which was your suggestion). How successful are we talking about? Lots of her singles/songs were commercially successful, what made these ones stand out? I also don't agree with the mention of her film direction over her acting work being a recentism issue. Swift has been directing her own music videos since 2018 and has won awards for her directing work, whereas her acting work has only been in supporting capactiy and hasn't gained much notice.
On the other hand, I do agree that there are superlative claims in some places without being properly sourced like this one, which I removed the other day. FrB.TG (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronherry since you wrote a major portion of the recent version(s) of the lead/article, would you like to weigh in here? FrB.TG (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between having undergone "continuous musical reinventions" and being known for them. Not only that, but it's questionable whether any section could be described as "well-sourced" after the "often praised" example. I'm not going to address the rest of that because it seems my concern about the extent of the issues is predominantly unshared. Since most users here believe the article could pass an FA candidacy at this time, I'll edit elsewhere. KyleJoan 20:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll throughly check the article for similar unsupported superlative claims. Thank you for bringing to light this issue. FrB.TG (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current lead is very balanced, with every single sentence supported strongly by multiple sources in the article body. Myself and, I noticed, fellow editors like you and Ippantenkina, have been steadfast in upkeeping this article's FA status by weeding out poorly sourced content and even fancruft whenever it's added to this article by fans; so many copyedits and revisions and overhauls ever since this article became FA. Therefore, I do not doubt this article's quality and neutrality. The current lead section does not make any superlative or abnormal claim either, eventhough Swift has achieved abnormal success and impact as per sources.
As one of the most popular articles of Wikipedia, this article is under special scrutiny and I'd say it's impossible to try add fan POV or even anything remotely superlative to this article's lead easily. However, I've observed an trend in the recent edit history of this article and all articles in the Taylor Swift wikiproject. Relatively new editors, who have never contributed to any article in the Taylor Swift topic, randomly pop up and add tags to the article and leave, or attempt to diminish the article subject's positive reception in a way that's not commensurate with the sources found on the internet. It is odd. While we actively make sure our articles are free of fans' POV, we must also make sure our articles are free of haters' POV. The lead must accurately represent what is spoken about Swift in reliable publications as it is, without editors introducing their own pseudo-neutrality. Neutrality is not forcing a 50/50 split when the sources go 80/20.
Numerous reliable sources have covered Swift's artistic reinventions (which she calls "eras") in detail and how it's a major factor in keeping her culturally relevant in the public eye. Swift artistically reinvents herself for every album. It's a straightforward statement in the cited sources, not a suggestion or a theory. I don't see an issue with this term. ℛonherry☘ 18:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one weeded out the poorly sourced, cruft-y "often praised". In fact, it was you who added the claim. I don't believe you've nominated or even commented on a candidate, so I'm doubtful about your understanding of FA. Any notion that "haters" would comprehensively discuss Swift is unfounded, while we've seen the opposite–your GA noms are almost all Swift-related, FrB.TG suggested excitement about Swift topping the Hot 100, etc. That "every album" sentiment and the "often praised" addition say it all about your editorial bias's influence on your behavior. Perhaps an FAR would be appropriate. KyleJoan 23:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that because I once expressed excitement over Swift reaching number-one, I can't be unbiased? I have written almost 20 FAs, coordinate the FAC project and am well aware of how the criteria work. As much as I've tried to uphold its FA status over the last 8 years, I haven't been able to patrol every edit, given how widely popular Swift's article is and I have other projects. And like I said, I'll try to address your concerns about claims not being properly sourced. FrB.TG (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was saying that you've been willing to comprehensively discuss as a Swift fan and that Ronherry has not demonstrated how "haters' POV" is an issue. My view about bias was not in reference to you. I'm aware of your vast experience with FAs, which explains your desire to keep the gold star at all costs, but let's be honest. Do you believe the article–in its current state, with the neutrality and stability concerns users have raised–meets the FA criteria? KyleJoan 07:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I wouldn't count myself as a fan of Swift. I only like a couple of her songs. I was listening to some of her 1989 singles when I started cleaning up the article because it was a mess. It then somehow ended up becoming an FAC project, but even if I were a fan, I wouldn't let that cloud my judgement. In any case, the article is certainly not without issues at the moment, but they are not so grave for it to be beyond saving. It just needs someone to go through the article and weed out any POV fancruft. I'll do that very soon. FrB.TG (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Namely, Fearless (Taylor's Version) and Red (Taylor's Version) in 2021, followed by Speak Now (Taylor's Version) and 1989 (Taylor's Version) in 2023.

US or United States?

Why are the US/UK country abbreviations changed to United States/United Kingdom? ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two abbreviations should be used in all instances. Readers don't require that much spoonfeeding. KyleJoan 01:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "United States" to keep consistent with other Swift album/song FAs so that's more of a personal preference, but I don't see why it shouldn't be that way. Ippantekina (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Countries_and_multinational_unions, which suggests you shouldn't have done that. - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: The guide you cited literally says: "Using United States instead of an acronym is often better formal writing style, and is an opportunity for commonality." Ippantekina (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's sometimes preferable, but in an article this long, bloating it further and so often is poor. Given you changed it recently and people picked up on it to query it, I'm not sure there is a consensus for the longer form repeated endlessly here. Maybe just let the conversation proceed without edit warring to what you've already admitted is your personal preference? - SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain that doing so is to keep it consistent with other Taylor Swift song/album FAs that spell out "United States". And how do my edits constitute an "edit warring" when there is no outright objection but rather queries to which I explained--also considering this is not a contentious issue, at least based on the responses here thus far? Ippantekina (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the CMT links you edited in your revert are dead. Would you mind fixing that please? Ippantekina (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't edit any links. It looks like there was a conflict which overwrote the bot. I won't change them back again: the bot will revisit shortly to change it back. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about {{POV lead}}

Should the article include the {{POV lead}} maintenance tag until the discussion about the lead section reaches a consensus? KyleJoan 00:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (RfC about {{POV lead}})

  • No. It should not have a tag unless the discussion comes to a consensus that there is a serious POV problem in the lead. Until then, it should not be tagged. This is a WP:FA, which means that numerous experienced editors agreed that it should be promoted to FA, including its Lead section. If there are specific issues with the lead, like any WP:PEACOCK, or if you think that some awards are more WP:NOTEWORTHY than others, that should be easy to fix without a tag. Discussion and consensus of specific issues is the way forward. I would start a heading for each specific objection to the Lead and get a consensus on that discrete issue, fix it, and move on to the next one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe the current lead section looks comparable to how it did seven years ago during the article's FA promotion? KyleJoan 07:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pointless question. Use the Talk page now to fix specific problems you see, not to reconstruct the past. If you think that a particular sentence or phrase was better in the FA-promoted version, feel free to suggest that phrasing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Ssilvers. Having such a tag while claiming that this article is one of the best Wikipedia has to offer is contradictory and very damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. Let's focus on addressing said issues than preoccupying with a tag. And the lead has improved since Nosferattus's bold edit. I have made further changes here that address issues raised in the afforementioned section. If there's any disagreement over them, we can obviously discuss it further. FrB.TG (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — what POV tag? It's already been removed twice by HJ Mitchell who said don't do tgat to featured articles (sic). And unfortunately, he is right, featured articles tend to have a walled garden around them, and editors are certainly not going to allow any sort of maint tag on a FA, regardless of whether the tag is legit or not. You might as well close this RfC. Furthermore, I disagree that a maint tag placed on a FA is very damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. That's hyperbole. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Using the logic that the lead is "written from a fan's perspective" or whatever, just about any band's article could be tagged for POV. Check out the lead for the Beatles, another Featured Article, for example. I'm not saying there can't be improvements, but tagging at this point seems unnecessary and WP:POINTY. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It's a dispute over a single sentence, and one that (regardless of how one feels about it) does not seem to be fundamental to our coverage of the topic one way or another. Tagging the entire article over it is wildly disproportionate. --Aquillion (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, articles should only be tagged with {{POV lead}} when there is consensus to do so. Time should be spent in the discussion coming to consensus and not adding needless tags. TarnishedPath 23:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as per the above cited reasons. ℛonherry☘ 20:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD lead

I made a WP:BOLD edit of tackling some of the biggest issues with the lead in regards to neutrality without actually removing any significant content that others may contest.

  • Highest grossing tour act and first billionaire have now been moved to the second paragraph around the part about the Eras tour
  • 200 million sales has now been moved to fourth paragraph, in line with other articles of artists like Michael Jackson and Madonna
  • Proper U.S. wording in line with MOS
  • It's complicated to spell out each list that names her the greatest etc, so I generalized it and just kept the publication names.

PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues to address. The article starts with "Swift is an influential figure in popular culture, with her career being the subject of widespread public interest," which lacks the hard facts, such as her billionaire status and touring accomplishments, something that many editors complained about. These facts substantiate the claim of her influence more convincingly. I also find it problematic that the first paragraph now delves directly into her career rather than focusing on her overall accomplishments.
The phrase "One of the world's best-selling music artists with estimated global sales of 200 million records, seven of her albums have" is also poorly constructed, as it implies that "seven of her albums" are among the world's best-selling artists. Furthermore, comparing Swift's article to those of Jackson and Madonna is not appropriate. Jackson's article is currently being considered for a featured article review and Madonna's is "only" a GA. FrB.TG (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Jay-Z nor Rihanna's articles mention their billionaire status in the very first sentence. Remember, my issue here is that it's the VERY first sentence, not that it's included at all. There's no contest that it's notable enough for the lede, but putting it in the first sentence is obvious puffery. The hard facts are still there, and needing it to be put in the first sentence is just fan POV.
I didn't know Jackson was under a FAR, but even so, why does her sales need to be mentioned in both the lead AND the fourth paragraph. It doesn't make sense. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. And we currently have "Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. Known for her autobiographical songwriting and artistic reinventions, Swift is an influential figure in popular culture, with her career being the subject of widespread public interest." This doesn't tell us why she's an "influential figure" and "with her career being the subject of widespread public interest" is not right either. First we have a fused participle here and it's not just her career that is of public interest. This is structured very similarly to the version that many editors originally took issues with.
The reason it makes more sense to start with her most notable (overall) accomplishments is that it makes the later claims of her being influential much more plausible. The reader doesn't have to read any further than the lead paragraph to know why she's so influential. And to clarify, Jackson is not under FAR but one editor identified major issues, warning to take it to FAR if they are not rectified. FrB.TG (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay about page deletions- it does not override nor it is precedent enough to override the MOS. Furthermore, the influential figure sentence hyperlinks to the page about her influence on pop culture.
Furthermore, Swift's entire career is not notable for: A) making her a billion dollars and B) being the highest grossing female touring artist. When her name comes to mind, the average reader will think: songwriter, ex boyfriends, how many Grammys. etc. No one besides her superfans will consider her billionaire status or her tour grossage as relevant to her entire career, making it a non NPOV. And besides, none of my edits have actually removed this information- you have made no argument as to why it cannot be in other paragraphs of the lead, not the very first sentence. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) The bit about her being the first billionaire wasn't even in the first sentence. First paragraph sure, but not the first sentence. 2) Taylor is different than Jay-Z, Rihanna etc because her billion came solely from her music career whereas others have separate business ventures. 3) The lead paragraph as it stands is rather dull and generic, as others have pointed out. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jessintime: You know what I meant, no semantics needed. There is a paragraph break before the lead sentence; this means that the reader will always read that she is a billonaire, biggest grossing touring act, highest selling music artist, etc. I might say it's obvious this placement was intentional, which isn't contributing to the NPOV issues other editors have brought up.
Like I said. None of my edits have revoked or removed this undisputably well sourced information, but the placement in the very first sentence is NPOV and unencyclopedic. Besides, there is no issue with Wikipedia being "dull" and "generic" as long as its NPOV, as per the well-documented policy on peacockery. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Records vs. Units

The article has been continuously changed from records sold to units. The explanation given is that Taylor Swift debuted in the digital era (which is not true, she very much still debuted in the physical era, 2006). Music consumption has indeed changed but the album/record sales for ALL artists are now tracked as EAS, which means that certain number of streams are converted to an album sale, or records. According to this tracking site, Swift has sold 214 million EAS. Should the wording stay as records sold or be converted to units? I believe it should stay as records but wanted to get a third and fourth opinion. Thanks! House1090 (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@House1090: I have a sneaking suspicion this editor might be a sockpuppet. Disruptive edits about this kinds of things have been done by almost the exact same editor using different accounts before. Will try to open a SPI PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, thank you! I left a few warnings on his talk page but I haven't received a response yet. I will continue to keep an eye out. House1090 (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a tool to see edit wars on a specific article? This sockpuppet always starts edit wars on Whitney Houston, every time.. I swear I've seen somewhat with a similar Vietnamese name that edit wars get banned for SP before. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for the lead sentence

Should Swift's lead sentence mention that she is a billionaire, the highest-grossing female touring artist, and has sold 200 million records? Is there an argument for having it in the very first sentence and not in the other paragraphs of the lead? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No as proposer. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, No, Yes. Yes as to 200 million albums. No to the rest. Instead, I would put in (from below, per WP:LEAD): ...NPR has dubbed her "a master of the vernacular in her lyrics". This is really what distinguishes her musical talent. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that kind of relying on a singular source? I feel like making note of her autobiographical songwriting covers that part; "master of the vernacular in her lyrics" may be WP:PUFF PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have a problem if these facts are placed elsewhere in the lead so long as we have something more than just "she is an influential figure" in the lead paragraph to establish her relevance in the music industry. My reasoning was that highlighting her professional milestones is relevant to understanding her significance and influence, akin to mentioning awards or critical acclaim for other artists. She's a singer-songwriter and all these accomplishments are directly related to her music career. FrB.TG (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure whether these should first in the first sentence per MOS:FIRST, the current "is an American singer-songwriter" seems to fit the intent of that MOS. These items may however naturally fit into other parts of the lead. CMD (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis, I believe OP meant the lead paragraph (like how it is right now) and not the first sentence. FrB.TG (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so that is a different question to what is asked above. If there are questions about the wider lead, it would probably be more helpful to have alternative versions to see what might replace the current text. CMD (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PHShanghai, could you change your wording from "lead sentence" to "first/lead paragraph" to avoid any confusion? Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the first sentence, fine in the lead. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support moving "She is one of the world's best-selling music artists, with estimated global sales of 200 million records. Swift is also the first musician to become a billionaire through music and the highest-grossing female touring act" to the fourth paragraph in the lead, where more of her career success is mentioned. The lines about her impact and what she's know for can remain in the first paragraph. ℛonherry☘ 18:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taylor_Swift&oldid=1234104640"