Talk:The Tortured Poets Department

Multiple editions, charts, and POV

@Ronherry: Your revert here regarding social media speculation regarding a feud was sound on BLP and UNDUE grounds. However, you also reverted me here, saying Blatant POV and contentious BLPVIO material; keep the stupid fan wars to twitter, this is an encyclopedia. The content that was removed, however, had nothing to do with social media posts. Instead, it read "The release of limited-edition bonus-track versions were a way for Swift and her fans to maintain for the number-one position on the charts, a method Swift has previously utilized." I primarily leaned on two sources and the accompanying passages for this statement:

• "Swift’s Poets has been at the top since its April 19 release, and Swifties have a single-minded goal of keeping it up there as long as possible. One of the ways artists gamify the charts in a highly competitive digital age is by releasing variant album editions — a trick Swift is well-known for using. For Poets, she released a standard album, then immediately expanded it to a double album with 30 songs, then suddenly dropped three more surprise, limited-time album variants on May 17." Romano, Aja (June 1, 2024). "Billie Eilish vs. Taylor Swift: Is the Feud Real? Who's Dissing Who?". Vox.
• "There was a moment, late in the week, when it looked as if Brat would debut at No 1. Then, on Thursday, Swift stepped in: at 6.57pm, Taylor Nation, Swift’s public-facing PR arm, which interacts with fans and provides news and updates, announced the release of six deluxe reissues of her latest album, The Tortured Poets Department (TTPD), each with different additional live versions and voice memos, available only in the UK until 11:59pm that evening – the end of the tracking week for the album charts. (The new releases bring the total number of TTPD variants to 34.)" D'Souza, Shaad (June 14, 2024). "Taylor Swift May Have Captured the Charts, Cut Charli XCX Captured the Zeitgeist". The Guardian.

Both sources address the obviously encyclopedically irrelevant social media scuffle (I can conceive of no circumstance where we should include mention of yet another Twitter war). However, both articles also verify independently that TTPD has remained at number 1 on the charts partially due to the introduction of limited-edition versions. Aja Romano for Vox seems qualified to make this observation, having spent more than a decade as a culture writer. Shaad D'Souza is perhaps less qualified, but his writing is journalistic and still had to go through The Guardian's editorial process.

Separately, this Forbes article, again using the purported feud as a vehicle to describe the developments, objectively observed that "[r]eleasing multiple versions of a single or album to top the charts is not a new strategy, nor is it limited to Swift or Eilish." I do not see any possible BLP or POV issues here, as this is an observation about a marketing strategy which is described in multiple reliable sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem with your addition was that, even if it was worthy of inclusion, it was stated in Wikipedia's voice rather than a source's voice. It lacked attribution. Secondly, only your first source (Vox) supports your claim with a direct, explicit statement. The second source (The Guardian) merely states Swift released stuff around the same time as Brat. It's not explicitly alleging anything. The third one (Forbes) literally says releasing editions is "nothing new"; it does support your claim either (also, Brat having over 10 vinyl editions is conveniently ignored, which is further grounds for how this is lacking WP:NPOV). And please stop calling it a feud; Swift hasn't commented on this, neither has Eilish. This whole thing is a case of WP:BLPGOSSIP. An actual feud is something like Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud with direct statements, and not just fan hysteria and speculation. To conclude, the bit you added ("The release of limited-edition bonus-track versions were a way for Swift and her fans to maintain for the number-one position on the charts, a method Swift has previously utilized.") is an unattributed prose based on only one source. Such contentious claims about a living person requires multiple solid sources, as per WP:BLP. ℛonherry☘ 17:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ronherry: Twice now, I think you've misinterpreted what I am writing: I don't see any evidence for a feud (and neither do the reliable sources I cited above). Your statement that the content is subjective and POV is peculiar. This is an objective statement supported by two sources (Vox and Forbes) explicitly and another source more tactfully (The Guardian). Reliable sources are describing a marketing technique. This isn't strictly BLP stuff: it's about how a business strategy and fans are ensuring an album maintains a top position on the charts. The content I added has nothing to do with the invented feud and only describes the market strategy and its success in objective terms.

I'd gladly ask the folks at RSN to take a look, if you'd like. However, the decisions of WP:FORBES, WP:RSPVOX, and WP:GUARDIAN at WP:RSP all indicate that these are reliable sources and, on their own, would be sufficient to reference an objective statement that the multiple versions of TTPD and active fan engagement have maintained the album's top position on the charts. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's a proposed middle-ground passage, supported by the aforementioned three sources: "The release of limited-edition bonus-track versions were a way for Swift and her fans to maintain the album's number-one position on the charts, a method Swift and other artists have previously utilized to boost album sales and chart positions." It addresses your concern that there was an implication that only Swift is doing this (I can see how the lay observer might then interpret it as somehow unfair) by referencing the Forbes piece explicitly noting that this is a known strategy being used for TTPD, Eilish's album, and other previous works. It also–like my original edit–does not reference the invented feud, which would have been a BLPGOSSIP violation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

You're repeatedly ignoring WP: ATTRIBUTION. "The release of limited-edition bonus-track versions were a way for Swift and her fans to maintain the album's number-one position on the charts, a method Swift and other artists have previously utilized to boost album sales and chart positions." is written in Wikipedia's voice. That's a subjective claim/perspective of a journalist, not an objective statement bound to facts. I'm more than ready to escalate this to RSN. But, a POV-free, BLP-abiding version of the prose you added would be "According to some journalists, the release of limited editions aids Swift in maintaining the album's number-one position on the charts—a method her peers also have used to bolster album sales and chart performance." ℛonherry☘ 09:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That's because it is not a subjective statement. If multiple reliable sources say that a particular market strategy results in a particular outcome, we can say that objectively. WP:WIKIVOICE indicates that we should Avoid stating facts as opinions (bolding original) and there are no contradicting viewpoints in reliable sources that suggest there is an alternative explanation for the myriad versions. If experts commenting on the practice all say one thing in an objective way, then Wikipedia repeats it as fact. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ronherry: Since discussion was just us going back and forth, shot the matter over to RSN at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Objective statement in WikiVoice or an opinion requiring attribution for Swift album (pardon the long section name, but I wanted to summarize the positions involved). If you don't mind summarizing your position there, I think it would spare any newcomers to the discussion the hassle of reading this page. Again, I would like to reiterate that I agree with your removal of the BLPGOSSIP material (the fake feud) that occurred before I became involved with this material. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The same WP:WIKIVOICE states "Avoid stating opinions as facts." There's certainly no "myriad" sources supporting the claim. It's an opinion of some journalists. There's no critical concensus here. You cannot publish prose on Wikipedia that's based on opinions of individuals and present it as a fact. There's no guideline that states opinions of multiple journalists can be considered as a fact, like you claim. ℛonherry☘ 17:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Three reliable sources making an objective observation—this is not a matter of opinion, but fact—with no contradiction from other reliable sources does constitute a consensus among the sources. Even if it is contended that there were BLP implications, three reliable sources over a multi-week period is almost always sufficient to source a statement like this. This has appeared in multiple sources, is encyclopedically relevant to the article, and is presented neutrally.~ Pbritti (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Over 100 hours later, this RSN discussion is 6 to 2 (75%) in favor of stating this in WIKIVOICE. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

As per WP:CONCENSUS, "Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity, nor is it the result of a vote." I don't believe this topic has received enough exposure. This is an issue of the prose's neutrality as well, and I suggest bringing this to the attention of WP:NPOVN as well. ℛonherry☘ 15:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I would encourage reading further down that policy, specifically under WP:FORUMSHOP: "It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want [emphasis original]". RSN is among the most-viewed noticeboards on the project and multiple editors addressed the NPOV concerns in their responses (finding, on the whole, that the statements are objective and neutrally presented). ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

"One of the most-viewed" but you're rushing to wrap up the discussion and pulling up the percentage "in favor" when a formal poll did not even take place. You, the editor who opened the RSN discussion, have self-declared a consensus (when guidelines suggest a third person uninvolved in the original disagreement as best-suited to declare a consensus) and have already restored the contended edit on what is now a good article before even formally closing the RSN discussion. ℛonherry☘ 17:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CR: "Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious." A discussion that was 8-2 (and is now 9-2) on what is indeed one of the most-viewed noticeboards has an obvious consensus. I recommend moving on. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I am just over here from RSN to point out that a strong consensus exists for the inclusion of the text as Pbritti proposes. I would strongly suggest avoiding forumshopping here, this is starting to look like the kind of situation that ends up at Adminstrators Noticeboard Incidents. It's a tiny question, but it is one that has been decided. Time to move on.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Aimee should probably be capitalized as “thanK you aIMee”

“thanK you aIMee” 2600:1700:7E30:1E90:719C:A9D6:B89:3298 (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This is addressed in the notes subsection of the Track listing section. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

"Post-release" commentary

The album came out less than three months ago; it's odd to me the article has a significant line in the lead and a separate subsection in the reception section devoted to essentially a "reappraisal" of critical reaction when there hasn't been enough time for there to be a substantial reappraisal and there's not the kind of more authoritative sources out there to lend credence to that interpretation. I would say at first blush the initial critical reception period hasn't even ended (I also think the article runs into POV issues by essentially burying discussion of the release as polarizing after discussing the general reception.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there's definitely a POV issue there. The reappraisals are very real, but they caveat the earlier reviews far too greatly. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Multiple album variants

There have been repeated efforts to remove any reference to the role of multiple album variants in the massive commercial success of this album. This element of the album has received far more sustained coverage than almost any other element of TTPD and has played a crucial role in Swift securing such incredible longevity on the sales charts. The recent release of a study of such variant albums further clarifies the significance they have, so restricting mention of their impact to a single sentence seems unusual. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Other artists also release multiple variants too though, right? This appears to be an industry norm and just an exclusively 'Taylor Swift thing' or even a 'TTPD thing'. House1090 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's an increasingly industry-wide trend, but Swift's embrace of the practice was comparatively early and remains notably significant, particularly for TTPD. The facts that TTPD has been released in dozens of variants and that these variants greatly contributed to album sales are necessary to include in comprehensive, encyclopedic coverage of the subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Your edit summary again removing the reliably sourced content on this is a bit confusing. Are you of the opinion that the number of variants that an album was released in, a major element of its commercial success, and a comparison to contemporary releases from the same artist are all irrelevant? ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Yes, they stray away from the main topic of this article that is the album itself. If anything, those bits of information constitute WP:NOTNEWS ("routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage"), WP:INDISCRIMINATE ("merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"), and do not meet the criterion 3b of WP:GA? ("it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). I mean... K-pop releases since 2020, Swift's other albums, explanation of how 1,500 song downloads = 1 album unit? Seriously? Ippantekina (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but this argument is extremely unconvincing. We presently devote three massive paragraphs in an independent subsection to a reappraisal of reviews (a subsection that is largely about Swift's public perception). This reappraisal only occurred within a handful of months from the album's release. This critical reappraisal then gets its own mention in the lead. And yet a marketing strategy that responsible for much of the album's commercial success—and has been how much of the album's bonus material has been release—gets two sentences (including one that you previously deleted without explanation and another you attempted to substantially abbreviate). I would contend that the persistent unwillingness to include mention of the album variants reflects a significant NPOV issue. A single, short paragraph that is well sourced to contextualize TTPD with Swift's recent releases and the industry more broadly is absolutely relevant. Please also remember the previous review by uninvolved editors overwhelming demonstrated the relevancy of this aspect of the subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: Let's more thoroughly analyze your arguments:

• WP:NOTNEWS: This is not routine coverage. The NYT piece is by Ben Sisario, a well-respected culture reporter, that is cited elsewhere in the article and serves as an in-depth analysis of Swift's expanding practice releasing of album variants. The Variety piece is similarly not routine coverage by any stretch of the imagination, instead covering the practice of variant albums with substantial emphasis on Swift. It utilizes data from a recent Luminate report, making it substantially more academic and independent than many of the other references utilized (as opposed to, say, this from a Spotify-owned subsidiary cited to contradict multiple reviews from premier RSs).
• WP:INDISCRIMINATE: This is a fascinating argument. If you want to make the case that a practice discussed in innumerable RS articles over a multi-month period ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) and occasionally the subject of criticism is merely indiscriminate, maybe you should elaborate on how subjective appraisals are less indiscriminate.
• 3b of WP:GA?: You seem awful concerned with the inclusion of contextualizing details–how a practice has recently exploded, how Swift has gradually adopted it, and what its implications are–that would almost certainly be necessary for an article to pass FA. It's also interesting that you mention GA, considering the article was approved in the midst of instability and with a statement in the lead that is not supported in the body (Its songs made Swift the first artist to monopolize the first 14 positions of the Billboard Hot 100, with the lead single "Fortnight" at the top).

Concede this point; Wikipedia is about collaboration, and I'm an experienced enough editor to recognize an article's blindspots. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I care about including information that is directly relevant to this album, TTPD, and its context. You are rationalizing including remotely relevant info--how would you explain the relevance between K-pop albums and Swift's other albums to this album's commercial success--I'm still not seeing this being properly explained of how this would constitute a better understanding of the subject matter that is the album, when the Variety source you cited basically examined an industry-wide practice? "I'm an experienced enough editor to recognize an article's blindspots" I can say the same about myself. The refs you included are already cited in prose btw. Ippantekina (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Not all the refs I provided are included, and those that are have been relegated to short, contextless comments while single pieces of commentary from non-notable critics receive multi-sentence coverage. If you're confused about why the mention of broader industry trends is relevant, note that these articles primarily about Swift's release of album variants each provide such additional context. A brief mention of the broader trend of variant albums serves the same purpose of the entire background section, but in narrower and more succinct fashion. It provides a better understanding of the precedent for Swift's decision to release over 30 versions of the same album, preventing a reader from believing she is the sole artist to embrace the practice. Your persistent removal and minimization of sourced content—even after the relevance and neutrality of the content was established at RSN—is not justified by policy or consensus. I'm inclined to forward this article to NPOV/N, considering the concerns raised by multiple editors. However, I would prefer we settle things here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: A courtesy ping. I'm sure you have this on your watchlist but a few bots have been doing good work around here and probably obscured that I had replied. Please let me know if you'd prefer a third opinion. I'll be traveling middle of this week, so apologies if I'm unavailable. ~ 05:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the muzzling of the topic is unusual, but we must remember the militant muzzling of negative opinions towards Swift by Swifties who in turn edit these pages. Cyrlpartner (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: realizing I probably didn't actually even ping you with that. Apologies if it did work and this is just an annoying double-ping, but I'm fairly certain I bungled my initial ping here. If you provide no response, it's all good, but I'll probably swing this by NPOV/N. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I opened an NPOV/N discussion here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Here from NPOV/N. The comment up above: Swift's embrace of the practice was comparatively early and remains notably significant, particularly for TTPD, really seems like the crux of the issue here. Can this be verified explicitly with a reliable source so we're not just speculating? Pbritti, you've provided several sources that mention it, but that just shows that it's true, not that it's significant. Look at the sources to see if they consider it important and they explain why it's special for this album relative to other ones. If that doesn't exist, then trim it down to one or two sentences so the basic fact is there without giving it undue importance. The other thing is that this is moving toward Wikipedia:Coatrack articles#The Flea. The bit about how the practice of variants comes from Kpop is almost certainly irrelevant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Yes, the comment I listed can be sourced (see the aforementioned sources, particularly the Variety piece). However, I think you're straying a bit: the point isn't to source Swift's embrace of the practice was comparatively early and remains notably significant, particularly for TTPD, it's to incorporate the overwhelming emphasis reliable sources have placed on the album variants but is inexplicably mentioned only in passing on the article. Thanks for popping by, by the way. Glad you're hanging around hope for the best with Military dictatorship (the article, not the concept)! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead

@Ronherry: Would you like to elaborate on what POV you're referring to here with Stop being disruptive; it is quite clear you're forcing an overemphasis on a fact to push a POV. Separately, and I think this is wholly unrelated, do you want to include the modifier "career-" before "record"? That modifier seems unnecessary, as my understanding is that this album holds the world record, rather than just being Swift's personal high-water mark. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There are several flaws in your understanding of this and your edits. Firstly, the record you're talking about is for the Billboard 200. It is a US chart. Not a global chart. Hence, it is a US record. Not the "world record". I do get it that music articles are not your specialty, but please familiarize yourself with how WikiProject Music articles are written, the sources, the norm for the lead's structure, the due and undue facts etc. Finally, a personal record for an artist would be called a "career-best", not a "career-record"; the latter is not even a real term. You'd know if you're a reader of music journalism. ℛonherry☘ 22:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ronherry: Deeply uncivil response. Anyhow, it's odd, then, that you reinserted the term. Additionally, my familiarity with this sort of article is greater than you give me credit for. Given that the chart-topping record is repeatedly referenced as largely the result of multiple variants—something you vainly attempted to delete for POV reasons—I'm increasingly convinced that you might be a tad too interested in presenting what you consider a positive article on this album. You have repeatedly demonstrated ownership behavior to that end and accusing me of disruption without basis. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The last line of your above response here is exactly contradicting the point you're trying to make in your response. Anyway, I'm going to stick to the topic. "Given that the chart-topping record is repeatedly referenced as largely the result of multiple variants" is your personal observation, unsupported by reliable sources and supported only by speculation, which is rather more prominent on the social media fandom spheres. Billboard, the authority that draws and releases the Billboard charts, says "Even if Poets had not sold a single digital album in the latest tracking week, it still would have been No. 1 on the Billboard 200." Having read all your arguments so far, to me it looks like you do not care much about what the actual sources that breakdown/report the figures have to say but rather how you can push a POV onto an encyclopaedic article using flash-news sources that merely report internet reactions to the album's chart trajectory. ℛonherry☘ 00:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how you consider this flash-news sources that merely report internet reactions. Ironically, the quoted statement from Billboard helps confirm the role of multiple variants, as the release of multiple limited-edition physical media versions has been a major contribution to the chart success. This is a trend discussed in multiple RSs. Your incivility both towards me and other editors as well as ownership in this subject area is unacceptable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

What about this from NPR? Or this from Billboard? Both explicitly cite the release of variants—digital and physical—as significantly contributing to the charting positions. Maybe it's just because I don't understand Wikipedia guidelines articles on Taylor Swift, but I'm fairly certain that we follow what reliable sources say rather than excluding them because someone on Twitter also mentioned them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is the chart position isn't solely due to the variants. See the latest Billboard chart for example [9] ~~ Jessintime (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jessintime: You're misreading the report. For this single week, digital variants played a marginal role. However, physical variants were significant; see the preceding week's Billboard report that notes the significant role of variants. The NPR story I linked above does likewise. Cherry-picking/misinterpreting one source (especially an arguably involved one) does not overturn a multiplicity of independent sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not misreading anything. I just don't think the multiple variants comment is necessary for the lede, for reasons that have already been given. Billie Eilish and Kanye West both released multiple variants of their albums, why don't you try and jam that into their ledes? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Because this album's performance on the charts is consistently reported as largely due to an unusual number of variants, with twice as many as Eilish's most recent release. If you believe that the article deserves the critical reappraisal (which occurred within four months of the album's release) in the lead, than the mention of album variants (which has received more sustained and similarly broad coverage) also merits inclusion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

"this album's performance on the charts is consistently reported as largely due to an unusual number of variants" is not true. That is your original research. ℛonherry☘ 21:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

What's an imperative songwriting project

In the lead, what on earth does the sentence, "She conceived The Tortured Poets Department as an imperative songwriting project amidst the heightened fame and media scrutiny ensuing from the tour." mean? My best guess is that she felt she had to write it, but this is more fanzine promotional language than ordinary English. Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

agreed... WP:FANCRUFT or WP:PUFFERY >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)