Talk:Cultural impact of Taylor Swift

Welcome note
I plan on to rapidly expand this article in the upcoming days, which includes expanding the current prose from a condensed state to a detailed state, and also add new material from recently published media articles. Contributions of any kind from editors are highly appreciated. Thanks.  ℛonherry  ☘  08:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Topics
Listing topics here that should be covered in the article. Any suggestions?  ℛonherry  ☘  05:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fashion trends
 * Object of mythology
 * Touring and ticketing
 * Economic power

Update! Struck out what's covered and added a new one.  ℛonherry  ☘  17:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fashion trends
 * Touring and ticketing
 * Mental health
 * Mental health
 * Mental health


 * Update-3: Ticketing section is done. I'm planning to add Fashion trends and Mental Health now. Once that's done, I'm gonna go through the entire article, reduce the article size by making trims/tweaks wherever necessary, and reassess all the citations.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Update-4: The article now covers all the relevant topics. We can begin tweaking, trimming, and formatting the prose.  ℛonherry  ☘  09:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please consider writing impartially. This is obviously written by a starstruck fan. 24.157.167.226 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate sources
There are same URLs in the article that have been cited multiple times in separate citations. The duplicates must be weeded out, and replaced with the same citation.  ℛonherry  ☘  08:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for creating this page. It looks decent and to move forward, I have a few suggestions. I see that this article still relies vastly on online newspapers/magazines, which is... okay, but compared to i.e. Michael Jackson, using scholarly, peer-reviewed sources is much more preferable. Lightweight online newspapers are hardly that reliable for an article that is potentially serious and important. For example, the claim "Journalists have highlighted the intense misogyny and slut-shaming to which Swift's life and career have been subject." is sourced by The Cut and Elle, which are... fashion magazines? Having that claim backed up by an expert journal would make the claim more substantial and significant. Ippantekina (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware. Everything in the article is covered by Rolling Stone, The Guardian, Billboard and Time, but there's gotta be some variety in sources and hence other magazines are used. If you got some peer reviewed journals to cite in a topic, then go ahead and cite them.  ℛonherry  ☘  06:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, just to let you know, I used/am using Cultural impact of Madonna as reference to structure/format Swift's article, as they're both female artists with similar impact/critical commentary. Jackson generally received much coverage from peer reviewed journals posthumously.  ℛonherry  ☘  06:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Taylor Swift performing "Look What You Made Me Do" on The Eras Tour (Tampa, FL - Raymond Jaymes Stadium - April 2023).jpg

Help on editing Cultural impact of Beyoncé page.
Hi! I am absolutely impressed with all of our work on this page. This page documents Taylor Swift's cultural impact very thoughtfully with absolutely powerful collection of information and I love everything about how the content was written and organized and lots of hard work was put into finishing this page (would love to nominate this page to be promoted to GA or FA status one day though). However, would anyone who are experts of Beyoncé or experienced writer in documenting cultural impact of artists help me edit and expand this newly created Cultural impact of Beyoncé page? I need as much help as possible and I would appreciate if you can help. Thank you! RegularboyA (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi! I would love to help you with that! I can see you have added some information in that article's body. I suggest you continue to do so. I will check out the article whenever I can and help you expand, condense, organize and clean-up. Good luck!  ℛonherry  ☘  15:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

"chart history"
Hi. It would be nice if you could discuss drastic edits out here before making it. The section you recently edited is about how journalists consider Swift as a "dominant" force on the charts, and as such, I added critical commentary with attribution on a chronological basis. The section should not just simply list her unique achievements (the biography already does it), but rather explain what the journalists are saying about the success and how it changed over time and why. Yes, articles must be concise, but this article is already quite concise with a lot of superfluous/trivial material removed already. To compose/structure this article, cues were taken from Cultural impact of Madonna, Cultural impact of the Beatles, and Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. I'm aware they're not FAs, but as horizontal topics, I used them as precedents in structuring Swift's article. I believe your approach in your last edit is very "song article" based, where it would be necessary to skip attributions and trim critic's "thoughts" and fused multiple critics' comments to a single sentence to make the article tight, but this is not a song article. Extreme paraphrasing leads to misleading, and diverges from the original statements in the source. For eg., none of the critics said Swift has had "considerable" success, yet you used that word to tone down the adjective I figure? "unrivaled"/"unmatched" and "considerable" are different words and I think it's important to be faithful to the sources.  ℛonherry  ☘  12:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I understand your points, but I deem it's best to not treat this article as a miscellaneous listicle of information but make it cohesive and thematic to a certain extent. I condensed the journalists' opinions to avoid "A said, B said" (WP:RECEPTION). My paraphrasing is not to one down the adjectives but to adhere to WP:NPOV. I know the media described Swift's success as "unrivaled" or "unmatched" but we should write in an encyclopedic tone (WP:PEACOCK) and such adjectives are suitable for lightweight journalism and not an encyclopedia. I get your point that we are using sources from mainstream publications but as editors we should avoid copy-and-paste directly from what they say without critical examination. I believe we are more than just copy-and-pasters, we're editors after all. Ippantekina (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:PEACOCK should be followed indeed, but it applies for unattributed information, and it does not require us editors to change the point of the critic either. I believe unique points and the variety of views presented by journalists should be attributed and quoted/paraphrased without changing the meaning. It's impossible to try to heavily minimize quotes and faithfulness to sources in an article purely based on critical commentary. A lot of reference points are lost in the process. I believe condensation is possible to an extent, when critics make very similar points. But I do not believe in merging two different statements that do not make the same point but are fused just because they are remotely similar or because they are talking about the same topic.  ℛonherry  ☘  05:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Taylor Sheesh
I am way too lazy to find where this goes in the article but maybe someone can talk about Taylor Sheesh and the frenzy over Swift in the Philippines Elttaruuu (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Rolling Stone and few other reliable sites seem to have covered Taylor Sheesh. She can be given a mention in the Fandom dynamics section I guess.  ℛonherry  ☘  12:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And thanks for cleaning up her article Elttaruuu (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, I noticed there is not a Tagalog article for Taylor Sheesh. If you are interested, you can create a Tagalog article of Sheesh using the Wiki Translate Article feature as Sheesh seems to have received much coverage in the Tagalog media.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * g foryou 2804:7560:2102:F4D0:7002:F3AB:C253:2A9E (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Split "Swifties" as a new article.
I am thinking of splitting off the Fandom dynamics section as from this article and adding it to a new "Swifties" article. Swifties have achieved arguably the biggest journalistic and academic coverage of all fandoms due to their size, support, controversies and other activities. Can refer List of fandom names to see which fandoms already have an article.  ℛonherry  ☘  13:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Notable to include her appearances at NFL games?
I know we can't confirm the info about Travis Kelce, but would this article be notable to mention? Excerpt: "Not only has it driven up ratings, but it has also led to a spike in game ticket prices, jersey sales and more" (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/nfl-defends-social-media-spotlight-taylor-swift-travis-kelce-backlash-1235609086/). Just a thought! Thanks 136.32.149.125 (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Impact on NFL
Recent study found that she has brought $331M in brand value to the Chiefs and NFL:
 * https://themessenger.com/sports/taylor-swift-generated-331-5-million-chiefs-nfl
 * https://www.marca.com/en/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/2024/01/27/65b55224e2704e3ab38b458d.html

Some other articles on NFL impact:
 * https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/taylor-swift-boosts-nfl-sunday-ratings-most-watched-telecast-week-24-3-million-viewers-1235735230/
 * https://www.wsj.com/business/media/nfl-posts-highest-regular-season-tv-ratings-since-2015-1817bd5f (archived here)
 * https://usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/01/21/nfl-taylor-swift-not-ruining-football-travis-kelce/72269943007/
 * https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/27/entertainment/taylor-swift-nfl-games/index.html

— Peterpie123rww (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Peterpie123rww you can add it as a new section and remove those from the public image, cuz her impact dosent belong there. Yotrages (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The following was reverted by with the claim it was already in the article. It was not. This person said "Cross-cultural impact" was where it belonged. I had no idea where it belonged but the media section seemed closest. I do agree now that she has not impacted "sports" but what else was I going to call it?


 * Swift's impact on American football includes $331.5 million in increased brand value for the National Football League and the Kansas City Chiefs, according to Apex Marketing. She is credited with a 20 percent increase in sponsorships for the 2023 season, resulting in $2.35 billion in revenue, 15 percent more than the previous season. Viewership of NFL games increased 53 percent among teenage girls, 24 percent among persons 18 to 24, and 7 percent overall.


 * — Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm getting sick and tired of reverting my actions. First this person claims the information I added was already in the article, which it was not. Now this person claims the information is in another article. When a revert is done, this revert must be clearly explained and it has not been. This person also had the chance to object here but did not, so I acted.


 * And the information belongs here, not under Public image of Taylor Swift.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * How does this information not belong in the Public image of Taylor Swift exactly? "Viewership" is the measure of people viewing the games and Swift via television. This article does not discuss Swift's impact on any television programs. Whereas, the "Press and television coverage" section of Public image discusses Swift's impact on not just televised sports programs, but also other reality shows and news. The Public image article was split from the Cultural impact article in order to decongest the latter. Please understand how the information is sorted between the two. Regards.  ℛonherry  ☘  20:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing the effect of Swift on viewership and popularity as "impact" not "public image". it just doesn't feel right to me there in the other place. Furthermore "Taylor Swift effect" redirects to this article, not that one. The term "Taylor Swift effect" was used in an entire newspaper section devoted to Swift that became available on newspapers.com fairly recently.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added a few details from my source to the other article. Not that I agree there is where it belongs, but now it is with the same type information.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * My apologies to . I assumed using the template with this person's name was enough to notify of my desire to discuss.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  23:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, using the template is enough to notify me. For example, I got notified now from your latest response here. I do not know why the template did not work previously. Nevermind.
 * Coming to the topic, you've absolutely misunderstood these articles. Nobody said her public image is not part of her impact. I do not know if you've checked these articles' history, but Public Image was a section under Cultural Impact, before the section became large and had warranted its own article. Placing viewership under the Public Image article does not mean it's not part of her Impact. It simply means it's placed closely to the other related topics. Kelce, football, the NFL brand, viewership, television, media are all related. Hence, these information are all placed together in Public Image. In order to represent this aspect in the Cultural Impact article, it is all simply condensed as something like "media featuring Swift experience viewership boosts", as football isn't the only thing that has benefited from Swift. I hope you get my point.  ℛonherry  ☘  18:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand what was done, but I still see everything under "image" as "impact". I just have to accept what was done.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality
This article reads more like a Swiftie’s fanzine than an actual encyclopedic and neutral article. Perspectives critical of Swift are missing. The claim that she is the “most culturally significant artist of the 21st century” is unsubstantiated, and is a claim that is very difficult to prove. Other artists have been nominated for this as well, such as Kanye West and Amy Winehouse. Sprucecopse (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For perspective critical of Swift, check her public image. and you're wrong if you think her being the “most culturally significant artist of the 21st century” isn't correct, cuz that means you didn't read the article. Read the article, and you'll see she's even regarded more than that. Yotrages (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The POV template should not be removed until a consensus has been reached. Furthermore, the article is not written in a neutral tone. The claim that “[Swift not being the most influential artist of the 21 century] isn't correct, cuz that means you didn't read the article” isn’t a valid argument. Again, the title of “most influential” is vague and it can be argued that several other artists are considerably more influential than Swift. One such example is Beyoncé. No offense, but just from your style of writing, you’ve just shown bias toward Swift. Cultural impact largely is a matter of opinion, not of fact; this should be more evident throughout this article.
 * Sprucecopse (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hahaha funny enough you think Beyoncé has more influence, when I've been trimming and shaping her impact page with little to no citations. None of those outlets described Bey as most influential. But for Swift, I hope this can quench your thirst. Example; There are many more in the article if you read. I think you should check out WP:LEAD to know more about how a lead section is written on Wikipedia. Thanks. Yotrages (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, please stop removing the POV template, it is common courtesy for it to remain until the dispute is settled. I'd also appreciate it if you could tone down the arrogance a bit, it makes it considerably less annoying to discuss the matter.
 * Most of the sources you list are opinion pieces. I wouldn't call a source referring to Swift as "America’s most important musician" or "At tea time, everybody agrees: It’s Taylor Swift’s world and we’re all just living in it." particularly neutral. Another source you mentioned is a student newspaper. But most importantly, none have referred to her as the most significant artist of the 21st century. But get this, it would be okay to use some of these biased sources, as long as they are balanced with a disagreeing source! But so far I haven't seen that in this article.
 * You've missed my point entirely, it's great that multiple sources list her as "the most significant of the 21st century", but so do countless others for other artists. Here are two sources that list Kanye West as the most influential/important musician of the century, and of this decade:, , . Even "your own" article states that Beyoncé is by some considered to be "the most influential artist of the 21st century." My point is that it is a claim that is easy to make but difficult to prove. It's fine to include it, but it should be provided with nuance.
 * But that is just a small detail. Overall I think this article could use some work, at times I believe the article borders on and oversteps into WP:TOOMUCH, there are in my opinion too many quotes in sections like "Social media presence" and "American symbol". Also, and this is just personal opinion, but I find excerpts like "Kyle Chayka of The New Yorker felt Swift is a heroic figure like Napoleon and Julius Caesar, all of whom are "agents of the world-spirit" and symbolic of their respective periods in time" to be absolutely ridiculous.
 * Sprucecopse (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I also continue to stand by my claim that the article isn't neutral. It's written like a fanzine, not an encyclopedic article. It is very evident that this article was authored by Swifties, or fans of Swift. Sprucecopse (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay since you didn't read those article, I'll summarize it for you. News.com.au described Swift as "the most culturally significant person ever" and it's not an opinion piece. Time called her "the most important American artist", Newsweek said she has dominated "The cultural zeitgeist more than any artist in history", MSNBC columnist deemed her "the most influential U.S. cultural icon", State Times wrote she's "the most influential artist of her generation", and Jeff Yang called her "The most influential musician" in an opinion piece which is reliable per Reliable sources/Perennial. There isn't an article where Beyoncé was regarded anything like that, it's her fans that are entering those contents not me. So those are evidence of Swift been called "the most influential", so deal with it or you're just a hater who wants to find fault in what doesn't have one. And if you're enraged about The New Yorker's article that's your problem, not Wikipedia's. Cuz it's a written article by the outlet, and you can't control what they write. goodbye and Thank you. Yotrages (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, above, Yotrages has highlighted some of the sources in the article that support the sentence disputed by Sprucecopse. A number of journalists and publications do feel that Swift is the most culturally significant artist of the century, and that is summarised as such in the lead image's footnote. I don't see the issue. Do we need add a NoteTag in the footnote, that, in turn, contains all the citations from the body to show to which sources the statement is attributed to, ?  ℛonherry  ☘  14:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really. From your comments, it's quite evident that you don't personally agree with the cited sources. You cannot let your personal opinions from warping the due weightage and neutrality of the article. It cannot be "I do not agree with this critic, therefore this statement shouldn't be included". That's not how it should work. Moving on, can you get into the specifics? You claim the whole article needs work. Can you please list all the parts of the article body you have issues with? Because that's the only way we can work together on each and every single line that you find non-neutral. We can individually address all the "disputed" prose, case by case. So far, you've only quoted the footnote of the lead image, and the lead does not require citations, if they are already in the article body.  ℛonherry  ☘  14:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you have brought up very valid points, I am certainly not impartial in this instance as I am personally no fan of Swift. But I think that the input of non-fans is valuable, as it can contribute to the article maintaining neutrality. If we begin at the first section (Fame and Stardom), it feels clunky to read. Listing the ten different albums by name and their release dates, though relevant, is not necessary in my opinion. A sentence such as "She has released 10 studio albums—Taylor Swift (2006), Fearless (2008), Speak Now (2010), Red (2012), 1989 (2014), Reputation (2017), Lover (2019), Folklore (2020), Evermore (2020), and Midnights (2022); and four re-recorded albums—Fearless (Taylor's Version) and Red (Taylor's Version) (2021), and Speak Now (Taylor's Version) and 1989 (Taylor's Version) (2023)." can be shortened to "She has released a total 10 studio albums, starting in 2006 with an eponymous album and subsequently releasing albums throughout the late 2000s and 2010s."
 * The following paragraph cites both articles in regular text as well as in brackets, the brackets are unnecessary here, the source is already specified in the footnote itself, if it is deemed relevant to include the sources, then they should flow with the text, i.e. instead of "Other descriptions of Swift include "pop megastar at celestial echelons" (Elle), and "the world's greatest female leader" (Fortune)." should in my opinion be "Magazines Elle and Fortune have similarly described Swift as 'pop megastar at celestial echelons' and 'the world's greatest female leader'".
 * The "Cultural omnipresence" part, and indeed the entire article, at times feels superfluous in its use of adoring descriptions of Swift. Such is the case with the paragraph "Within celebrity culture, Swift's music, life, and image are points of attention. Swift became a teen idol upon the release of her eponymous debut studio album in 2006, and has since become a dominant figure in popular culture, often referred to as a pop icon or diva. Gayle Pamerleau of the University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg credited globalization for Swift's fame and called her a social contagion benefitting "from existing in a time of 24-hour, global connectedness, when everybody knows what everyone else is thinking and doing." The Ringer's Kate Knibbs called Swift inescapable as her music saturates "deep into the tissue of contemporary public life whether we like it or not." Hence, Swift's career choices result in reforms in the music industry. In a 2016 article, Billboard opined that despite having had only a decade-old career, Swift had shown an "undeniable" cultural impact." Do we really need the Kate Knibbs quote? The Gayle Pamerleau quote already drives home the point.
 * Similarly, part of this paragraph "...The Guardian named her the most powerful woman in U.K. media. Media outlets noted that she reached a new zenith of fame in 2023, with Glamour saying she "has officially taken over every aspect of popular culture." Describing a critical consensus, writer Jeff Yang said Swift is "increasingly being spoken about as an economic force of nature, a transformative creator advocate, organizer and innovator and arguably the most influential and even the most powerful figure in the music industry." Bloomberg columnist, Timothy L. O'Brien said Swift embodies a rare "cultural presence and moment", that inhabits her unique place in the world, which attached a lot of weirdness to her." is somewhat superfluous throughout. The generous inclusion of quotes makes this appear more like an argumentative text rather than a descriptive one, you don't need to convince readers to be awe-struck by Swift.
 * I understand that this is about her cultural impact, so there won't be a lot of criticism against Swift, but I think that several sections of this article need work, because to me at least, right now, it's very obvious that it is fans of Swift who write this article and as such it is naturally going to be more difficult to maintain an informative yet balanced text, without going overboard and including every single praise this artist has received from newspapers and journalists.
 * Sprucecopse (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, before I even address your pointers about the article, to assume that "fans of Swift" have edited this article to make it inherently "fanzine"-like is assuming WP:BADFAITH. You are allowed to think the article needs work or to dispute its neutrality, but saying "it's very obvious that it is fans of Swift" is not an acceptable criticism, because what do you want an editor to do in response to that? Prove to you that they're not fans by showing you their Spotify? So yeah, let's just stick to the dispute nature of the article rather than making personal comments that are not helping the article. Comment on the content, not the contributors, preferably.
 * Moving on to your points, I do agree with the first two (the one about the albums being stacked like that and the other about the brackets being unnecessary). The third, however, I disagree. I do not think Knibbs makes the same point as Pamerlau. Pamerlau is a professor talking about social contagion while Knibbs is a journalist making a cultural comment. Two different perspectives and interpretations of Swift's stardom, I'd say. That's the thing with cultural commentary. You can attempt to fuse an opinion or two when they're similar. If you read the article history, you'd see me reverting/trimming additions of fancruft or even cultural commentary that are very similar to the ones already existing in the article. I do not want repetitive prose either. However, cultural commentary in itself is argumentative, where subject experts place opposing or parallel arguments.
 * I agree with your opinion on the Bloomberg line. I don't know when it was added, but I also find it superfluous. But the rest of the paragraph, I think, make different, important points. Especially Jeff Yang. He's an author in his own right and he's providing meta-commentary. We get lots of commentary from individual critics, but it's rare to find a critical consensus on Swift. I would strongly disagree with removing it. Maybe paraphrase? But I do not know a better way to paraphrase it, his phrasing seems to be simple and crisp. And about your concern over excessive quoting, yeah, I believe we can reduce some quotes and paraphrase them wherever possible. But I'd prefer to leave some quotes be quotes, depending on the point they're making. We would not want to paraphrase content so much that it diverts from the original comment.
 * Also, I would like to let you know that what remains in this article is mostly the commentary on her fame, success, and analyses of her business/industry moves; much of the commentary critical of Swift had to do with her public image and have since been moved to Public image of Taylor Swift, which was split off from the Cultural Impact article not very long ago.
 * The points that you raised that were agreeable between us, I'd edit the article now to implement them, if that's not a problem. Regards.  ℛonherry  ☘  18:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and implement them whenever you feel like it. The "name and brand" section could also be cleaned up, "The Ringer" and Abdelmahmoud make virtually the same point, though the former's description is more vague in my opinion. I favor Carolyn Sloan's quote over that of "The Ringer". Additionally "Music publisher Matt Pincus called Swift "an intellectual property franchise" like the DC Extended Universe, while Fortune compared her to the Marvel Cinematic Universe" could be shortened to "She has been compared to both the fictional universes of DC Comics and Marvel, on the part of Matt Pincus and Fortune, respectively."
 * In "Social media presence", the sentence "...placing first in Brandwatch's rankings in 2018, 2019, and 2021." can be shortened to "...placing first in several Brandwatch's annual rankings." and adding a clarifying note specifying years. To my knowledge any redlinks (Brittany Spanos) should be italicized or not linked at all. "Brandwatch and Cision called Swift..." Brandwatch is owned by Cision, it's superflous, unless they have mentioned her before Brandwatch was acquired by Cision.
 * In "Industry and economy" a comparison of her to an entire country's economy has already been mentioned before, in name and brand "According to Internet survey company QuestionPro, "If Taylor Swift were an economy, she'd be bigger than 50 countries; if she was a corporation, her net promoter score would make her the fourth most admired brand."


 * As we both agree on, there is still an all too generous amount of quotes throughout the article. Additionally I personally find the "Challenging industry norms" section to be quite hearty, I thought it was well known by now that her wealthy father is what allowed her to "challenge" industry norms, but the section is well sourced so it's not a problem.


 * I don't want to be petty because I think that it is frankly a waste of time, but I just want to express my disagreement with your first point, I think that the phrasing of many sentences makes it to my eyes, at the very least plausible that it's mostly "Swifties" who've written the article. Pointing that out is not a personal attack, at least that's not how it's meant on my part. I felt that it was necessary to acknowledge it since it will be more difficult to write a wholly neutral article if that is the case. I'm glad we can agree on some points, though. Sprucecopse (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The points you make in the first three paragraphs are reasonable and should be implemented.
 * In the fourth one, however, the thing about the "wealthy father" borders on WP:BLPVIO. As we seem to deviating away from Wikipedia content and onto personal-comments-on-subject territory, I would like to explain to you that, according to all sources, her father bought a 3% stake of a newly established record label in 2005. Swift was the label's first artist. How does that have anything to do with how Swift reformed streaming flash forward 15 years later? Swift did not go to college. But if she, she would have did so with her parents' money, just like you would have. It's an established facts about humans, that we all get help from out parents till a certain age. Swift was a child (16yo) when she got the record deal. Therefore, please abstain from making unfounded synthesis. Moreover, her father buying a minor stake is already included in her biography article. His father is irrelevant in the article discussing her cultural impact, considering sources that discuss her cultural impact do not discuss her father either. As you've told me you care deeply about the neutrality of this article and how Swift fans could affect it, I would really like to believe you're a neutral editor and not a "Taylor Swift hater" in disguise, which would also not be preferable for this article's improvement.
 * I would like to make the changes that we had agreed on, now. Regards.  ℛonherry  ☘  06:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "how Swift fans like me could affect it"? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I really do not appreciate your WP:HOUNDING. Please quit making comments on me and make comments on the content, rather.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Its clearly a comment about the content of what you wrote. You seem to think that its appropriate to speculate that someone is a Taylor Swift hater, but your argument is that of a Swiftie... Not a neutral editor. Don't you see the problems with your argument? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I will not give in to your provoking comments. I have made a notice of this on your talk page. That is all I'll say to you here.  ℛonherry  ☘  17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate if you kept the discussion of disputed neutrality to this page, please do not continue this discussion on my talk page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion of neutrality has always been on this page, like, you know, how me and Sprucecopse have been talking and agreed on some points, before you popped up to hound on me in this discussion from a different discussion. You were notified on your talk page regarding your hounding activity on Wikipedia. An article talk page is not the right place to have a discussion about that. This discussion will be about neutrality of this article, while the one on your talk page will about your hounding. But you've threatened me to stop replying to your replies further. Looks like you do not want to have an one-one-one conversation about your personal comments. Okay. But I won't be replying to you in this talk page either. I'll continue to work with Spruce on the matter.  ℛonherry  ☘  17:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It was a passing comment, my personal opinion. If I wasn't clear, I'll rephrase it, it won't be mentioned in the article, it is my personal opinion. I don't mean this in a snarky way, I mean it constructively; neither you nor me are neutral editors. I am personally no fan of Swift, you, to my understanding, are. Together we can create a more neutral article. It is just as important for a "fan" as for a "hater" to mind their respective biases. Just as a "fan" can overlook and negate the negative or lukewarm details of a celebrity, a "hater" can overemphasize negative details and overlook the positive. It is always good to keep this in mind.
 * I think we have gotten quite far in making this article more neutral. I'll recommend more possible edits when I find the time.
 * Sprucecopse (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Other artists nominated for that description does not negate the fact that Swift is described as such. There are over 15 different sources opening that Swift is the most culturally important artist of the century. These things are not facts, they are subjective opinions. I don't believe there is a neutrality issue here since the criticisms against Swift have also been mentioned throughout the article.  ℛonherry  ☘  14:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, there is clear WP:ATTRIBUTION. The article does not claim Swift is the most culturally significant artist, it only claims many critics and publication regard her as such.  ℛonherry  ☘  14:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed that there are serious NPOV issues with the article, some parts are comically promotional. It looks like its primarily been created by fans rather than objective editors. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Horse Eye's Back Is there a sin in being a Swift's fan? or did Wikipedia have a law against it? cuz I can't quite figure out why you're trolling or should I say picking on @Ronherry. The article follows WP:NPOV, and if you check the article's history, you'll see Ronherry trimming and tighting the article. You said there are promotional contents in the article... I will like you to point them out, cuz you're changing the lead image quote, which serves as a summary of the article. Also in my opinion you're not that objective editor you're talking about, cuz from your comments i can clearly see you have something against Swift. Madonna fans created Cultural impact of Madonna, Elvis fans did the same thing, Beyoncé fans aren't excluded. Do you expect Whitney Houston's fans to create this page? NO!! Cuz they know nothing or clearly doesn't care about Swift's impact. @Sprucecopse saying her wealthy father is what allowed her to "challenge" industry norms isn't really neutral. That shows your negativity towards her, if you wanna discuss that I'm free. I'll definitely tell you everything about her, but crediting her success on her father, isn't what a good editor will say. Yotrages (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What in my comments makes you think that I have something against Swift? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm really not interested in arguing about a celebrity I'm not particularly fond of to begin with. Good faith refers to editors, not faith in curated stories courtesy of celebrities. Sprucecopse (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hounding Ronherry for shaping, trimming and creating Swift related articles, says a lot. Yotrages (talk) 7:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the NPOV concerns above. The whole article reads like it's written from a fan's POV, so I've added the template to the article. Some1 (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would dispute your neutrality, considering you hounded off to here from a discussion in the talk page of a different article about Swift. Not to mention that, you and another certain editor in this very discussion congratulated each other in making a "joke" about me, in a yet another discussion in a different talk page., which was also a topic on Swift. The connections are uncanny. The fact that you've appeared in this discussion as well, I suspect bias against me and the topic itself.  ℛonherry  ☘  06:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am of a mind with the above editors. 137.119.135.138 (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Image Caption: "Myriad publications and academics regard Taylor Swift as the most culturally significant music artist of the 21st century."
where are you seeing support for this statement? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 et cetera. There are more in the body, but I'll stop with these here. I'm going to restore the caption along with all these sources in a footnote. Regards.  ℛonherry  ☘  06:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If more is needed, e.t.c. Yotrages (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Number 1 is an opinion piece in the Guardian, which does not support that statement... It actually refutes it saying "Of recent artists, only Drake, Kanye West and Beyoncé have really had the level of long-ongoing cultural vitality as Swift," which doesn't place Swift above the other three nor does it say 21st century anywhere. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , "Billboard’s Greatest Pop Stars of 2023: No. 1 — Taylor Swift". 2023 is hardly the whole of the 21st century. Please adjust that caption. Also, please find a different shade (darker) for your signature: I can barely read that light blue font. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Drmies, I'm well aware that's only the title of the source. Did you read the article in its entirety?  ℛonherry  ☘  19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To quote some lines,   ℛonherry  ☘  19:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Ronherry, might as well extend that caption to "all of pop history", right? Anyway, what that last quote says is that she in 2023 may have had the most successful year ever--so far. That's still not what that caption said. Can you please change the color of your signature? Drmies (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am going to trim the caption to make it vague.  ℛonherry  ☘  11:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Got rid of the "21st century" bit as the sources on her cultural impact use terms like "modern", "of our times", "of our generation", "in history", "contemporaneous" etc. They do not specify an exact time period. So, as per WP:MOS, it's best to just not use such grey-area phrases at all.  ℛonherry  ☘  11:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Number 2 is a piece in Slate... It does not support the statement in any way. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Number 3 is a New York Times piece, which also doesn't seem to support the statement. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Number 4 is a piece in Time Magazine which again doesn't support the statement, it actually says that Beyonce and Swift are on the same level which would contradict that statement (and it doesn't back up the timing either). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Number 5 is a Billboard article, which again doesn't support the statement... The closest it comes is a statement about popularity. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Number 6 is a News.au opinion piece that does actually come close... It says "There is surely not a single person on the planet right now as culturally significant as the 12-time Grammy winner." but that doesn't support "of the 21st century" nor can it be applied to a general statement because its only about living people and plenty of 21st century figures have died already. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Number 7 is a Newsweek article, which doesn't support the statement (like at all). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Number 8 is a New Yorker piece, which doesn't appear to discuss relative cultural significance at all... Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Number 9 is a CNN opinion piece, which again doesn't seem to discuss relative cultural significance. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Number 10 is a Forbes staff article, which while it calls her one of the most powerful women on the planet says nothing about relative cultural significance. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Number 11 is an article in the Atlantic... Which while it talks at length about culture does not make the claim that Swift is the most "culturally significant music artist of the 21st century" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Number 12 is a Financial Times article which I no longer have paywall access to, if thats where it is you're going to need to pull the quote... But either way I think my point has been made. You tried to hoodwink us with a bunch of sources which didn't actually have in them what you said was in them. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * False. Your entire argument here is that the exact words "Culturally significant" is not in the words. All these sources use synonyms such as culturally influential, impactful, zeitgeist, cultural vitality, etc. They all make the same point.  ℛonherry  ☘  19:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My argument is a bit more nuanced than that. If you think that they do demonstrate it. From what I see they all make different points and none actually makes the "main point" as presented. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Horse Eye's Back seems like you didn't even bother to read those articles, You said Newsweek said nothing, in which they did said Swift has dominated the cultural zeitgeist more than any artist in history. The New Yorker also wrote that this era will be remembered as the "Swift era" just like Napoleon and Caesar's. I think you need read them all again. And also check those I sent you, cuz Sydney Morning Herald did describe her as one of the most significant cultural figures ever. . Thank you. Yotrages (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ronherry since you're using I think we can add the phrase . it won't be violating WP:MOS, cuz there are sources to back it up, you can also choose from some of those I listed at the top. Yotrages (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree but I think any indications of a time period is somewhat unnecessary, since sources don't definitively define it. A lot of publications have used the phrases "of all time", "in history" and "ever" in talking about her, but they're already quoted/stated as such in the prose. For the lead image caption, I think "Swift considered one of the most culturally influential artists" suffices. It's short and crisp.  ℛonherry  ☘  18:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's great anyhow, regards. Yotrages (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * None of those support the statement that is trying to be made... They would all support different statements but none support this one. Is the bolded text supposed to be quotes or your own interpretation of the source? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You sent me something? My apologies I must have missed it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Horse Eye's Back I sent you this you'll definitely find want you wanted among this sources. . Yotrages (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not finding what I need in there, we can't do synthesis or other forms of OR. We actually do need a source which says that or something substantially equivalent, which as far as I can tell none of those do. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow you're very funny. So you mean isn't equivalent. There's no meaning in even talking to you. Yotrages (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And how do you get from "one of the most significant" to "the most significant"? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are a zillion sources talking about Swift's cultural significance, but you're simply and blatantly dismissing the sources (which are reliable and perennial) just because they do not reflect your personal opinions. That's not how Wikipedia works. You're pushing your WP:POV and not adhering to the sources' claims.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the sources aren't actually claiming what you say they are, also note that you appear to be mixing sources which talk about cultural significance and those which talk about just general significance. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources are claiming that, but you're just following your own POV. Ronherry didn't refer to her as the most significant artist, but instead and sources did prove that. Since you don't like that simple one... I think we should put, You still can't deny sources didn't prove that too? Read all those articles again, some refer her as the most influential, most powerful, most significant and many other words. They don't have to use the word you wanted, before you get what they mean. Yotrages (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SYNTH. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think I need to, cuz there are sources claiming those points, but in the other way around I'll advice you to read WP:POV. Thanks. Yotrages (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "How do you get..."? Maybe because that's how editors are supposed to work on Wikipedia? To rectify and collaborate? The latter is the most vaguest, broadest paraphrase, that covers everything it's cited to. It has no extra descriptors. Are you opposed to this phrasing too? Well, in my opinion, that just shows you are not trying to add anything constructive to the actual topic of this article, proving what I've told you in your talk page about your activity and intentions. I'm more than happy to take this to a noticeboard/admins.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We aren't supposed to do WP:OR... Which is how you would get from one to the other, because that its paraphrasing its a different statement. Removing something which shouldn't be there *is* constructive, are you under the impression that only edits which add content are constructive? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * NO!! Removing edits are also constructive, but when you're removing notable contents from an article that you've never contributed to, I'll call that unconstructive. There's nothing different in that statement, once again it's not a qoute from one person, cuz it's subjected to "various publications and author". I don't really get what you're trying to prove, cuz if outlets like Newsweek are dubbing her are you telling me, she doesn't warrant that description in her lead image? Or are you telling me all the impact and description in that page isn't worthy of that sentence? @Ronherry I think it'll be the best if we report this guy at the Admin/noticeboard. Yotrages (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed "notable" content? In the image caption or elsewhere? Why is whether something is constructive or not based on net byte impact to an article? I'm not seeing that quote in the Newsweek article, the quote I see is Also note that I do intend to make further edits to the page, but thought it best to go to talk after the first one was objected too. The cultural impact of Taylor Swift is immense, but its not so immense that we put aside policy and guideline when writing about it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And what does that qoute sounds like to you, Like no other artist before her means in history, so to summarize, Newsweek is saying she's . Nobody is stopping you from contributing, and policy and guidelines are followed in the article. There you go. Yotrages (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But how do you get from there to: "Myriad publications and academics regard Taylor Swift as the most culturally significant music artist of the 21st century." ? "Dominating a large portion of the cultural zeitgeist" =/= most culturally significant... They're different standards, you can't turn a statement about one into a statement about the other. "the past year" =/= 21st century. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The last time I checked my dictionary, Zeitgeist means the spirit of a period or age. so doesn't that make her the most culturally dominant of her period per that sentence. And just as Ronherry told you "How do you get..."? Maybe because that's how editors are supposed to work on Wikipedia?. And once you disputed that sentence, he changed the lead to Myriad publications and academics regard Taylor Swift as one of the most culturally significant artist. So what's your point? Yotrages (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So after all this time you're saying I'm right and the sentence was not supported by the sources given? Because you're right now arguing for the validity of the original unchanged version. I think my point about promotion and verification still stands, none of the given sources support "myriad". Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Who told you you're right? didn't you read my reply? I told you Zeitgeist means the spirit of a period or age. so that make her the most culturally dominant or significant artist of the 21st century (her period) per that sentence, so Ronherry was correct. But he changed that sentence, cuz I think he doesn't want bad blood and WP:3RR in the article. Also "myriad" was used to name all the sources cited to the lead image description. They're different authors and outlets, so they can't be mentioned one by one. Yotrages (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say she dominated the 21st century or her age/period, it says she dominated a large portion of the zeitgeist for a single year. Myriad means uncountable or of such a large quantity as to be unnamable... Clearly thats not what we have here, we don't even have one which actually makes that statement (its just WP:SYNTH, which I know you have refused to read but which I think you will find very helpful). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Newsweek claimed like no other artist, so that clearly placed her above everyone. Yeah "myriad" means uncountable, and Swift has been described like that by unnamable sources. They all don't need to use the word you want before you get it. I think this would be the last time I'll be replying you, cuz I don't like narcissists. Yotrages (talk) 8:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought Eminem was the best selling artist of the 2000s and Beyoncé is the artist with the most Grammies. Taylor Swift is only big in the US, which constitutes systematic bias. Therefore, I propose a rephrase to something along this line "Myriad publications and academics regard Taylor Swift as the most culturally significant musical artist in the US, as of the 21st century." As a biology editor, my knowledge of these celebrities is limited, but it is still sufficient. It's similar to arguing that tigers are the strongest big cats; that conversation has previously occurred and led to strife, just like it has here. I know you are a Swift fan, but please remove that line as it will resolve the conflict. Since this article is written by a fan, I'm afraid it may be subject to personal bias. That's my two cents. 20 upper (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * are you joking? Swift is the biggest and most popular artist of the 21st century, maybe you should check Global Recording Artist of the Year, and Impact of the Eras Tour then you'll know she's recognized worldwide. I'm from Nigeria and no Eminem or Beyoncé is popular than her here. She's the best selling and most demanded artist worldwide, I'm black and I can tell you it's no systemic bias. I don't know where you're getting your opinion from. Yotrages (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Global Recording Artist of the Year only starts in 2013, how can you make an argument about the 21st century that starts more than halfway between 2000 and the present? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're on your your own boy, I used that to told him Taylor is known worldwide than anyone. And have you seen any 21st century artist topping worldwide charts than Swift? Certainly NO!! Yotrages (talk) 8:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We actually had a page for lion vs tiger at one point... I tried to save it by taking an axe to it (removed like 90% of it) but we ended up having to delete it anyways because under all the fancruft there wasn't actually a notable article. I don't think thats the case here.... Under all the fancruft there is a notable topic here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see a lot of unimportant info that I'd like to trim but I'll leave it as is. I realize the topic is notable, but what worries me is that the article was entirely written by an enthusiastic fan, which may introduce personal bias, especially in this topic area. Wolverine XI (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Notable?
Why does this article exist? Is Taylor Swift that big? Are there similar pages for other artists? 20 upper (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , as the references at the bottom of the article should indicate, it's a real topic. There's no such page for Eat (band), but we have em for Michael Jackson, the Beatles, Madonna. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if you're joking.  ℛonherry  ☘  11:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 99% of everything in the article is just fluff pieces from vapid celebrity columnists giving Swift 1st place trophies for merely participating in things she didn't invent or innovate in any meaningful way. It's a better case study for the cultural rot of unchecked popism in music journalism than for Taylor's supposed trailblazing genius. The Madonna article is almost as bad in that regard but this one has the added stink of recency bias. 2600:8801:7116:4400:4D74:981D:7370:8CEC (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "99% of everything in the article is just fluff pieces from vapid celebrity columnists giving Swift 1st place trophies for merely participating in things she didn't invent or innovate in any meaningful way" is such an erroneous and egregious allegation, considering there are 400+ sources, and you think they're all wrong and you're right. Lol.  ℛonherry  ☘  12:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Fan POV
This cites sources written from a Fan POV and the article itself seems to idolize Swift. Notability isn't an issue as stated above by @Wolverine XI but it is not neutral. Feel free to discuss below. Itisi5 (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * "That was said of Swift by someone, I can't cite it at this time" Lol? How can a person not be able to cite the words that they found somewhere? The article is about the cultural impact Swift had on popular culture, supported by sources, what is exactly the problem? Anyone can criticize any singer but that does not mean that the singer did not have a cultural impact. I am sure someone out there has criticized Coldplay, Beyoncé, or Michael Jackson before, yet there are still articles about their cultural impact. You can add a new section about the criticism if you want, but it should be supported with sources.
 * You did not provide a certain problem or a section in the article that is written from a FANPOV, so I am removing the tag until you provide any. Medxvo (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Read this section Disputed neutrality Itisi5 (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The person who started that topic had a certain problem and the latest reply there was over a month ago. You did not provide a certain problem with the article, you just thought it is not "neutral" just because it talks about the cultural impact that Swift has had. If you have a problem with a certain section on the article you can say it here on the talk section and it can be discussed, no need for the FANPOV tag. Medxvo (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "This cites sources written from a Fan POV" Are you claiming the 300+ sources in this article are all "Fan POV"?  ℛonherry  ☘  04:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

photo
photo de perfil 2804:7560:2102:F4D0:7002:F3AB:C253:2A9E (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Biased phrasing of Guardian article
The phrasing is as follows: "The Guardian columnist Greg Jericho dubbed Swift a "cultural vitality" whose consistent popularity, accentuated by the era of internet, surpassed that of the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, Bruce Springsteen and U2, all of whom had a short-lived commercial and critical prime, whereas Swift continued to find success in the 18th year of her career with her tenth studio album, Midnights (2022)[1 ]

This phrasing of the Guardian article seems biased and not representative of what the article is saying. The article itself only suggests that the cultural impact of these artists had diminished 18 years into their career, however does not extend this to the critical or commercial success of the artists at this time. In fact, one of the releases mentioned by the article - "Let's Dance" - David Bowie - is Bowie's most commercially successful album [2 ], and the article only suggests that the album was not 'culturally dominant' - no reference to its critical or commercial performance. The article is not suggesting that these artists did not experience critical or commercial success this far into their career, yet this phrasing certainly makes it sound like they are: "all of whom had a short-lived commercial and critical prime". This needs to be backed up by another source or removed altogether, as it is an insane claim to make, and one that the article referenced is clearly not making.

Academic programs section
I don't find your changes to be improvements, beyond the CE issue can you perhaps explain them? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've already explained them. The sentence simply lists the universities instead of redundantly going on about each one of them. The former layout was fine as long as it has only 2 or 3 different universities, now that it's 4, the best way is to just mention the universities. This is textbook Wikipedia summarizing. If more universities in the future host more conferences on Swift, then I will also turn this paragraph into a tabular column just like the prose on the academic courses on Swift was turned into a table.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats not summarizing its eliding, if it was summarizing then we would have a summary of "Organizers stated that the conference was more academic than fan-oriented with a fair amount of criticism among the approximately 400 papers submitted." but we don't. A list or table is less useful than prose... We can have both, but they don't replace prose. If you tried to do that in the future I would object as well. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is summarizing. Summarizing includes eliminating trivial information. There are four elements of subject (universities) in the prose, and the proper way to copyedit that prose would be to simply mention the elements. Your version was fine as there were only three elements. At one point, as the number of elements increase, focus on individual elements must be reduced. The fair way to present this information is to use commas to mention the elements. Other auxiliary information puts undue focus on one element. They all should be treated equally.  ℛonherry  ☘  17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as trivial information, I see it as important context. We don't care about fairness or equal treatment, thats not how wikipedia works... We have NPOV but NPOV contains neither fairness or equality as principles (it actually refers to "They all should be treated equally" a a false balance for the most part). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I know what NPOV means. You're right, but this not the case of what you're describing. This is a university symposium and all of these symposia have received the same coverage, therefore there is no need to distinguish any one of the four. Plus, NPOV has nothing to do with this. I didn't even mention NPOV. You did. NPOV is about opposing arguments/reports and how they should be presented on Wikipedia. Whereas, this is just a paragraph being trimmed to just focus on the point. You're endlessly reaching and diverging from the main point.  ℛonherry  ☘  19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you should read WP:NPOV... NPOV is about how everything should be presented (it applies to "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia"). If it was true of all of them why not keep it in the summary? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)