Talk:Taylor Swift/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Flight Tracking "Public"

Hey @Ronherry! I'm not sure why you think the claim that flight data is public is "improper synthesis". The first article from Rolling Stone, in the body, not quoting Sweeney, says "Taylor Swift’s lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to a college student who uses public flight data to track private jet usage, suggesting his social media accounts were aiding Swift’s stalkers and threatening her safety." The second, from BBC, says "Jack Sweeney uses publicly available data to track the take-offs and landings of planes belonging to the wealthy and posts them one day later." These are reliable sources, stating that the data is public. Please, explain why you feel it shouldn't be included? It seems rather POV to not include it. glman (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not Ronherry, but I agree that calling the data "public" here is a glaring overstatement. If it was so public and so available, then Sweeney would not be drawn to collate it and post it. He's posting the flight info because the public does not generally know how to process the data. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet - Two reliable sources plainly call it public. Do we have sourcing to indicate it is not private? glman (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. The nature of the data, whether it is actually covered by public information laws, is to be determined by a court of law, not Wikipedia. @Glman: "Two reliable sources plainly call it public" is false, because the sources are calling the FAA data public, not Sweeney's data. Sweeney's data (a secondary data) is processed from the FAA data (the primary data source). Sweeney's argument is that the FAA data is public and that makes his data public domain too! You're literally pushing Sweeney's POV as the fact of the dispute when that's not the case. ℛonherry☘ 11:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The nature of FAA data that is public is public data. Anyone could do it. "But in the United States, aircraft data is legally available for real-time tracking, something experts say is critical for safety and efficiency. Websites that track commercial flights use and publish it to provide consumer insights like on-time records, but the same data can be scooped up by virtually anyone looking to follow private planes with celebrities and other public figures, too." - from cited USA today article added to this article. If you want to edit it and clarify that the data is synthesized from publicly avaliable data, I think that is a bit nitpicky but fair, but to claim that the data is not public is POV pushing for Ms. Swift. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

And? The USA Today quote you cited here does not state Sweeney's data is public data. You're only assuming that. ℛonherry☘ 16:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

NOTE CLOSELY the words used by the sources you cited: "a college student who uses flight data" (Rolling Stone) and "Sweeney uses publicly available data" (BBC). None of these sentences say Sweeney's data IS public data, they only say he USES them. FAA data IS public data indeed, and he USED them for his posts. None of these sentences from the reliable sources you cited state that the data published by Sweeney across his social media channels are public. ℛonherry☘ 12:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Those sentences clearly state the data is public. Seems like a major stretch to argue that "Ronherry uses public data" is not saying the data is public. I hear your opposition though. glman (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source that says it more plainly for you - [1]. "The information he shares is based on publicly available data" and "It includes data pieced together from a few different sources of publicly available information". I think it's due to include the sentence, perhaps tweaked from the original. Instead of "the data is public" we can use a more nuanced description of the data that reflects the truth: Sweeney uses a synthesis of public data. Not including this sourced info is not NPOV and is clearly preferring Swift's POV. glman (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, his data is "based" on public data. "It includes data pieced together from a few different sources of publicly available information", exactly, so the source never claims his data is public but that his sources are public. My point is, if you're going to include this factoid, then it should be simply "Sweeney used a synthesis of public data, such as FAA", with proper attribution and free of sensationalist and grandstanding words like "despite" and "although", otherwise do not include it at all; it's like you're making Wikipedia argue for Sweeney. My suggestion would be "In December 2023, Swift's lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to American programmer Jack Sweeney over tracking her private jet, alleging stalking and safety risks; media outlets have reported that the information posted by Sweeney is a synthesis of publicly available data." ℛonherry☘ 16:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

This is good with me. I only have an issue with removing this info entirely; as it currently stands the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, favoring Swift's POV. I do not have issues with your proposed text, @LegalSmeagolian thoughts? glman (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not see how it is "favoring" Swift's POV considering the sentence structure is strongly neutral: "In December 2023, [Swift's allegations]; [media saying Sweeney's sources are public]". There are no phrases/clauses in Wikipedia's voice that favors either of them. ℛonherry☘ 16:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, I meant not including the public side at all. Apologies for the misunderstanding. glman (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the way it is currently phrased in the article is fine - @Ronherry: what glman is saying is that not including any mention on how Sweenys data is based on easily accessible public information favors the swift pov, which is how it stands without your proposed language. You are welcome to use your proposed language, I don't object to it, I just think the current prose in the article conveys the same information in a briefer method. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay. As neither glman nor you object to the sentence structure I proposed above, I'll implement it. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 16:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me explain this to you with a simple analogy:

The FAA publishes the following thing: 2+2

Sweeney then does the calculation: 2+2=4 and posts it.

The data is the same it is just presented differently. It is public data and we should state as such. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

This is literally original research lol. There are no reliable sources supporting your theory. There are no sources that explicitly state Sweeney's data is publicly data. ℛonherry☘ 16:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not original research. As per my comment, where I include an additional source, these sources explicitly say his data is, at the very minimum, based on public data. glman (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Glad we agree that, to quote you, "his data is [...] based on public data". Your previous claims were that his data "is public data". Inspired by LegalSmeagolian's mathematical analogy, if the FAA data is variable A, Sweeney's data is variable B, and being public data is variable C, your claim is "A = C, therefore B = C", while the sources says "A = C and B is a function of A" but never state "A is C, B is a function of A, therefore B = C". Therefore, simply, any claim that Sweeney's data "is" public data is original research, as it is not supported by any reliable sources, or at the minimum, not explicitly stated by any reliable source. ℛonherry☘ 16:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense. This borders on the absurd. Ultranuevo (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Though I haven't commented previously, I have been "tracking" this discussion since it started. I agree with the wording inserted in this change [2] for the reasons others have identified above. Jessintime (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Years active

Could someone clarify how her career started in 2003 is listed in the infobox, even though her first album wasn't released until 2006? As an amateur editor, I am interested in understanding this discrepancy. Thank you. Newpicarchive (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Per the article history section, she began recording music in 2003, thus she was active beginning that year. glman (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence paragraph

Debate over best lead sentence paragraph, feel free to add options below:

• Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. Her reinventive artistry, distinctive songwriting and entrepreneurship have been widely publicized and influential. (as is)
• Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. Her reinventive artistry, distinctive songwriting and entrepreneurship have been widely publicized and influential to culture and politics.
• Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. Known for her reinventive artistry, distinctive songwriting, entrepreneurship, and widely publicized personal life, Swift is a prominent cultural and political influence, with a vast fanbase.

Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

They all contain puffery with words like "distinctive", and some of the piped links here are too Easter egg-y (e.g. "influential"). This version is fine and fully complies with the neutral point of view policy while properly conveying her influence. FrB.TG (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

How about this: Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter. A subject of widespread public interest with a vast fanbase, she has influenced the music industry, popular culture and politics through her artistry, songwriting, entrepreneurship, and advocacy. I believe it sounds better. Samuelloveslennonstella (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that does sound better. FrB.TG (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

"Draft:Taylor Swift" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Draft:Taylor Swift has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24 § Draft:Taylor Swift until a consensus is reached. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding re-releases to the lead

Should this be discussed in the lead? They are complete re-recordings and include new music, so should they be considered additional albums and given mention in the lead? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think saying that at the start is unnecessary because it's already mentioned in the history heading. But I'll let other more experienced editors than me to make that decision Tonkarooson (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The fact that she re-recorded four albums IS in the lead section, and MUST remain in the lead section. The fact is very widely discussed in the media, and is critically important to her career arc. Listing the four albums is much less important for the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Restructuring of the life and career section

Following the detailed structure of The Beatles' Wikipedia page, I think we can improve Swift's life and career section by adopting a similar "over-sectioning" approach. I was thinking of the following template:

1989–2000: Early life

2001–2013: Country period

Career beginnings and relocation to Tennessee

Breakthrough with debut album and Fearless

Experimentations with Speak Now and Red

2014–2019: Shift to pop and industry battles

First pop album with 1989

Media scrutiny and Reputation

Masters dispute and Lover

2020–present: Swiftmania

Pandemic ventures with Folklore and Evermore

Re-recordings process and Midnights

The Eras Tour and The Tortured Poets Department

Monsterofain (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I really like your suggestion for grouping together the smaller segments of her career, and agree that a little reorganization would be beneficial—in particular, the way Lover/the masters dispute and Folklore/Evermore are currently lumped into a single section seems odd and would be easy to split into two parts. However, I think that having the shorter timeframes leading the headers is actually really helpful for quickly finding what someone is looking for, so imo it’s worth keeping that header style.

I would suggest the following—a little less drastic and keeping the existing style of section headers but incorporating your larger categories and slightly reorganizing 2018-present:

1989–2000: Early life

2001–2013: Country period

2004-2008: Career beginnings and first album

2008-2010: Fearless

2010-2014: Speak Now and Red

2014–2019: Shift to pop and industry battles

2014-2018: 1989 and Reputation

2018-2020: Lover and UMG Masters Dispute

2020-present: Swiftmania

2020: Folklore and Evermore

2021-2023: Re-recordings and Midnights

2023-present: Eras Tour and The Tortured Poets Department

—Trellbailey (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Excuse my, but why the wikipedia page of Taylor Swift isn't Extended Protected unlike some other artists' page on Wikipedia? Anonymous Unregistered Guy (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Portrait Update

Can we replace the current image (in which Swift's head is tilted) by another image. Redmyname31 (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

What does "enhanced" mean? glman (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Upscaled version Redmyname31 (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Singer-songwriter AND Musician

I observed that in the infobox about occupations list, it states that she is a Singer-Songwriter and a Musician. Are these two roles not synonymous? Additionally, I have noticed that it is uncommon for Singer-Songwriters and Musicians to be listed separately on the encyclopedia pages of her colleagues, as they are typically referred to simply as Singer-Songwriters. ShakiraFandom (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Personal life missing

Why is this section missing? What time it is (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

The two abbreviations should be used in all instances. Readers don't require that much spoonfeeding. KyleJoan^talk 01:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Gsgdd: see this discussion. Ippantekina (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

@ShakiraFandom: please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ippantekina (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

There is Swifties. Cwater1 (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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^talk 06:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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^talk 10:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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^talk 13:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 ^talk 18:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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^talk 01:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC) copyedited on 01:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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^talk 01:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Even the Beatles don't have Beatlemania in the first paragraph of the lead. Toa Nidhiki05 05:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@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)

I think it's undue for the lead here, yes. Toa Nidhiki05 17:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

(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)

"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)

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)

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)

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^talk 08:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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^talk 09:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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^talk 12:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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^talk 12:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yeah I'm asking because there was previously a vote-based RfC, which has been removed. Ippantekina (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't vote based, it was WP:CONSENSUS based. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Check the talk page history. Ippantekina (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

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^talk 03:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think the lead is fine. Cwater1 (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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^talk 00:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

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^talk 20:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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^talk 23:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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^talk 07:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Notes

Reverted change on correct information

In the last week, one of my changes was on her instruments list. It was incorrectly stated that she can play a banjo, which is incorrect information. What she plays is a six-string banjo guitar, which in short, is not a banjo. This correction was reverted sometime ago due to being "superfluous", however, it really is not superfluous because it's incorrect otherwise.

Some more reasons to consider changing it indefinitely. In other words, why it is not a banjo:

A banjo has 5 strings, 4 main strings and one cut in half. It's tuning us gDGBD. It uses 3 fingerpicks and has Scruggs Style or clawhammer. Taylor Swift's instrument has 6 strings, none cut in half. It's tuning is EADGBe. She uses a guitar pick and strums it like a guitar. In short, this is a six-string banjo and I believe it should be permanently corrected.

Also, this change may need to be reviewed on other Taylor Swift Wikipedia pages. Auser468 (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

RFC for the lead sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing early as moot and/or misleading. No one is suggesting the lede sentence should contain such information as described, and as far as I can tell it never actually has. Better to close this early than to waste everyone's time. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

---

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)

No as proposer. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Not in the first sentence, fine in the lead. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Considering MOS:FIRST which says "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." this should not be in the first sentence. Dobblesteintalk 22:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely list all of these in the lede (maybe even the first paragraph), though the very first sentence seems a bit bloated for this sort of info. Unnamed anon (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

No. This information appears in the lead section, which is fine, but I don't think we need to micromanage the article to say that it has to go in the first sentence or even the first paragraph. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• No: Unnecessary in the first sentence and not what she is known for. Information like this belongs further down in the lead. Even Elon Musk does not mention that he is a billionaire until the third sentence. C F A 💬 22:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• I find OP's phrasing very misleading. They say "the lead sentence" when it always has been only "Taylor Alison Swift (born December 13, 1989) is an American singer-songwriter." OP's problem was the lead paragraph (second sentence to be precise) mentioning her billionaire status. FrB.TG (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about {{POV lead}}

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

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)

Do you believe the current lead section looks comparable to how it did seven years ago during the article's FA promotion? KyleJoan^talk 07:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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^talk 23:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• No, as per the above cited reasons. ℛonherry☘ 20:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2024

In the 2023 - 2024 section, it says that The Tortured Poets Department stayed atop the Billboard 200 for 13 weeks; we should change that to 14 nonconsecutive weeks as it has been updated by Billboard. Bellsisatollin (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done CloakedFerret (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Swift's family

I don't think this article does enough justice to Taylor Swift's family. As I know Taylor's mother being diagnosed with cancer had a profound impact on her life and career and there is nothing about it. JustElf13 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2024

change "was" to is" in the first sentence, she's still alive :sob: 2600:1702:5082:C60F:DC63:96E:18E6:1570 (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done The vandalism was reverted. Gawaon (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Forthcoming FAR

I intend to nominate this article for FAR soon for neutrality and stability issues. No consensus was reached in any of the discussions about the lead's neutrality–users almost unanimously agreed that the page should not include a {{POV lead}} maintenance template but did not conclude that the page does not suffer from the issue the tag raises. An egregious WP:BLP violation remained in the body for over a year.[3][4]. The article has more than doubled in size.[5][6] Its two primary authors only began editing it after the FA promotion.[7] Two distinct edit wars just this year. The (understandable) difficulty in maintaining FA quality due to Swift's stardom (and sources' continual, voluminous coverage) alone is enough to warrant a review. KyleJoan^talk 03:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Examples of other BLP vios

• "Reviews of Swift's later albums were more appreciative of her vocals" is improperly synthesized from three individual reviews and five critics from one publication
• "Critics have highlighted Swift's versatility as an entertainer" is improperly synthesized because neither of the two sources cited (one being an individual review) wholly supports this
• "Critics regard Swift as a rare yet successful combination" is improperly sourced with one transcript documenting a host and a critic suggesting this
• "According to publications, Swift changed the music landscape ... and her ability to popularize" is improperly synthesized, as each part of this claim is supported by one source
• "Journalists [note] how her actions ... reshaped ticketing models" is improperly sourced with only one source suggesting this

KyleJoan^talk 04:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: have any of these been addressed? If not, it might be time to go to FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: I believe some claims have been reconstructed or removed, but these were only examples. I'm sure there are more. I'm now unsure about the FAR. There doesn't appear to be enough interest from this article's watchers to discuss its quality. The gold star is there. That seems to matter more. Not to mention that the article's nominator is an FA coordinator. Seems like a losing battle. KyleJoan^talk 04:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Forthcoming TFA

Hello. Already five years since Swift's first TFA appearance. What do you think about the article getting a second TFA appearance this coming Dec. 13, 2024, her 35th birthday? ScarletViolet tc 13:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a good idea for now. The article's quality is currently being discussed (see above sections), and an FAR might be underway. I've been working, albeit rather slowly, my way through the article, looking for problematic and unsupported claims. If there's a consensus among editors that its quality meets the FA standards, then it can surely be considered for TFA but I don't see that happening right now. FrB.TG (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: This is noted. Will just remove the nom from the TFAP page. ScarletViolet tc 06:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

"Occupations" list

"producer" seems a bit vague. Shouldn't it be specifically "record producer", since she's known for producing music than television and/or film? Kamo0606 (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done I think this is fair. All the categories she's listed under at the bottom of the page mention 'record producer' specifically.

Aurangzebra (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2024

Change “history greatest” to “history’s greatest” 107.198.31.212 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Not by me, but I don't see an error. Thwaluigi (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2024

To add her best friend 35.148.22.168 (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2024

The awards & accolades section should be updated to reflect her recent Video of the Year award for Fornight and a more specific ACM accolade to mirror the other categories

The second sentence reads: She has won 14 Grammy Awards (including four for Album of the Year—the most won by an artist),[382] an Emmy Award,[383] 40 American Music Awards (the most won by an artist),[384] 39 Billboard Music Awards (the most won by an artist—tying with Drake),[385] 118 Guinness World Records,[386] 23 MTV Video Music Awards (including four Video of the Year wins—the most by an act),[209] 12 Country Music Association Awards (including the Pinnacle Award),[387] eight Academy of Country Music Awards,[388] and two Brit Awards.

It should read: She has won 14 Grammy Awards (including four for Album of the Year—the most won by an artist),[382] an Emmy Award,[383] 40 American Music Awards (the most won by an artist),[384] 39 Billboard Music Awards (the most won by an artist—tying with Drake),[385] 118 Guinness World Records,[386] 23 MTV Video Music Awards (including five Video of the Year wins—the most by an act),[209] 12 Country Music Association Awards (including the Pinnacle Award),[387] eight Academy of Country Music Awards (including a two Entertainer of the Year wins),[388] and two Brit Awards.

Source for VMA Awards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTV_Video_Music_Award_for_Video_of_the_Year#cite_note-59

Source for ACM Awards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Country_Music_Awards

Also, the Guinness World Records number is likely outdated because it references a table that hasn't been updated since 2023. Jordanstev (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)