Talk:Swifties

Is the fandom awards section needed?
It seems somewhat strange and unneeded to include an entire section to such awards, though I may be alone on this N7o2h3 (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Major edit to the Gaylor Section
Updated this section with extensive links and references in order to represent a neutral, fact based description of the situation and controversy. Several of the previous edits were misleading, inflammatory, or without citations. All information added was linked with multiple citations from well respected, national publications. Extreme care and effort was taken to post only factual, documented information and to have both sides of the issue represented, as well as providing detailed studies and evidence-based resources.

I fear that this will result in an edit war, and would like to offer in advance to participate in a dispute board process, mediation, or neutral observer edit. Musicscholar78 (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * as I feared, most of my edits have been deleted and reverted back to biased and problematic language. Will be escalating to Dispute Resolution. Musicscholar78 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Partially striking out my original comment, which was overly positive due to being written in haste to prevent Musicscholar78 from going to Dispute Resolution against policy. QuietCicada chirp 14:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's all hold our horses! Per WP:NEGOTIATE, we all need to discuss it here first before going to Dispute Resolution. Pinging, who is also involved.

QuietCicada chirp 17:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not out to get you/Gaylors/etc. In fact, I am a queer woman who likes Taylor Swift's music.
 * The "conspiracy theory" label from before your edits was used in a source, but the article didn't really make that clear at that point in time, and you're right that it's probably overblown to call fan speculation a "conspiracy theory".
 * However, you need to be careful about making sure that the text you add to articles is supported by the sources. In your first edit to this article, you said that "Some misguided fans have used the topic as a vehicle for homophobia, ableism and dehumanization of neurodivergent and queer fans", but the sources you cited for that statement did not say that ableism towards neurodivergent fans took place.
 * This "theory" reeks of being a lavender scare but done supposedly in support of the person accused. In general Wikipedia shouldn't support baseless speculation about a public figure and should properly identify such baseless theorizing as such. However, the actual thing to consider is if the label conspiracy theory should be applied versus other labels such as rumor. N7o2h3 (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As per WP:FRINGE, the current mainstream consensus is that Gaylor is indeed a conspiracy theory,12 like QAnon. Speculation, and active belief and propagation of that speculation, claiming a fact is being kept hidden from the general public, is what constitutes a conspiracy theory, from what I've read from the sources. Fan speculation would be "Swift is dropping an album tomorrow because she posted a unique picture on Instagram", which starkly contrasts with "Taylor Swift is gay and the establishments are keeping her from living her life the way she wants and she has to act for the PR to appeal to the heteronormative society". This is no different from Larries. Even Gay Times does not approve of this. Wikipedia is at the mercy of reliable sources, and we as editors have to WP:STICKTOSOURCE.  ℛonherry  ☘  13:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * why did you flatten my edits which included sources from reliable publications such as The Independent and the Evening Standard and replace them with articles from publications such as The Daily Targum and The Michigan Daily? Also the sentence I added about Swift having stated that she is not queer and is straight is quite important in this section, as it clearly displays the fact that "Gaylor" is a baseless theory. Let's discuss. For reference, this is how the section was prior to your latest edits. — Peterpie123rww (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I simply restored the last stable version.  ℛonherry  ☘  19:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think Swift ever stated "I am straight", but she did say she's "not part of the LGBT community" and called herself an "ally". And we should put exactly that in the prose instead of wrongly paraphrasing it.  ℛonherry  ☘  19:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have restored The Independent source with the part about not being part of LGBT. Also, I don't know what you mean by "flatten"? I simply restored the last stable version to actually establish a consensus and agreement here. If you could list the prose you believe that should be added back (along with the sources), then we can discuss them out. Because, apart from the one thing you pointed out, I think the rest are pretty much the same, but with different sources. You can add the sources you gathered as secondary sources along with the already existing ones. Regards.  ℛonherry  ☘  19:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This part:
 * "Swift has denied being queer, [RS ref][CNN ref] stating over the years that she is straight; [Independent ref] in 2019, she said that she had realized she could advocate for the LGBT community, despite not being a part of it. [Today ref] "
 * The Independent article includes this: "Over the years, Swift has clarified that she is a straight ally of the queer community". This seems quite significant to me as it explicitly states she is straight. — Peterpie123rww (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And you do not think we need more than one source to verify a paraphrased statement about a subject's life like this? Because, while a specific publication could be reliable normally, we are aware in this case that Swift has never explicitly stated "I am straight", she has only implied it multiple times. It's better to take help from more sources before putting an assumption like that in the prose. How about one more reliable source that also claims that "Swift has stated she's straight" so that we can cite in-line both of those sources, eliminating any benefit of doubt?  ℛonherry  ☘  05:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your objection to the source being that you don't believe she's ever said something along those lines smacks of original research. If the Independent says it explicitly it's not our job to decide they must've gotten it wrong. XeCyranium (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, not really. Remember WP:V. Any untrue or contentious insinuation or information about Swift's life falls under WP:BLPVIO. The Independent can paraphrase Swift's quote however it wants, but it still won't become verifiable until another, independent, reliable source also arrives at the same conclusion from Swift's statement. And let me clarify that I am not against including the fact that Swift is straight, I'm only asking just another reliable source to solidify the factoid's inclusion. That's bare minimum. Also, I do not see the problem with just retaining what Swift actually says about herself, that is that she is "not part of the LGBT community" but only an "ally", which is less likely to trigger BLPvio as it's a direct statement coming from the person of interest.  ℛonherry  ☘  20:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Also, I have noticed that most of those citations don't actually support the prose you have added! — Peterpie123rww (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, is it so? Which ones, exactly?  ℛonherry  ☘  19:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)