Talk:Renaissance: A Film by Beyoncé

Stick to source
Hi. Please keep your fan bias aside and stick to the sources. No matter how hard you try to smoothen it, every single source about the Renaissance film, including the original source (Variety), names Swift and the Eras Tour film as the model upon which the distribution deal was struck between AMC and Beyonce. You shall not attempt to edit/miscontrue such explicitly stated facts as per the most basic Wikipedia policies.  ℛonherry  ☘  20:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Bgkc4444, I see you have made unreasonable reversions ignoring the talk topic here. You should speak here instead of disrupting the article.  ℛonherry  ☘  12:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't receive a notification - please assume good faith. Actually, in all your edit summaries and messages to me you never assume good faith, so I implore you to read up on the guidelines.
 * Please explain how my additions to the article - which were encyclopedic yet you removed them - are "important only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question" according to the essay you are sadly attempting to use against me
 * "every single source about the Renaissance film [...] names Swift and the Eras Tour film" - that's just blatantly false and a clear exaggeration based on a non-neutral point of view
 * Articles on Wikipedia must be written with due weight. A user whose overwhelming majority of edits are Taylor Swift-focused making a whole paragraph in this article about Swift when the source only gives a passing reference to her is clearly ascribing undue weight
 * Your unexplained removals of sourced, encyclopedic material is unacceptable. For example, why remove information about the release when it is clearly encyclopedic, relevant and well-cited?
 * Look, I get that Wikipedia editors might like and don't like certain popular American singer-songwriters who both toured in 2023, but we both know that it should really not play a part in one's editing. You have been making disgustingly rude accusations against me for almost four years not even caring when you are clearly in the wrong - don't you think it's maybe time to move on? We both want to contribute constructively to Wikipedia (or I at least hope so), so instead of just repeatedly trying to interfere with my editing, perhaps engage in constructive discussion. You have usually refused to do so in the past (even including in the very-relevant issue of removing encyclopedic, sourced information related to the Renaissance World Tour and refusing to explain why), so I hope this time it's different and you can respond to my points above. Bgkc4444 (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not going to respond to the stories you've dumped here that are irrelevant to this topic of discussion and I'm going to stick to the topic only. "every single source about the Renaissance film [...] names Swift and the Eras Tour film" is not false, it's visibly true and is exactly what WP:NPOV advocates for—to have the prose be commensurate with the views in the sources. A simple Google search proves it. As seen in your edits on this article, you chopped the sentences taken from the Variety source to exclude any mention of Swift as if the source did not say Beyonce took the same deal "forged by AMC and Taylor Swift" at all. You cannot censor and cherry-pick words within a sentence to suit a narrative, that's misleading. You have to remain faithful to the sources you're citing, which I don't think you did in this very specific case. This is constructive criticism. That is all I have to say. Regards.  ℛonherry  ☘  05:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop pretending to want to engage in constructive discussion, then not respond to most of my points, refuse to explain why you removed encyclopedic, relevant and well-sourced content, and just say "That is all I have to say" when you haven't actually said anything constructive.
 * How is "every single source about the Renaissance film [...] names Swift and the Eras Tour film" "visibly true" and "proven" by a "simple Google search" when Google shows 196 million results for sites that don't mention Swift? The world - and Wikipedia - does not revolve around her. Edits should be made from a NPOV.
 * Stop deflecting. I agree that Swift should be mentioned, which I why I included mention of her. It's all about due weight. When sources mention her in passing or in a limited capacity relative to this article's actual subject or actual important information, the article should reflect that. However, you tried to turn the lead sentence of the first paragraph that mentions the film in this article - which should be (and was previously) just saying that Variety reported on the film being released - to suggest that Swift was an influence on the film. That's misleading, not representative of the reliable sources and irrelevant for the sentence.
 * Please stop ignoring my points. Again, your unexplained removals of sourced, encyclopedic material are unacceptable. For example, why remove information about the release when it is clearly encyclopedic, relevant and well-cited? Bgkc4444 (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm going stick to the topic and not address your sensationalized lawyering irrelevant to the topic. (1) Many of sources are outright bad, which were removed. (2) Out of those sources which were good, the citations lacked multiple parameters, which your contributions prove is something you do not care about. (3) I fixed the badly written prose and re-added them (4) The re-added stuff is directly taken from the source prose, without chopping or using puffy-y words not found within the source (5) Proper attribution to source was given wherever it applies. (6) To answer your question about the Reuters source, the lead does not need a source as per WP:LEAD and whatever is said in the lead is already covered in the article body, eliminating the need for an adjacent citation. These are Wikipedia basics. But you are free to add the Reuteurs source in an appropriate place in the body prose as a secondary source. It's just that it does not add anything new to the article as other sources already covered how the film is a hybrid of concert, tour development, album visuals and album creation footage, but whatever. Regards.  ℛonherry  ☘  15:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually have no idea what you're referring to. What "outright bad" sources did I add? NBC News, really? I know you have a pattern of behavior in this area, but you can't just remove content you don't agree with and try to claim that the sources were bad. And if you think that a citation lacks multiple parameters, maybe add them instead of just removing chunks of content that you personally don't want on Wikipedia?
 * You were the one who added the Reuters article. I removed it because as you said the lead does not need a source, and more importantly the article should reflect relevant, accurate coverage of the film using reliable sources, instead of one report with rumours from a source before the film was announced that mentions Taylor Swift in one paragraph and so apparently the article has to focus on that.
 * Lastly, you don't own this page, so stop gatekeeping and "re-adding", in your words, what you personally want to "allow" to be put on this article. Editors don't need your permission to edit. If you want to make edits that you know will disrupt this article, why not actually provide relevant and detailed edit summaries (instead of just always reverting good-faith edits and spewing personal attacks) or, probably more helpfully, bring it to the talk page? Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody was talking about NBC. NBC is a very reliable source. I'm talking about dubious unverified websites you added as source, such as "Dexerto". But keep inserting your irrelevant sensational stories that has got nothing to do with this talk topic, I guess. All the best.  ℛonherry  ☘  17:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)