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.

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

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

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)

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 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)

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:

• Taylor Swift performing "Look What You Made Me Do" on The Eras Tour (Tampa, FL - Raymond Jaymes Stadium - April 2023).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

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"

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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; [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)

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)

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 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)

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, @Sprucecopse:? 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'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'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'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)

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'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's Back (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hounding Ronherry for shaping, trimming and creating Swift related articles, says a lot. Yotrages (talk) 7:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Image Caption: "Myriad publications and academics regard Taylor Swift as the most culturally significant music artist of the 21st century."

@Ronherry: where are you seeing support for this statement? Horse Eye'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, [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] e.t.c. Yotrages (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)