Jump to content

Talk:Cultural impact of Taylor Swift: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 110: Line 110:
:::[[User:Sprucecopse|Sprucecopse]] ([[User talk:Sprucecopse|talk]]) 20:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
:::[[User:Sprucecopse|Sprucecopse]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Sprucecopse|Sprucecopse]] ([[User talk:Sprucecopse|talk]]) 20:59, 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. [[User:Sprucecopse|Sprucecopse]] ([[User talk: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 (magazine)|''Time'']] called her "the most important American artist", ''[[Newsweek]]'' said she has dominated "The cultural zeitgeist more than any artist in history", [[MSNBC]] deemed her "the most influential U.S. cultural icon", ''[[State Times]]'' wrote she's "the most influential artist of her generation", and the only opinion piece I sent is [[Jeff Yang]] calling her "The most influential musician" in which it's reliable per [[Wikipedia: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. [[User:Yotrages|Yotrages]] ([[User talk:Yotrages|talk]]) 13:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:20, 10 February 2024

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)[reply]

Topics

Listing topics here that should be covered in the article.

  • Fashion trends
  • Object of mythology
  • Touring and ticketing
  • Economic power

Any suggestions? ℛonherry☘ 05:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update!

  • Fashion trends
  • Object of mythology
  • Touring and ticketing
  • Economic power
  • Mental health

Struck out what's covered and added a new one. ℛonherry☘ 17:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey Ronherry, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"chart history"

@Ippantekina: 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)[reply]

@Ronherry: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thank you! And thanks for cleaning up her article Elttaruuu (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Impact on NFL

Recent study found that she has brought $331M in brand value to the Chiefs and NFL:

Some other articles on NFL impact:

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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; [1][2][3][4][5][6] 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)[reply]
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: [7], [8], [9]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 deemed her "the most influential U.S. cultural icon", State Times wrote she's "the most influential artist of her generation", and the only opinion piece I sent is Jeff Yang calling her "The most influential musician" in which it's reliable per Wikipedia: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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_impact_of_Taylor_Swift&oldid=1205791774"